USCG Administrative Law Judge Case
U.S. Coast Guard vs. Najawon Evans
According to public Coast Guard docket records, the Coast Guard opened an administrative S&R case against credentialed mariner Najawon Evans, with the docket listing “sexual harassment” as the allegation. In the Coast Guard S&R process, a complaint states the Investigating Officer’s position; it is not proof, and the Coast Guard must prove the allegations at a hearing for the complaint to prevail. Evans’s case did not end with a hearing decision. On September 23, 2024, ALJ Brian Curley approved the parties’ settlement agreement, closing the credential proceeding by consent order without public fact-finding or a public admission by Evans.
Disposition
Settlement Agreement
Posture
Settlement
Sanction
Settlement agreement approved
Judge
Brian Curley
What the Record Shows
Case Summary
The Coast Guard docket entry for 2024-0429 lists the allegation against Najawon Evans as sexual harassment. The public consent order does not describe the alleged conduct or include the complaint’s factual allegations, so the available record supports only the docket’s category-level description.
On September 23, 2024, the parties submitted an amended motion for approval of a settlement agreement and entry of consent order to the Administrative Law Judge under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. The order identifies the related MISLE Activity ID as 7976974.
ALJ Brian Curley stated that he reviewed the settlement terms and found the agreement fair, reasonable, and in substantial compliance with 33 C.F.R. § 20.502. He approved the settlement in full, incorporated it by reference, and ordered the consent order to constitute the full, final, and complete adjudication of the proceeding. The public consent order does not disclose the settlement terms or state that Evans admitted the docketed allegation.
Based on public docket metadata and available source documents. Allegations are described as allegations, not findings of fact or admissions.
Outcome
ALJ Brian Curley approved the settlement agreement in full under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502 and ordered the consent order to constitute the full, final, and complete adjudication of the proceeding.
The public consent order does not disclose the settlement terms or state that the mariner admitted the alleged conduct.
Sanction: Settlement agreement approved
Case Timeline
Sep 23, 2024
Settlement approval requested
The parties submitted an amended motion for approval of a settlement agreement and entry of consent order under 33 C.F.R. § 20.502.
Sep 23, 2024
Consent order approved
ALJ Brian Curley approved the settlement agreement in full and ordered the consent order to serve as the final adjudication of the proceeding.
Case Metadata
- Docket Number
- 2024-0429
- Enforcement Activity Number
- 7976974
- Judge
- Brian Curley
- Source Era
- 2023–Present Docket Era
- Dispositive Order Type
- Consent Order
- Settlement Agreement
- Requested from Coast Guard
- Allegation
- Sexual Harassment
- Source wording: Sexual Harassment
- Authorities Cited
- 33 C.F.R. § 20.502
Sources, Context, and Method
What This Record Does and Does Not Show
Coast Guard suspension and revocation cases are administrative proceedings about a merchant mariner credential. They generally begin when a Coast Guard investigating officer files a complaint with the ALJ Docketing Center. Unless the case goes to a hearing and an ALJ finds the complaint allegations proved in a written decision and order, the allegations should be understood as allegations, not findings.
A settlement agreement or consent order can end the proceeding without an admission of the alleged conduct. This page therefore separates what the Coast Guard alleged from what an ALJ, Commandant appeal decision, default order, settlement order, dismissal, or other public record actually decided.
MLAA builds these pages from public Coast Guard ALJ docket data, official Coast Guard source documents, preserved docket-source proof, and available orders or decisions. We preserve source records where we can, label allegations as allegations, avoid treating docket categories as factual findings, and invite source-backed corrections when a record needs to be fixed.
Suggest a Correction
See something that needs correction?
MLAA builds this docket from public records and source documents. If a name, date, docket number, summary, or document link appears wrong, please send us the correction and any source that helps verify it.