Harmer v. Gar-MRO Services, Inc.

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.0F
1 Respondent GAR-MRO Services, Inc. filed a Petition for
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.1F
2 Under Board precedent, the Board
reviews the Settlement Agreement to ascertain whether it is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, and is not contrary to public interest.2F
3
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.3F
4 The Board’s authority to review settlement matters is
limited to final decisions under specific statutes by order of the Secretary of Labor.4F
5
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.5F
6
The Settlement Agreement contains confidentiality clauses.6F
7 The ARB
notes that the parties’ submissions, including the Settlement Agreement,
become part of the record and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA).7F
8 FOIA requires federal agencies to disclose requested records unless
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.8F
9 Department of Labor regulations
provide specific procedures for agency responses to FOIA requests and for
appeals by requestors from denials of such requests.9F
10 Additionally, if the
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.10F
11 We construe the language contained in the
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.11F
12 This “Governing Law” provision does not limit the authority
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.12F
13
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).