Rupp v. West Starr Aviation, LLC (agency decision, March 20, 2026)

Plain-English summary

Daniel Rupp alleged that West Starr Aviation retaliated against him in violation of AIR21. After an ALJ dismissed the claim and Rupp appealed, the parties reached a settlement and asked the Board to approve it. The ARB found the agreement fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest for the AIR21 matter within its authority. It construed the confidentiality clause to allow Rupp to communicate with state and federal authorities about suspected violations of law. It also construed the Colorado choice-of-law clause as preserving the authority of the Secretary of Labor, the ARB, and federal courts 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 and 1979.113
• Outcome: The settlement was approved, and the AIR21 complaint was dismissed with prejudice.
• Key point: An AIR21 settlement cannot use confidentiality or state-law clauses to restrict communications with government authorities or federal authority over the statutory claim.

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:


DANIEL A. RUPP,                                ARB CASE NO. 2025-0069

                COMPLAINANT,                   ALJ CASE NO. 2023-AIR-00017
                                               ALJ HEATHER C. LESLIE
          v.
                                               DATE: March 20, 2026
WEST STARR AVIATION, LLC,

                RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Daphne S. Gebauer, Esq.; Tava Employment Law; Colorado Springs,
Colorado

For the Respondent:
Christina Harney, Esq., Michael C. Santo, Esq.; Bechtel & Santo
L.L.P.; Grand Junction, Colorado

Before KAPLAN and KIKO, Administrative Appeals Judges

               DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT
                       AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT

  This case arises under the employee protection provisions of the Wendell H.

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21) and its implementing regulations. 1 Complainant Daniel A. Rupp filed a complaint alleging
0F

that Respondent West Starr Aviation, LLC retaliated against him in violation of AIR21. 2 On June 16, 2025, A Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
1F

issued an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision, in which she

1 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. Part 1979 (2025). 2 Order Granting Respondent’s Motion for Summary Decision (ALJ Order) at 1. 2

dismissed Complainant’s claim. 3 On June 30, 2025, Complainant appealed to the
2F

Board.

   On January 27, 2026, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement and Joint

Motion for Stay (Motion), notifying the Board that the parties had reached a settlement and requesting the Board stay this action until March 24, 2026, to allow all conditions under the settlement to be satisfied. On January 30, 2026, the Board granted the parties’ Motion and stayed the matter until March 24, 2026.

  On March 11, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal and a

Settlement Agreement, Release of Claims, and Protections Required by C.R.S. § 24- 34-407 (Settlement Agreement). The parties requested the Board approve the Settlement Agreement and dismiss the action with prejudice. 4 3F

   AIR21’s implementing regulations provide that at any time after a party has

filed objections to the Assistant Secretary’s findings or order, the case may be settled if the participating parties agree to a settlement and, if the Board has accepted the case for review, the Board approves the settlement agreement. 5 4F

  The Settlement Agreement encompasses the settlement of matters under

laws other than AIR21. 6 The Board’s authority over settlement agreements is
5F

limited to statutes that are within the Board’s jurisdiction as defined by the applicable delegation of authority. 7 Under Board precedent, we review the
6F

Settlement Agreement to ascertain whether its terms fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle this AIR21 case over which we have jurisdiction. 8 7F

  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, spouse, accountant, and/or as required by law. 9 If 8F

3 Id. at 21.
4 Stipulation of Dismissal.
5 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(d)(2). Settlement agreements approved by the Board constitute final orders of the Secretary and may be enforced pursuant to § 1979.113. § 1979.111(e). 6 Settlement Agreement ¶ 2. 7 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. 13186 (Mar. 6, 2020); see Gray v. DAL Global, ARB No. 2010-0122, ALJ No. 2009-AIR-00028, slip op. at 2 (ARB Aug. 31, 2010) (citation omitted). 8 Bell v. Bald Mountain Air Serv., ARB No. 2019-0002, ALJ No. 2016-AIR-00016, slip op. at 2 (ARB Dec. 23, 2019) (citation omitted). 9 Settlement Agreement ¶ 7. 3

the confidentiality clause was interpreted to preclude Complainant from communicating with federal or state enforcement agencies concerning alleged violations of law, they would violate public policy and contain an unacceptable “gag” provision. 10 We construe the language contained in the confidentiality clause as
9F

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 also provides that it shall be governed by the laws

of the state of Colorado. 11 We construe this “Applicable Law” provision as not
10F

limiting the authority of the Secretary of Labor, the Board, and any federal court with regard to any issue arising under AIR21, which authority shall be governed in all respects by the laws and regulations of the United States. 12 11F

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

concludes that the Settlement Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and does not contravene the public interest. Accordingly, we APPROVE the Settlement Agreement and DISMISS the complaint with prejudice.

  SO ORDERED.




                               ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
                               Administrative Appeals Judge



                               PHILIP G. KIKO
                               Administrative Appeals Judge

10 Nix v. Symphony Tech. Sols., Inc., ARB No. 2025-0013, ALJ No. 2024-AIR-00008, slip op. 3 (ARB Jan. 8, 2025) (citation omitted). 11 Settlement Agreement ¶ 19. 12 Bell, ARB No. 2019-0002, slip op. at 2 (citation omitted).