Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/1904493/Department-of-Labor-05-155
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 20:14:30
Document Index: 190041448

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1367', '§ 2622', '§ 300', '§ 7622', '§ 24', '§ 7622', '§ 300', '§ 2622']

Department of Labor: 05 155 | Administrative Law Judge | United States Government
In the Matter of: JEFFREY L. BERTACCHI, COMPLAINANT, v. CITY OF COLUMBUS – DIVISION OF SEWERAGE & DRAINAGE, RESPONDENT. ARB CASE NO. 05-155 ALJ CASE NO. 2003-WPC-11 DATE: April 13, 2006
For the Complainant: E. Dennis Muchnicki, Muchnicki Law Office, Dublin, Ohio; Michael D. Kohn, Kohn, Kohn & Colapinto, LLP, Washington, D.C. For the Respondent: Bradd N. Siegel, Christopher R. Schraff, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur LLP, Columbus, Ohio FINAL DECISION AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT AND APPEAL On August 25, 2005, a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge issued a Recommended Decision and Order (R. D. & O.) in this case arising under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (WPCA).1 The Respondent, City of Columbus, Division of Sewerage and Drainage, filed a timely petition requesting this Board to review the R. D. & O.2
33 U.S.C.A. § 1367 (West 2001).
The Secretary of Labor has delegated her authority to issue final administrative decisions in cases arising under the WPCA to the Administrative Review Board. Secretary’ s Order 1-2002 (Delegation of Authority and Responsibility to the Administrative Review
On March 13, 2006, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal. The Joint Motion states that they have reached a private settlement and have agreed that the terms of their agreement, rather than the R. D. & O. should govern the disposition of the Complainant’ claims. Accordingly, the parties jointly requested the Board to dismiss s Jeffrey Bertacchi’complaint and this appeal. Citing Biddle v. United States Dep’of the s t Army, ARB No. 97-034, ALJ No. 1993-WPC-15 (Sec’ Mar. 29, 19953), the parties y assert, “ [B]ecause this is a Federal Water Pollution Control Act case, the parties’ settlement does not need to be reviewed or approved by the Board or the Department of 4 Labor.” Unlike the whistleblower protection provisions of the Clean Air Act,5 the Safe Drinking Water Act,6 and the Toxic Substances Control Act,7 the WPCA’whistleblower s protection provision does not provide for the termination of a proceeding “ the basis of on a settlement entered into by the Secretary.” Therefore, as the Board held in Marcus v. Environmental Prot. Agency,8 The TSCA, SDWA and CAA require that the Secretary must enter into or otherwise approve a settlement. See 15 U.S.C. § 2622(b)(2)(A); 42 U.S.C. § 300(j)-9(i)(2)(B)(i); 42 U.S.C. § 7622(b)(2)(A). However, the WPCA, CERCLA, and SWDA contain no such requirement. See Sayre v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., ALJ Case No. 97-TSC-6, ARB Case Nos. 99-091, 99-092, Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Case, slip op. at 2 n.1 (neither the WPCA nor the SWDA contains a requirement that the Secretary approve settlements); Biddy v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., ALJ Case No. 95-TSC-7 (ARB Aug. 1, 1996) slip op. at 2 n.1 (same). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) is applicable to cases in which the parties have reached a settlement under the WPCA and wish to voluntarily dismiss their
Board), 67 Fed. Reg. 64272 (Oct. 17, 2002); 29 C.F.R. §§ 24.1, 24.8.
The correct date of issuance is March 24, 1995. Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal at 1. 42 U.S.C.A. § 7622(b)(2)(A) (West 2003). 42 U.S.C.A. § 300(j)-9(i)(2)(B)(i) (West 2003). 15 U.S.C.A. § 2622(b)(2)(A) (West 1998). ARB No. 99-027, ALJ Nos. 96-CAA-3, 7, slip op. at 2 n.2 (Oct. 29, 1999).
appeal.9 Therefore, in accordance with the Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal, we DISMISS Bertacchi’complaint and this appeal with prejudice. s SO ORDERED. M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS Chief Administrative Appeals Judge OLIVER M. TRANSUE Administrative Appeals Judge
Biddle, slip op. at 1. This rule provides in pertinent part, “ [A]n action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court . . . (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.”
Documents Similar To Department of Labor: 05 155
Brunson v. Chater, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (1997)
Department of Labor: 04 089
Gabriel M. Martinez v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 444 F.3d 1201, 10th Cir. (2006)
Department of Labor: 06 078
18 soc.sec.rep.ser. 479, unempl.ins.rep. Cch 17,425 William F. Littlefield v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary of Health and Human Services, 824 F.2d 242, 3rd Cir. (1987)
Notice: Culturally significant objects imported for exhibition: Comic Abstraction: Image-Breaking, Image-Making
Notice: Alaska Native claims selection: Golovin Native Corp.
Proposed Rule: Acquisition regulations: Carbon, alloy, and armor steel plate restriction
5-23-13 Murphy BCA Letter to RMB Doc. 1320
United States v. Burkley, 10th Cir. (2010)
description: tags: 081205a
anon-691936
Notice: Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Tessarae Inc.
description: tags: ed524-hkfc
anon-522517
anon-486316
description: tags: 011900a
anon-913660