Nix v. Symphony Technology Solutions, Inc. (agency decision, January 8, 2025)

Plain-English summary

Randall Nix alleged that Symphony Technology Solutions and Holder Construction retaliated against him in violation of AIR21. After an administrative judge granted the companies summary decision and Nix appealed, the parties submitted a signed settlement and jointly requested dismissal with prejudice. The Board reviewed the agreement for fairness, adequacy, reasonableness, and consistency with the public interest. It construed the confidentiality clause to preserve Nix's ability to communicate with state and federal authorities about suspected violations. It also stated that the Tennessee-law clause could not limit federal authority over AIR21 issues. The Board approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(d)(2)
• Outcome: Settlement approved; AIR21 complaint dismissed with prejudice.
• Key point: A whistleblower settlement's confidentiality and state-law terms cannot restrict protected government communications or federal authority over AIR21 matters.

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:

RANDALL NIX, ARB CASE NO. 2025-0013

  COMPLAINANT,              ALJ CASE NO. 2024-AIR-00008
                            ALJ MONICA MARKLEY
  v.
                            DATE: January 8, 2025

SYMPHONY TECHNOLOGY
SOLUTIONS, INC.,

and

HOLDER CONSTRUCTION
GROUP, LLC,

  RESPONDENTS.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Eric Bachman, Esq.; Bachman Law; Bethesda, Maryland

For the Respondent Symphony Technology Solutions, Inc.:
Eric Wilborn, Esq.; Stewart, Melvin & Frost, LLP; Gainesville, Georgia

For the Respondent Holder Construction Group, LLC:
Alex W. West, Esq.; Fisher Phillips; Charlotte, North Carolina

Before WARREN, Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and Angela W. Thompson, Administrative Appeals Judge

DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING
CASE WITH PREJUDICE

PER CURIAM:

  This case arises under the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform

2

Act for the 21st Century (AIR21) and its implementing regulations. 1 Randall Nix
0F

(Complainant) filed a complaint with the United States Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) alleging that Symphony Technology Solutions, Inc. and Holder Construction Group, LLC (collectively, Respondents) retaliated against him in violation of AIR21. 2 A United States
1F

Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Order Granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Summary Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint and Order Cancelling Hearing on November 13, 2024. 3 Complainant appealed to
2F

the Administrative Review Board (the Board) on November 26, 2024.

   On December 23, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss Appeal

(Joint Motion) together with an executed Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims (Settlement Agreement) with the Board in which they agreed to dismiss the matter with prejudice. 4 The parties indicated they requested the Board’s approval
3F

of the Settlement Agreement. 5 4F

  Pursuant to AIR21’s implementing regulations, the Board may approve a

settlement agreement at any time after a timely petition for review has been filed if the participating parties agree to a settlement. 65F

  In addition to settling Complainant’s AIR 21 claim, the Settlement

Agreement releases Respondents from claims beyond the scope of the AIR21 claim and outside the Board’s jurisdiction. 7 The Board’s authority to review settlement
6F

matters is limited to final decisions under specific statutes by order of the Secretary of Labor. 8 In accordance with Board precedent, the Board reviews the Settlement
7F

Agreement to determine whether its terms fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle

1 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. Part 1979 (2024).
2 Order Granting Respondents’ Joint Motion for Summary Decision and Order Dismissing Complaint and Order Cancelling Hearing at 1. 3 Id. at 8. 4 Joint Motion at 1; Settlement Agreement at 4. 5 Settlement Agreement at 2. 6 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(d)(2). 7 Settlement Agreement at 4-5. 8 Secretary’s Order No. 01-2020 (Delegation of Authority and Assignment of Responsibility to the Administrative Review Board (Secretary’s discretionary review of ARB decisions)), 85 Fed. Reg. 13,186 (Mar. 6, 2020); see Gray v. DAL Global, ARB No. 2010-0112, ALJ No. 2009-AIR-00028, slip op. at 2 (ARB Aug. 31, 2010) (citing Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 2001-0071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-00056, slip op. at 2 (ARB Apr. 30, 2003)). 3

the instant AIR21 case under our jurisdiction and are not contrary to the public interest. 9
8F

  The settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause in which the

parties agree to not disclose information relating to the agreement’s terms to anyone other than their counsel, the Court for enforcement purposes, for Respondents “on a need-to-know basis, and for Mr. Nix, his tax advisor.” 10 9F

Additionally, the agreement states none of its terms “purport[] to affect how the U.S. Department of Labor handles any public record requests.” 11 10F

   If the confidentiality clause was interpreted to preclude Complainant from

communicating with federal or state enforcement agencies concerning alleged violations of law, it would violate public policy, as it would contain an unacceptable “gag provision.” 12 We construe the language contained in the confidentiality clause
11F

as allowing Complainant, either voluntarily or pursuant to an order or subpoena, to communicate with, or provide information to, state and federal authorities concerning any suspected violations of law involving Respondent.

   The Settlement Agreement provides it shall be governed by the laws of the

state of Tennessee. 13 This “Governing Law” provision does not limit the authority of
12F

the Secretary of Labor, the Board, or any federal court as to any issue arising under AIR 21, and whose authority shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations of the United States. 1413F

9 Bell v. Bald Mountain Air Serv., ARB No. 2019-0002, ALJ No. 2016-AIR-00016, slip op. at 2 (ARB Dec. 23, 2019) (citing Coogler v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, Inc., ARB No. 2009- 0133, ALJ No. 2019-STA-00023, slip op at 3 (ARB July 20, 2010)). 10 Settlement Agreement at 5. 11 Settlement Agreement at 5. 12 Clem v. Comput. Scis. Corp., ARB No. 2020-0025, ALJ Nos. 2015-ERA-00003,
-00004, slip op. at 3 n.4 (ARB May 16, 2022) (citing Helgeson v. Soo Line R.R. Co., ARB No. 2019-0054, ALJ No. 2016-FRS-00084, slip op. at 3 (ARB Jan. 13, 2021)). 13 Settlement Agreement at 6. 14 Bell, ARB No. 2019-0002, slip op. at 2 (citing Trucker v. St. Cloud Meat & Provisions, Inc., ARB No. 2008-0080, ALJ No. 2008-STA-00023, slip op. at 3 (ARB May 30, 2008)). 4

   Upon careful review of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, the Board

concludes it is fair, adequate, and reasonable and is not contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, we APPROVE the Settlement Agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.

  SO ORDERED.




                           ____________________________________
                           IVEY S. WARREN
                           Acting Chief Administrative Appeals Judge




                           ____________________________________
                           ANGELA W. THOMPSON
                           Administrative Appeals Judge