Hearing on Date: 01/11/2027 - Cancelled. DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE — 2026STA00039

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES
Pittsburgh, PA
Issue Date: 09 October 2026
CASE NO.: 2026-STA-00039
In the Matter of:
ERIC TURNER,
Complainant
v.
WESTMORE CARRIERS LLC,
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
AND ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE
This proceeding arises under the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982, 49 U.S.C.
§ 31105 (“STAA”) and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 29 C.F.R. Part 1978. The
Complainant requested a hearing based upon the Secretary’s February 12, 2026 findings. The case
was assigned to the undersigned on May 6, 2026, and pursuant to a Notice of Hearing, a hearing
is scheduled to begin on January 11, 2027, and continue, as necessary, on January 12, 2027.
On October 7, 2026, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Approve Settlement, as well as the
parties’ executed Confidential Settlement and General Release Agreement (“Settlement
Agreement”). In the motion, the parties also request the above-captioned claim be dismissed with
prejudice, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
Pursuant to STAA, Section 31105(b)(2)(C), “[b]efore the final order is issued, the
proceeding may be ended by a settlement agreement made by the Secretary, the complainant, and
the person alleged to have committed the violation.” Under regulations implementing the STAA,
the parties may settle a case at any time after the filing of objections to the Secretary’s findings “if
the participating parties agree to a settlement and the settlement is approved by the ALJ,” while
the case is before the ALJ. 29 C.F.R. § 1978.l l l(d)(2). A settlement agreement cannot become
effective until its terms have been reviewed and determined to be fair, adequate, reasonable, and
in the public interest. 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 STAA. 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

- 2 -
fairly, adequately, and reasonably settle the issues under the STAA 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 STAA. See 29
C.F.R. § 1978.111(c). I find that the settlement agreement complies with the required standard,
and that 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 In the event that public disclosure is
required, the parties will be afforded the opportunity to redact the financial terms of the Agreement
from disclosure to the public. Accordingly, within seven (7) days, the parties must submit a revised
Agreement with the redaction of the financial terms, which will be maintained in a separate folder,
and marked “SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT – REDACTED FOR PUBLIC
DISCLOSURE”. The 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 DOL is required to notify the parties to permit them to file any
objections to disclosure. See 29 C.F.R. § 70.26 (2016).
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 seeking the release of that
information.

- 3 -
Accordingly, the Parties’ Settlement Agreement is hereby APPROVED. Therefore, the
above-captioned matter is DISMISSED with prejudice. Accordingly, the pre-hearing conference
scheduled for October 21, 2026, and the hearing scheduled for January 11, 2027 are CANCELED.
SO ORDERED.
SEAN M. RAMALEY
Administrative Law Judge