Rantz v. The Blake School (agency decision, February 21, 2019)

Plain-English summary

An ALJ found that The Blake School violated the Surface Transportation Assistance Act by terminating Ronald Rantz, ordered reinstatement, and awarded damages, attorney fees, and costs. The school sought Board review, then the parties submitted a confidential settlement. The Board found the agreement fair, adequate, and reasonable. It explained that the settlement remained subject to federal public-records law and that its confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions could not bar Rantz from communicating with government enforcement agencies. The Board approved the agreement and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105; 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2); 5 U.S.C. § 552
• Outcome: Settlement approved and STAA complaint dismissed with prejudice.
• Key point: Settlement confidentiality does not override FOIA or permit a gag on reports to government enforcement agencies.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210

  In the Matter of:


  RONALD L. RANTZ,                                        ARB CASE NO. 2019-0017

                  COMPLAINANT,                            ALJ CASE NO. 2018-STA-00019

         v.                                               DATE: February 21, 2019

  THE BLAKE SCHOOL,

                  RESPONDENT.


  BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD


  Appearances:

  For the Complainant:
         Daniel G. Leland, Esq.; Leland Conners PLC; Minneapolis, Minnesota

  For the Respondent:
         Erik A. Mosvick, Esq.; Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Minneapolis, Minnesota

  Before: William T. Barto, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge; James A. Haynes and
  Daniel T. Gresh, Administrative Appeals Judges



               FINAL DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                  AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

          This case arises under the employee protection provision of the Surface Transportation
  Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA). 1 Complainant Ronald L. Rantz (Rantz) filed a complaint
  alleging that Respondent The Blake School (Blake) violated the STAA when it terminated his
  employment. On December 20, 2018, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a Decision and

  1
         49 U.S.C. § 31105 (2007).




  Order (D. & O.) ordering Blake to reinstate Rantz and awarding Rantz damages, attorney’s fees
  and costs. Blake timely petitioned the Administrative Review Board (Board) for review of the
  D. & O.

         The parties have now filed a “Confidential Settlement Agreement” (Settlement) for the
  Board’s review and approval. Under the STAA’s implementing regulations, parties may settle a
  case we have accepted for review, if the parties agree to a settlement and the Board approves it. 2
  We review the proposed Settlement to determine if it is fair, adequate and reasonable.

          We note that pages 1-2 of the Settlement contain confidentiality and non-disparagement
  clauses. In this regard, the ARB’s authority is constrained as a matter of law. The parties’
  submissions, including the Settlement, become part of the record of the case, and the record is
  subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose
  requested records unless they are exempt from disclosure. 3 Department of Labor regulations set
  out the procedures for responding to FOIA requests and for requestors’ appeals from denials of
  such requests. 4 Further, if the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses were interpreted to
  preclude Rantz from communicating with federal or state enforcement agencies concerning
  alleged violations of law, they would constitute unacceptable “gag” provisions. 5

        We have carefully reviewed the Settlement and find that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable.
  Accordingly, we APPROVE the Settlement and, as provided therein, 6 DISMISS Rantz’s STAA
  complaint with prejudice.

          SO ORDERED.




  2
          29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2) (2018).

  3
          5 U.S.C. § 552 (2016).

  4
          29 C.F.R. § 70 et seq. (2018).

  5
         Kingsbury v. Gordon Express, Inc., ARB No. 07-047, ALJ No. 2006-STA-024, slip op. at 2-3 (ARB
  Aug. 31, 2007).

  6
           Page 2 of the Agreement includes a signature line for approval by the “Department of Labor.” A
  signature by a representative of the Department of Labor is not necessary for the Agreement to take effect
  after issuance of this Final Decision and Order.