|
|
Post by aljsouth on Aug 11, 2009 8:50:42 GMT -5
It was illadvised from the start. The focus should have always been on OPM's "active status" rule. That part of the lawsuit is still alive.
AALJ needs to refocus on that and obtain concrete results for all ALJ's. Maybe now we can all move on.
|
|
tab58
Full Member
Posts: 63
|
Post by tab58 on Aug 11, 2009 13:55:23 GMT -5
The Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ), which represents most of Social Security's Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and several attorneys in private practice filed suit against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) over the announcement of a new register for ALJs. The lawsuit raised a number of issues, mostly having to do with allegations that attorneys already working for Social Security were given an advantage by the way in which OPM created the new register and the way in which OPM announced the new register.
The AALJ and the attorneys have lost on all counts. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment to OPM yesterday.
--
Posted By Social Security News to Social Security News at 8/11/2009 02:14:00 PM
|
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Aug 11, 2009 14:21:59 GMT -5
I can't think of a more humiliating defeat than losing by summary judgement
|
|
|
|
Post by valkyrie on Aug 11, 2009 15:20:50 GMT -5
I know I would be thrilled that my union had put forth all of that time, money and effort into pissing off a chunk of the membership while failing miserably.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orly on Aug 11, 2009 15:52:45 GMT -5
Attached please find the 8/10/2009 USDC order for your reading pleasure.  BTW, in order to download the PDF file, you got to be logged in and actually in this thread instead of the "10 newest posts" section to access the download link. |
|
|
|
Post by ruonthelist on Aug 11, 2009 19:20:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ohio2000 on Aug 11, 2009 21:25:51 GMT -5
Isn't it interesting that AALJ got the same "advance" notice that federal agencies received? And the best evidence of the "advance" notice that some SSA attorneys got was actually an e-mail from an RCALJ sent out after the Register opened, not in advance of it opening.
So to sum up: the AALJ spent its members dues money to pursue litigation it obviously had no standing to bring, against an OPM practice that did not harm AALJ members, based on a meritless legal theory that it had no evidence to prove.
And it's an action they continue to defend as recently as the July ALJ training.
Free advice to Judge Frye - let it go. The AALJ attitude to agency attorneys in general and SSA attorneys in particular is out of step with your membership and way out of step with the newly hired ALJs whether former federal attorneys or outside the government attorneys. If they join AALJ the only reason they are joining is to vote your leadership team out of office. They want you to focus on the issues that are important to them - not on the personal prejudices of the old guard leadership of AALJ.
|
|
