UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

USDOL/OALJ Reporter
Saporito v. Arizona Public Service Co., 92-ERA-30 (Sec'y June 19, 1995)

---

DATE:  June 19, 1995
CASE NOS. 92-ERA-30
          93-ERA-26
          93-ERA-45


IN THE MATTER OF

THOMAS J. SAPORITO, JR.,

          COMPLAINANT,

     v.

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY,
THE ATLANTIC GROUP, INC.,

          RESPONDENTS.


BEFORE:   THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                      ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENTS 
                          AND DISMISSING CASES


     After considerable confusion about the intent of the parties
regarding the scope of the settlements entered into in these
cases, the Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) submitted three
Recommended Decisions and Orders Clarifying and Approving
Settlement and Dismissing Claims, dated August 9, 1994 (Judge
Lesniak), Sept. 20, 1994 (Judge Kichuk), and Nov. 15, 1994 (Judge
Kichuk).  In addition, Complainant and Respondent submitted a
Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Dismissal
with Prejudice and a supporting Memorandum of Points and
Authorities further clarifying the October 26, 1994 settlement
agreement between them.  The settlements and accompanying general
releases as well as the joint motion have been reviewed to
determine whether their terms are a fair, adequate and reasonable
settlement of the complaints in these cases.
     Paragraph F of both the General Releases dated Dec. 15, 1993

[PAGE 2]
and Oct. 26, 1994, encompass matters arising under laws other
than the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (ERA), 42
U.S.C.A. § 5851 (West 1994).  My authority over this
settlement is limited to matters arising under the ERA.  For the
reasons set forth in Goese v. EBASCO Services, Inc.,  Case
No. 88-ERA-25, Sec'y. Order Dec. 8, 1988, slip op. at 1-2, I have
limited my review of the Settlement Agreements and General
Releases to determining whether their terms are a fair, adequate
and reasonable settlement of Complainant's allegations that
Respondents violated the ERA.  In addition, Paragraph F provides
that the parties mutually release each other from any and all
claims "which [the parties] now [have] or may hereafter accrue or
otherwise be acquired . . . ."  This provision could be construed
as a waiver of causes of action which may arise in the future.  I
interpret this provision as limited to the right to sue in the
future on claims or causes of action arising out of facts or any
set of facts occurring before the dates of the agreements. 
See Polizzi v. Gibbs & Hill, Case No. 87-ERA-38, Secy.
Order July 18, 1989, slip op. at 9.
     With the limitations set out above and as interpreted
herein, I find the terms of the agreements to be fair, adequate
and reasonable and I approve them.  Accordingly, the complaints
in these cases are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.  See Settlement
Agreement signed Dec. 15 and 20, 1993, paragraph 1.1; Settlement
Agreement dated Oct. 26, 1994, paragraph 1.1.
     SO ORDERED.

                               ROBERT B. REICH
                              Secretary of Labor

Washington, D.C.