|
Post by minny on Aug 1, 2013 22:22:58 GMT -5
I routinely practice before EEOC and MSPB judges. There are worlds of difference between the judges at these two agencies. The MSPB administrative judges act like judges. The EEOC AJs often do not. I am not sure they are at fault, though. Most EEOC AJs are either GS-11s or GS-13s. I believe only the supervisory AJ's are GS-14s - at least in the district and field offices.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2013 22:56:11 GMT -5
Same here Minny. I think the subject matter has a lot to do with the Agency's AJs. At MSPB the AR prosecutes its adverse action whereas in EEOC the Agency is defending itself against the complainant. MSPB is so much more organized, have a better docketing system. You file motions and you get a decision much quicker. I am waiting 6 months now on a SJ motion with EEOC on a nonsense non selection case. In that time i have disposed of two Chapter 75 cases and one Chapter 42 case with the MSPB AJ
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Aug 1, 2013 23:39:37 GMT -5
I routinely practice before EEOC and MSPB judges. There are worlds of difference between the judges at these two agencies. The MSPB administrative judges act like judges. The EEOC AJs often do not. I am not sure they are at fault, though. Most EEOC AJs are either GS-11s or GS-13s. I believe only the supervisory AJ's are GS-14s - at least in the district and field offices. What do you think the difference is?
|
|
|
Post by minny on Aug 2, 2013 7:53:12 GMT -5
I routinely practice before EEOC and MSPB judges. There are worlds of difference between the judges at these two agencies. The MSPB administrative judges act like judges. The EEOC AJs often do not. I am not sure they are at fault, though. Most EEOC AJs are either GS-11s or GS-13s. I believe only the supervisory AJ's are GS-14s - at least in the district and field offices. What do you think the difference is? I think there are two basic differences but these are my opinion only. First, the MSPB judges are GS-15s (I think all of them are) and they can attract the cream of the crop from the litigation attorneys across the federal sector. Second, the MSPB itself fosters the more professional atmosphere as exjag described.
|
|
|
Post by grassgreener on Aug 2, 2013 8:20:13 GMT -5
I routinely practice before EEOC and MSPB judges. There are worlds of difference between the judges at these two agencies. The MSPB administrative judges act like judges. The EEOC AJs often do not. I am not sure they are at fault, though. Most EEOC AJs are either GS-11s or GS-13s. I believe only the supervisory AJ's are GS-14s - at least in the district and field offices. Perhaps, I should have been more specific, how are the EEOC AJs not acting like judges? Your post seems to imply that the more money one makes, the more judge-like a person would act, which, I presume, is not what you meant.
|
|
|
Post by bartleby on Aug 2, 2013 8:49:52 GMT -5
From what I have seen, EEOC hearings are not totally formal and the rules of evidence are more relaxed than at MSPB hearings. The AJs at EEOC hearings seem more interested in gleeming the truth regarding agency discrimination. MSPB is more formal and must weigh whether the accused has violated some rule or standard of the Agency. On the one hand, the EEOC AJs seem to have more latitude in their hearings while the MSPB hearings are more factually based. In EEOC cases, once the plaintiff has proven a prima facia case, ie, someone else of a different class got the job, promotion, etc., the burden switches to the Agency to prove they haven't discriminated, which is actually fairly hard as discrimination is vague and management usually can't explain why they did anything.. MSPB is more cut and dried as the rules, reg,s standards are usually written and they were either violated or not.. A lot of EEOC cases are unrepresented and the AJs are not interested in playing attorney games such as summary judgment, etc. Most of them are interested in giving the plaintiff a fair hearing. MSPB is run more like a real court. Not bashing EEOC, they are akin to SSA hearings in that they seem to be more likely to err for the plaintiff than for the Agency. JMHO, as usual.
|
|
|
Post by minny on Aug 7, 2013 21:38:29 GMT -5
I routinely practice before EEOC and MSPB judges. There are worlds of difference between the judges at these two agencies. The MSPB administrative judges act like judges. The EEOC AJs often do not. I am not sure they are at fault, though. Most EEOC AJs are either GS-11s or GS-13s. I believe only the supervisory AJ's are GS-14s - at least in the district and field offices. Perhaps, I should have been more specific, how are the EEOC AJs not acting like judges? Your post seems to imply that the more money one makes, the more judge-like a person would act, which, I presume, is not what you meant. MSPB does, in fact, have discovery. It does not have summary judgment procedure, but the issues that it deals with are often at least as complex as the EEOC, and perhaps more complex. MSPB cases are actually often very fact intensive, in my experience, as well. Moving the docket along is one of the judge-like behaviors that I appreciate about the MSPB over many of the EEOC judges that I personally deal with (not all of them, by any means). I have cases that are coming up on their fifth year in my inventory without a hearing at the EEOC. Again, I don't blame the EEOC judges and, no, I do not think it is strictly a pay issue but I do think that lower pay does lead to less incentive sometimes. I think that most EEOC judges, like most MSPB judges, take their jobs very seriously. I think the EEOC, though, does not value its judges as highly as the MSPB and the process suffers for it at times.
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Aug 9, 2013 12:16:42 GMT -5
Perhaps, I should have been more specific, how are the EEOC AJs not acting like judges? Your post seems to imply that the more money one makes, the more judge-like a person would act, which, I presume, is not what you meant. MSPB does, in fact, have discovery. It does not have summary judgment procedure, but the issues that it deals with are often at least as complex as the EEOC, and perhaps more complex. MSPB cases are actually often very fact intensive, in my experience, as well. Moving the docket along is one of the judge-like behaviors that I appreciate about the MSPB over many of the EEOC judges that I personally deal with (not all of them, by any means). I have cases that are coming up on their fifth year in my inventory without a hearing at the EEOC. Again, I don't blame the EEOC judges and, no, I do not think it is strictly a pay issue but I do think that lower pay does lead to less incentive sometimes. I think that most EEOC judges, like most MSPB judges, take their jobs very seriously. I think the EEOC, though, does not value its judges as highly as the MSPB and the process suffers for it at times. The AJs at these Agencies, from what little I know, do work hard, strive to get it right and are deserving of the protections of the APA that ALJs have. That the Agencies want to keep the status quo is not surprising. I would hope that incoming ALJs would keep these issues of judicial independence and adjudicatory integrity foremost in their minds as they begin their second career. I know I sound pontifical, but to me its too important not to emphasize.
|
|
|
Post by 71stretch on Aug 9, 2013 12:21:56 GMT -5
MSPB does, in fact, have discovery. It does not have summary judgment procedure, but the issues that it deals with are often at least as complex as the EEOC, and perhaps more complex. MSPB cases are actually often very fact intensive, in my experience, as well. Moving the docket along is one of the judge-like behaviors that I appreciate about the MSPB over many of the EEOC judges that I personally deal with (not all of them, by any means). I have cases that are coming up on their fifth year in my inventory without a hearing at the EEOC. Again, I don't blame the EEOC judges and, no, I do not think it is strictly a pay issue but I do think that lower pay does lead to less incentive sometimes. I think that most EEOC judges, like most MSPB judges, take their jobs very seriously. I think the EEOC, though, does not value its judges as highly as the MSPB and the process suffers for it at times. The AJs at these Agencies, from what little I know, do work hard, strive to get it right and are deserving of the protections of the APA that ALJs have. That the Agencies want to keep the status quo is not surprising. I would hope that incoming ALJs would keep these issues of judicial independence and adjudicatory integrity foremost in their minds as they begin their second career. I know I sound pontifical, but to me its too important not to emphasize.
Absolutely correct, at the federal level or anywhere else where ALJs serve.
|
|