ST-SETTLEMENT NUMBER OF PAGES 2 JUDGE Ramaley DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE — 2025TAX00019

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
Pittsburgh, PA
Issue Date: 09 October 2026
CASE NO.: 2025-TAX-00019
In the Matter of:
LEAH QUINTANA,
Complainant
v.
SENSEN NETWORKS LTD.,
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This matter arises under the employee-protection provisions of the Taxpayer First Act
(“TFA”), 26 U.S.C. § 7623(d) and its implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1989. A hearing
was scheduled to begin on September 28, 2026, and continue, as necessary, through September 30,
2026. On September 25, 2026, Respondent, through Counsel, sent a letter indicating that the
parties had reached a settlement, and jointly requested that the hearing be canceled. On September
28, 2026, I issued an Order Cancelling Hearing, and afforded the parties until October 23, 2026,
to submit the written settlement agreement. On October 7, 2026, the parties submitted a Joint
Motion to Review and Approve the Settlement and Dismiss the Action with Prejudice, as well as
the Settlement Agreement, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Pursuant to the statute’s implementing regulations, at any time after the filing of objections
to the Assistant Secretary’s findings, “the case may be settled if the participating parties agree to a
settlement and the settlement is approved by the ALJ….” 29 C.F.R. § 1989.111(d)(2). Moreover,
any settlement approved by the administrative law judge will constitute the final order of the
Secretary. See 29 C.F.R. § 1989.111(e). A settlement agreement cannot become effective until its
terms have been reviewed and determined to be fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the public
interest. See, e.g., Tankersly v. Triple Crown Services, Inc., 1992-STA-8 (Sec'y Feb. 18, 1993).
The Settlement Agreement includes a general release of claims resolving a wide range of
matters, including matters potentially arising under laws other than TFA. The undersigned’s
authority over settlement agreements is limited to the statutes that are within OALJ’s jurisdiction,
and I have restricted my review of the Settlement Agreement to ascertaining whether its terms
fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle the issues under the TFA claim. See Anderson v. Schering
Corp., ARB No. 10- 070, ALJ No. 2010-SOX-7, slip op. at 3 (ARB Jan. 31, 2011).
In reviewing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I find the terms fairly, adequately, and
reasonably settle the Complainant’s allegations against Respondent under the TFA. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1989.111(d). I find that the settlement agreement complies with the required standard, and that

- 2 -
the parties have averred that they have completed all terms of the agreement. Therefore, the
settlement agreement is APPROVED. See id; Carciero v. Sodexho Alliance, S.A., ARB No. 09-
067, ALJ No. 2008-SOX-012, slip op. at 2 (ARB Sept. 30. 2010).
The parties have agreed to keep the specific terms of the agreement confidential, subject to
applicable laws. To effectuate such confidentiality, I will have the settlement agreement sealed
pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 18.85. However, notwithstanding the parties’ agreement, the parties’
submissions, including the Settlement Agreement, become part of the record of the case and are
subject to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a). This clause does not bind
the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) or prohibit disclosures made by DOL pursuant to FOIA,
which requires federal agencies to disclose requested documents unless they are exempt from
disclosure. 5 U.S.C. § 552; Faust v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., Case Nos. 92-SWD-2 and
93-STA-15 (ARB March 31, 1998); Jordan v. Sprint Nextel Corp., ARB No. 06-105, Case No.
2006-SOX-41, slip op. at 12 (ARB June 19, 2008)(noting that there is “no authority permitting the
sealing of a record in a whistleblower case because the case file is a government record subject to
disclosure pursuant to [FOIA] unless the record qualifies for an exemption to such disclosure”).
See also Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926 (7th Cir. 2002)(settlement agreement approved by federal
judge was presumptively a public document that should not have been sealed). Thus, if a FOIA
request is made for the settlement agreement, the DOL will have to respond and decide whether to
exercise its discretion to claim any applicable exemption.
I further construe the parties’ request for confidentiality as a request for pre-disclosure
notification rights in accordance with 29 C.F.R. § 70.26.1 The parties have submitted a redacted
settlement agreement, with appropriate, minimal redactions. The redacted agreement will be
maintained in a folder marked “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – REDACTED FOR PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE”. An unredacted version of the Agreement will be maintained separately and
marked “UNREDACTED AGREEMENT – NOT FOR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE.”
Consequently, before any disclosure of the settlement, whether redacted or unredacted, is disclosed
pursuant to a FOIA request, the Department of Labor is required to notify the parties to permit
them to file any objections to disclosure. See 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 (2016).
Accordingly, the Parties’ Settlement Agreement is hereby APPROVED. Therefore, the
above-captioned matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
SEAN M. RAMALEY
Administrative Law Judge
1 The parties are afforded the right to request that information be treated as confidential business information. See
29 C.F.R. § 70.26 (2016). The DOL is then required to take steps to preserve the confidentiality of that information
and must provide the parties with pre-disclosure notification if a FOIA request is received.