Commission’s order appear in the report so that a court can satisfy itself that the Commission has performed its function. Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 122 F.Supp. 824, 828 (S.D.N.Y.) (quoting Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. United States, 340 U.S. 216, 71 S.Ct. 264, 95 L.Ed. 225 (1951)), aff'd, 347 U.S. 984, 74 S.Ct. 850, 98 L.Ed. 1120 (1954). In addition, a statement of findings and reasons “has a rationale of its own, quite separate from facilitating judicial review on the merits____ [A] ‘reasons’ requirement promotes thought by the decision-maker and ‘compels him to cover the relevant points and eschew irrelevances.’ ” Exxon Pipeline Co. v. United States, 725 F.2d 1467 at 1473 (1984) (quoting Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975)) (<HOLDING>). A “reasons” requirement also permits a
holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal holding that in light of reasons requirement courts review should assure that reasons are relevant to statutorily prescribed inquiries holding that an order was final for these identical reasons