Kevin Swanson, who worked at the facility as a tank supervisor until May, claimed he was illegally fired after raising safety concerns with supervisors.

Swanson, the complaint alleges, reported “elevated mercury levels” to his manager one day in late April. On the same day, “the safety officer was harassing the plaintiff about their boots, and the plaintiff responded by asking if the defendant’s agents should be more concerned about the ongoing explosions at the workplace.”

Represented by attorney Alexander Taylor of the Sulaiman Law Group in Lombard, Illinois, Swanson claimed he was suspended without pay the next day pending the results of a human resources investigation, even though “no real interest or reason was provided business-related for this action.”

Swanson, according to the lawsuit, responded by filing a complaint with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) “regarding elevated levels of mercury, explosions and fumes,” which was forwarded to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Swanson argued that his firing the following month violated Indiana’s False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act (FCA), which protects employees who report wrongdoing from employer retaliation.

Tradebe contested the lawsuit’s allegations. In a statement to The Times last month, a Tradebe spokesman wrote that the company had “investigated the claims and determined they are totally without merit”.

Tradebe’s attorney moved to dismiss the case on Oct. 9, arguing that Swanson was ineligible for whistleblower protection.

“The FCA protects whistleblowers who report fraudulent acts against the state, but Swanson is not advocating such conduct,” Sarah A. Fox Rudell, an attorney at Littler Mendelson in Indianapolis, wrote in a filing. “Furthermore, Indiana follows the employment-at-will doctrine, but has carved out a narrow public policy exception for wrongful termination claims where an employee is fired in retaliation for filing a worker’s compensation claim, refusing to commit an illegal act for which would be personally liable or for the exercise of a right conferred by Swanson does not fall under any of the conditions set out in the public order exception.”

On Oct. 23, Swanson’s attorney filed a motion seeking a two-week extension of the deadline to file a formal response, which the judge granted, giving the plaintiff until Nov. 6 to do so. On Nov. 5, Taylor and Rudell jointly filed an agreement that sets deadlines for the discovery process, by which parties to a lawsuit produce and share relevant evidence. The plaintiff did not formally respond to the defendant’s request to close the case.

On Friday, the parties filed notice that they agreed to settle the case and planned to file dismissal papers within 60 days of the settlement agreement being finalized. Terms of the deal were not made public.

Taylor declined to comment, citing privacy concerns. A spokesman for Tradebe did not return a request for comment.

Tradebe, which is regulated by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), has a long history of violating environmental regulations, including improperly storing and handling hazardous waste and operating a chemical drum shredder without the proper permit.

Activist groups have asked IDEM to consider the facility’s history as the agency weighs two pending permit applications from Tradebe: one that would allow it to expand into a neighboring lot and another that would grant permission to operate the machine to chop with a drum.