2025STA00010•Hearing on Date: 11/17/2026 - Cancelled. ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT — 2025STA00010
Hearing on Date: 11/17/2026 - Cancelled. ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT — 2025STA00010
2025STA00010Dol Oalj
Texto completo
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Cincinnati, Ohio ______________ Issue Date: 13 October 2026 OALJ Case Nos. 2025-STA-00009 (Herrera) 2025-STA-00010 (DeVore) 2025-STA-00011 (McCasland) 2025-STA-00012 (Subsits) 2026-STA-00040 (Herrera) 2026-STA-00045 (McCasland) OSHA Case Nos. 301033432 (Herrera 2025) 301033437 (DeVore) 301033613 (McCasland 2025) 301033615 (Subsits) 301055393 (Herrera 2026) 301055395 (McCasland 2026) In the Matters of: BRENDON HERRERA, JEFFERY DeVORE, BRIAN McCASLAND, and BRET SUBSITS, Complainants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, ET AL., Respondents. ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT, ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT These matters arise under the employee protection provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 (STAA) 49 U.S.C. § 31105. They are being conducted in accord with the STAA, its implementing regulations, and the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before the Office of Administrative Law Judges (Rules of Procedure). Id.; 29 C.F.R. Part 1978; 29 C.F.R. Part 18. Relevant Background On September 23, 2026, Complainant filed a Settlement and General Release (Settlement Agreement). On September 24, 2026, Complainant filed an Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement, Withdraw the Complaints and Dismiss Proceeding with Prejudice (Motion to
2 Approve Settlement). The parties subsequently considered filing their settlement under seal, but ultimately determined not to do so. See Unopposed Motion to Place Docket Entry Under Seal (Sept. 28, 2026); Order Regarding Respondents’ Unopposed Motion to Place Docket Entry Under Seal, Order to Respondents (Sept. 30, 2026); Stipulated Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (Second Motion to Approve Settlement) (Oct. 8, 2026) at Introductory Paragraph and ¶ 3. The parties October 8, 2026 Second Motion to Approve Settlement asks this Tribunal to approve the Settlement Agreement submitted on September 23, 2026. Second Motion to Approve Settlement ¶ 2. Order Approving Settlement The STAA and its implementing regulations provide that proceedings may be terminated by means of an approved settlement agreement. 49 U.S.C. § 31105(b)(2)(C); 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). Under the STAA, a settlement agreement cannot become effective until its terms have been reviewed and determined to be fair, adequate, and reasonable, and in the public interest. Edmisten v. Ray Thomas Petroleum, ARB No. 10-020, ALJ No. 2009-STA-00036 (ARB Dec. 16, 2009). The regulations thus direct the parties to file a copy of the settlement “with the ALJ or the Administrative Review Board, United States Department of Labor, as the case may be” so that the review can be conducted. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.111(d)(2). I have reviewed the parties’ Settlement Agreement; it complies with the requirements set forth above. I find the terms, obligations, and conditions related to the above-captioned proceeding to be adequate, reasonable, and in the public interest. I also find that the settlement was not procured through duress. The Settlement Agreement is APPROVED.1 It hereby becomes the final order of the Secretary. The STAA portions of the agreement may be enforced pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1978.113.2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, upon payment of the amount set forth in the Settlement Agreement, Complainant’s complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 1 The STAA contains a “no preemption” provision. 49 U.S.C 31105(f). I do not approve any portion of the Settlement Agreement violative of the no preemption provision. Additionally, the Settlement Agreement also discusses matters under laws and provisions other than the Surface Transportation Assistance Act. I may only approve settlement of the above-captioned matter; it is the only matter before me. Therefore, I only approve the terms of the Settlement Agreement pertaining to the Complainant's STAA claim. Carnahan v. Arnold Transportation Services, Inc., ARB Case No. 10-025, 2009 WL 5178507 (Dec. 22, 2009); Fish v. H & R Transfer, ARB No. 01-071, ALJ No. 2000-STA-056, slip op. at 2 (Apr. 30, 2003). 2 The redacted Settlement Agreement will be publicly available. The unredacted version will be maintained confidentially, as discussed within this Tribunal’s September 30, 2026 Order Regarding Respondents’ Unopposed Motion to Place Docket Entry Under Seal, Order to Respondents.
3 To the extent not otherwise done so, the parties shall implement the terms regarding this claim as specifically stated therein. This Order shall have the same force and effect as one made after a full hearing on the merits, as regards the STAA matters set forth above. It is SO ORDERED. W. EDEN FORT Administrative Law Judge
Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude
Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.