Ruud

MEMORANDUM *

Casey Ruud appeals from a decision of the Department of Labor (DOL) Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) approving the settlement of his whistleblower retaliation complaint against Westinghouse Hanford pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7622 (b), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9610 (b). Ruud argues that the ARB was bound by its prior decision to reject the settlement agreement on the basis of Westinghouse Hanford’s breach of that agreement. Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

The agency’s decision must be affirmed unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 7622 (c)(1) and § 9613(j)(2).

1. The law of the case doctrine does not prevent the ARB from reconsidering its previous decision to disapprove the settlement in this case. At the time the ARB decided to reconsider its decision, the agency’s own precedents permitted reconsideration if a previous decision was erroneous. See In re U.S. Postal Serv. ANET and WNET…