Harmer v. Gar-MRO Services, Inc. (agency decision, January 30, 2026)

Plain-English summary

GAR-MRO Services appealed an ALJ decision awarding damages to Timothy Harmer in an AIR21 whistleblower case. The parties then submitted an executed settlement agreement. The Board found the agreement fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with the public interest, limiting its review to the AIR21 claim. It construed the confidentiality terms to permit communications with government enforcement authorities and explained that the Iowa governing-law clause did not restrict federal authority over AIR21 issues. The Board approved the settlement and dismissed the complaint; the order does not state the settlement amount.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(d)(2); 5 U.S.C. § 552
• Outcome: Settlement approved and the AIR21 complaint dismissed; no settlement amount is stated in the order.
• Key point: An AIR21 settlement’s confidentiality terms must allow communications with government enforcement authorities.

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:

TIMOTHY F. HARMER, ARB CASE NO. 2025-0088

         COMPLAINANT,                     ALJ CASE NO. 2023-AIR-00002
                                          ALJ JERRY R. DeMAIO
  v.
                                          DATE: January 30, 2026

GAR-MRO SERVICES, INC.,

         RESPONDENT.

Appearances:

For the Complainant:
Nathan Borland, Esq.; Timmer, Judkins & Borland, P.L.L.C; West Des
Moines, Iowa

For the Respondent:
Allison M. Steuterman, Esq. and Douglas A. Fulton, Esq.; Brick
Gentry, P.C.; West Des Moines, Iowa

Before JOHNSON, Chief Administrative Appeals Judge, and KAPLAN, Administrative Appeals Judge

                   DECISION AND ORDER
        APPROVING SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSING CASE

  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 Respondent GAR-MRO Services, Inc. filed a Petition for
0F

Review with the Administrative Review Board (Board) on September 4, 2025, appealing the Decision and Order (D. & O.) issued by a U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge on August 21, 2025, ruling in favor of Complainant Timothy F. Harmer and awarding him damages.

1 49 U.S.C. § 42121; 29 C.F.R. Part 1979 (2025).
 2

  On January 8, 2026, Respondent filed a Motion to Approve Settlement and

Grant Dismissal of Appeal, which included an executed Settlement Agreement and Release (Settlement Agreement).

  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. 2 Under Board precedent, the Board
1F

reviews the Settlement Agreement to ascertain whether it is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and is not contrary to public interest. 3 2F

   In addition to settling Complainant’s AIR21 claim, the Settlement Agreement

releases Respondent from claims beyond the scope of the AIR21 claim and outside the Board’s jurisdiction. 4 The Board’s authority to review settlement matters is
3F

limited to final decisions under specific statutes by order of the Secretary of Labor. 5 4F

Therefore, we have restricted our review of the Settlement Agreement to ascertaining whether its terms fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle this AIR21 case under our jurisdiction and the Settlement Agreement is not contrary to the public interest. 6
5F

   The Settlement Agreement contains confidentiality clauses. 7 The ARB
                                                                     6F

notes that the parties’ submissions, including the Settlement Agreement, become part of the record and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 8 FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
7F

2 29 C.F.R. § 1979.111(d)(2).
3 Braun v. United Airlines, Inc., ARB No. 2024-0001, ALJ No. 2021-AIR-00014, slip op. at 2-3 (ARB Apr. 16, 2024) (citations omitted); Nix v. Symphony Tech. Sols., Inc., ARB No. 2025-0013, ALJ No. 2024-AIR-00008, slip op. 2-3 (ARB Jan. 8, 2025) (citations omitted). 4 Settlement Agreement at 2-3. 5 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 also Nix, ARB No. 2025-0013, slip op. 2 (citations omitted). 6 Nix, ARB No. 2025-0013, slip op. 2-3 (citations omitted). 7 Settlement Agreement at 3, 5. 8 5 U.S.C. § 552; see also Braun, ARB No. 2024-0001, slip op. at 3 (citations omitted). 3

exempt from disclosure under the Act. 9 Department of Labor regulations
8F

provide specific procedures for agency responses to FOIA requests and for appeals by requestors from denials of such requests. 10 Additionally, if the
9F

confidentiality clauses were 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. 11 We construe the language contained in the
10F

confidentiality clause 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 Iowa. 12 This “Governing Law” provision does not limit the authority
11F

of 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. 13 12F

   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.

  SO ORDERED.


                                 RANDEL K. JOHNSON
                                 Chief Administrative Appeals Judge



                                 ELLIOT M. KAPLAN
                                 Administrative Appeals Judge

9 Braun, ARB No. 2024-0001, slip op. at 3 (citations and quotations omitted). 10 29 C.F.R. Part 70. 11 Nix, ARB No. 2025-0013, slip op. 3 (citations omitted). 12 Settlement Agreement at 3. 13 Nix, ARB No. 2025-0013, slip op. 3 (citations omitted).