|
|
Post by epic0ego on Nov 13, 2013 17:08:48 GMT -5
With all due respect Epic, I am not sure you are totally accurate here. While your point on most ALJs doing non-adversarial cases is accurate, that is only because most ALJs are at SSA. Outside SSA, most, if not all ALJs do adversarial hearings. The Board of Contract Appeals uses "members" who are called "judge." They are neither ALJs nor AJ but frequently referred to as BCA judges. I don't think FDIC, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have any ALJs. The State Department occasionally borrows one from another agency as does MSPB. As far as I know Labor only has ALJs except for the appellate bodies (ARB and BRB). I don't think EEOC has ALJs, just AJs. I am not sure about energy. There are also Hearing Officers in some agencies, as well as Veteran's Judges at VA no offense taken, Chinook. i agree with your points but some of them are quite technical, e.g., some CBCA judges are former ALJs who currently maintain that status. Indeed some of them take APA cases after they retire from the Board. And, yes, most ALJs do adversarial hearings outside of ODAR, but of course, the vast majority of ALJs work at ODAR. I was making the point that the listed agencies have AJ positions that some of the readers on this Board might be interested in looking into, not that they all employed ALJs. But there are indeed, many agencies that employ a mix of AJs and ALJs, as ODAR does. I once compiled a list of all federal agencies that employed ALJs for the ABA. I haven't updated it in years but there were over 20 agencies on the list. |
|
|
|
Post by readywillingable on Nov 14, 2013 0:26:53 GMT -5
Below is a list of Agencies that hire ALJs, followed on the next line by the number of ALJs employed as of December 2010. The list comes from an SSA-OIG report dated February 2013. The last line shows a total of 1,704 ALJs employed government-wide. There are 27 Agencies listed.
Table G–1: Number of Federal ALJs as of December 2010
Social Security Administration
1,448
Department of Health and Human Services
70
Department of Labor
44
National Labor Relations Board
39
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission
19
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
15
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
12
Department of the Interior
11
Department of Homeland Security
7
International Trade Commission
6
Department of Justice
4
National Transportation Safety Board
4
Department of Agriculture
3
Environmental Protection Agency
3
Federal Labor Relations Authority
3
Securities and Exchange Commission
3
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
2
Department of Housing and Urban Development
2
Department of Transportation
2
Federal Maritime Commission
2
Department of Education
1
Federal Communications Commission
1
Federal Trade Commission
1
Office of Financial Institution Adjudication
1
United States Postal Service
1
Merit Systems Protection Board
0
Small Business Administration
0
TOTAL
1,704
|
|
|
|
Post by epic0ego on Nov 14, 2013 8:43:36 GMT -5
many thanks, readywillingable! this is probably an FTE compilation, which is quite definitive. commodity futures trading commission has two ALJ slots (FTEs) but did not back-fill those vacancies when they occurred and instead, just started sending their cases directly to the commission for adjudication. many of these agencies seek experienced ALJs when vacancies occur and do not advertise on USAJOBs. That is not always the case, however, and almost all AJ positions are advertised on USAJOBs.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparent on Nov 14, 2013 22:35:40 GMT -5
Ready-thanks for this. I always wanted to know these numbers, but I was too lazy to figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Nov 15, 2013 8:50:32 GMT -5
Interesting - I always hear ODAR as 90 to 95% - these numbers look more like 85%.
|
|
|
|
Post by JudgeRatty on Nov 15, 2013 8:58:45 GMT -5
Interesting - I always hear ODAR as 90 to 95% - these numbers look more like 85%. I think it is probably still higher since these are numbers "employed" in 2010, and maybe not actual FTEs available. |
|
|
|
Post by robespierre on Nov 15, 2013 10:52:44 GMT -5
Thanks for all the info. I always thought that non-ALJ administrative judges like Board of Veterans Appeals got their jobs through insidership/politics/connections.
If you were going to craft a USAJobs saved search to make sure you got all the relevant job announcements, how would you do it? Just "Judge"?
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 16, 2013 13:28:14 GMT -5
Thanks for all the info. I always thought that non-ALJ administrative judges like Board of Veterans Appeals got their jobs through insidership/politics/connections. If you were going to craft a USAJobs saved search to make sure you got all the relevant job announcements, how would you do it? Just "Judge"? Thanks again. Yes, that is the search that will get you that and all JAG positions as well (obviously). The issue of politics and Agency adjudication is huge. AJs, while oftentimes doing the same work as ALJs are subject to performance reviews and discipline outside of the APA and thus susceptible to political pressure. CFTC is a case in point that essentially abolished their ALJ positions (as did EEOC) while apparently MSPB feels they don't need ALJs. When they have cases that involve ALJs (like the recent spate of furloughs) they borrow ALJs from other agencies. Too many ALJs (IMHO) don't fully suscribe to the reality that the ALJ position is merely a creature of Statute; i.e., the APA--and as such ensure that it is not chipped away. Current litigation involving furloughs is an example. |
|
|
|
Post by maxlaw on Nov 17, 2013 0:50:47 GMT -5
Thanks for all the info. I always thought that non-ALJ administrative judges like Board of Veterans Appeals got their jobs through insidership/politics/connections. If you were going to craft a USAJobs saved search to make sure you got all the relevant job announcements, how would you do it? Just "Judge"? Thanks again. Yes, that is the search that will get you that and all JAG positions as well (obviously). The issue of politics and Agency adjudication is huge. AJs, while oftentimes doing the same work as ALJs are subject to performance reviews and discipline outside of the APA and thus susceptible to political pressure. CFTC is a case in point that essentially abolished their ALJ positions (as did EEOC) while apparently MSPB feels they don't need ALJs. When they have cases that involve ALJs (like the recent spate of furloughs) they borrow ALJs from other agencies. Too many ALJs (IMHO) don't fully suscribe to the reality that the ALJ position is merely a creature of Statute; i.e., the APA--and as such ensure that it is not chipped away. Current litigation involving furloughs is an example. Strongly agree. With respect to ODAR, (at least in my training) they didn't even mention the APA. However, the protections of that statute are essential to ensuring that both the interests of the agency and the claimant's due process rights are properly safeguarded. We are employees of our agencies, yet our loyalty does not belong solely to them. It's not always a comfortable position, and becomes untenable if one is ignorant of the demands of the position imposed by statute and stare decisis. |
|
|
|
Post by decadealj on Nov 17, 2013 13:22:04 GMT -5
SSA in general, and ODAR in particular, have rejected any hint of stare decisis, collateral estoppel or any reasonable interpretation of due process. All one needs to understand SSA is to review its policies and rulings. Please understand SSA is devoted to making its policies trump the APA (which the General Counsel announced 20 years ago was not applicable to SSA ALJs), the SS ACT and any other law, statute or court decision that conflicts with its authority to dictate the hearing process, through its business process and RO structure.
|
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Nov 17, 2013 19:19:20 GMT -5
SSA in general, and ODAR in particular, have rejected any hint of stare decisis, collateral estoppel or any reasonable interpretation of due process. All one needs to understand SSA is to review its policies and rulings. Please understand SSA is devoted to making its policies trump the APA (which the General Counsel announced 20 years ago was not applicable to SSA ALJs), the SS ACT and any other law, statute or court decision that conflicts with its authority to dictate the hearing process, through its business process and RO structure. That may be so. But Circuits (like the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals--which I think is why AALJC filed the lawsuit in Chicago) and of course SCOTUS)---get the last word. Good thing, ya think? |
|
