Raziano v. Albertsons, LLC (agency decision, February 16, 2023)

Plain-English summary

Albertsons petitioned for review of an attorney-fee order in four consolidated STAA cases. The company later sought voluntary dismissal after the fee issues were resolved. Because a withdrawal based on settlement requires Board approval, the Board ordered either certification that no settlement existed or submission of the agreement. Albertsons filed the payment and satisfaction agreement resolving the fees owed to both groups of complainants' counsel. The Board found it fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest, approved it, granted withdrawal, and dismissed the appeal.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c), (d)(2)
• Outcome: Attorney-fee settlement approved and employer's appeal dismissed.
• Key point: A voluntary withdrawal based on settlement requires the Board to receive and approve the agreement.

Full text (DOL official public release)

U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board
200 Constitution Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20210-0001

IN THE MATTER OF:

MICHAEL RAZIANO, JIM ARB CASE NO. 2023-0010 DAVIS, JR., MARK SOTO and BRIAN TRAISTER, ALJ CASE NOS. 2020-STA-00084
2020-STA-00085
COMPLAINANTS, 2020-STA-00086
2020-STA-00088
v.
DATE: February 16, 2023

ALBERTSONS, LLC,

       RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainants, Raziano, Davis, Soto, and Traister:
Edward E. Alon, Esq., and Jonathan A. Alon, Esq.; ALON LLP;
Woodland Hills, California

For the Complainants, Davis, Soto, and Traister:
Paul O. Taylor, Esq., and Peter L. LaVoie, Esq.; Truckers Justice
Center; Edina, Minnesota

For the Respondent:
Raymond Perez, Esq.; Jackson Lewis P.C.; Atlanta, Georgia

Before BURRELL and PUST, Administrative Appeals Judges

DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING
APPEAL

BURRELL, Administrative Appeals Judge:
 2

  This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Surface

Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA), and its applicable implementing regulations.1 On November 14, 2022, a United States Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Attorney Fee Order. On November 28, 2022, Albertsons, LLC (Respondent) filed a timely petition for review of the Attorney Fee Order. The Administrative Review Board (Board or ARB) accepted Respondent’s petition for review on November 29, 2022.

  On January 11, 2023, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c), Respondent filed

an Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal (Unopposed Motion).2 In Respondent’s Unopposed Motion, Respondent notified the Board that the issues presented in the petition for review have been resolved and there is no need to pursue the appeal further.

   On January 24, 2023, the Board issued an Order, noting that 29 C.F.R. §

1978.111(c) specifies that “[i]f objections or a petition for review are withdrawn because of settlement, the settlement must be submitted for approval in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section.” The regulations at paragraph (d)(2) state that if the parties agree to a settlement, the settlement must be approved by the ARB and “[a] copy of the settlement will be filed with the . . . ARB . . . .” In accordance with these provisions, the Board ordered Respondent to file a certification that the matter had not been resolved by a settlement or, in the alternative, to file a copy of any settlement for consideration by the Board.

   On January 31, 2023, Respondent filed a Certification of Satisfaction

Agreement to Support Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Appeal (Certification). Respondent attached to the Certification a Payment and Satisfaction Agreement (Agreement) indicating that it was a Settlement Agreement and General Release entered into between the parties. In the Certification, Respondent explained that the parties entered into the Agreement “to resolve this final issue in these matters.” Respondent claimed the Agreement resolved the amount of attorney fees to be paid to both sets of Complainants’ Counsel. Therefore, Respondent requested that the ARB accept the Agreement, grant the Unopposed Motion, and dismiss the appeal.

1 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a); 29 C.F.R. Part 1978 (2022). 2 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c) states in part: “If a case is on review with the ARB, a party may withdraw a petition for review of an ALJ’s decision at any time before that decision becomes final by filing a written withdrawal with the ARB.” 3

   The STAA’s implementing regulations provide that parties may settle a case

the Board has accepted for review, if the parties agree to a settlement and the Board approves it.3 We review the Agreement to determine if it is fair, adequate, and reasonable.4

   After careful review of the Agreement, the ARB finds that the settlement

between Complainants and Respondent is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and does not contravene the public interest. Accordingly, we APPROVE the Agreement, GRANT Respondent’s Unopposed Motion to withdraw objections pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(c), and DISMISS Respondent’s appeal.

   SO ORDERED.


                                      ____________________________________
                                      THOMAS H. BURRELL
                                      Administrative Appeals Judge


                                      ____________________________________
                                      TAMMY L. PUST
                                      Administrative Appeals Judge

3 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2).
4 Hopper v. Marten Transp., Ltd., ARB No. 2016-0043, ALJ No. 2014-STA-00069, slip op. at 2 (ARB June 29, 2016) (Final Decision and Order Approving Settlement and Dismissing Complaint).