Navarro v. RCL Wiring, LP d/b/a Idaho & Sedalia Transportation Company (agency decision, July 1, 2019)

Plain-English summary

An ALJ awarded Steve Navarro damages, attorney fees, and costs on his claim that RCL Wiring retaliated against and discharged him in violation of the Federal Railroad Safety Act. After the company sought Board review, the parties submitted a confidential settlement. The Board limited its review to the FRSA claims within its authority and found the settlement fair, adequate, and reasonable. It explained that the filed agreement remains subject to federal public-records law, cannot bar communications with government enforcement agencies, and cannot make state law control federal authorities or courts. The Board approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 20109; 29 C.F.R. § 1982.111(d)(2); 5 U.S.C. § 552
• Outcome: Settlement approved and FRSA complaint dismissed with prejudice.
• Key point: Settlement confidentiality cannot override FOIA or operate as a gag on communications with 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:


  STEVE NAVARRO,                                    ARB CASE NOS.      2019-0040
                                                                       2019-0043
                  COMPLAINANT,
                                                    ALJ CASE NO.       2016-FRS-00017
         v.
                                                    DATE: July 1, 2019
  RCL WIRING, LP, d/b/a IDAHO
  & SEDALIA TRANSPORTATION
  COMPANY,

                  RESPONDENT.

  Appearances:

  For the Complainant:
        Joseph Bauer, Esq., The Bauer Law Firm, LLC, St. Louis, Missouri

  For the Respondent:
        Molly Brown Bartalos, Esq., Anthony M. Knipp, Esq., McCausland
        Barrett & Bartalos P.C., Kansas City, Missouri


          FINAL DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
             AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE

         These cases arises under the employee protection provision of the Federal
  Railroad Safety Act of 1982 (FRSA). 1 Complainant Steve Navarro filed a complaint
  alleging that Respondent RCL Wiring, d/b/a Idaho & Sedalia Transportation
  Company, violated the FRSA when it subjected him to several retaliatory actions,

  1      49 U.S.C. § 20109 (2008), as implemented at 29 C.F.R. Part 1982 (2018).




  including discharge from employment. On March 7, 2019, an Administrative Law
  Judge (ALJ) issued a Decision and Order (D. & O.) awarding Navarro damages,
  attorney’s fees and costs. Respondent timely petitioned the Administrative Review
  Board (Board) for review of the D. & O.

        The parties have now filed a “Confidential Settlement and Release
  Agreement” (Settlement) for the Board’s review and approval. Under the FRSA’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.

        Review of the Settlement reveals that it may encompass the settlement of
  matters under laws other than the FRSA. 3 The Board’s authority over settlement
  agreements is limited to the statutes that are within the Board’s jurisdiction as
  defined by the applicable delegation of authority. Therefore, we have restricted our
  review of the Agreement to ascertaining whether its terms fairly, adequately, and
  reasonably settle these FRSA cases over which we have jurisdiction.

         Paragraph 7 of the Settlement contains 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. 4 Department of Labor regulations set out the procedures
  for responding to FOIA requests and for requestors’ appeals from denials of such
  requests. 5 Further, if the confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses were
  interpreted to preclude Navarro from communicating with federal or state
  enforcement agencies concerning alleged violations of law, they would constitute
  unacceptable “gag” provisions. 6

  2      29 C.F.R. § 1982.111(d)(2) (2018).

  3      Settlement, ¶ 4.

  4      5 U.S.C. § 552 (2016).

  5      29 C.F.R. § 70 et seq. (2018).

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



         Paragraph 11 of the Settlement provides that it shall be interpreted and
  enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri. We interpret this
  choice of law provision as not limiting the authority of the Secretary of Labor or any
  Federal court which shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations of
  the United States. 7

        The parties have certified that the Settlement constitutes the entire
  settlement with respect to Navarro’s FRSA complaint. 8 We have carefully reviewed
  the Settlement and find that it is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Accordingly, we
  hereby APPROVE the Settlement and, as provided therein, 9 DISMISS Navarro’s
  FRSA complaint with prejudice.



  FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD:




  William T. Barto
  Chief Administrative Appeals Judge

  Note: Questions regarding any case pending before the Board should be directed to
  the Board’s staff: Telephone: (202) 693-6200; Facsimile: (202) 693-6220.




  7     See Hildebrand v. H. H. Williams Trucking, LLC, ARB No. 11-030, ALJ No. 2010-
  STA-056, slip op. at 3 (ARB Sept. 26, 2011).

  8      Settlement, ¶¶ 3, 15.

  9      Settlement, ¶ 5.