Oral Arguments in that ALJ Quota lawsuit
Dec 10, 2014 15:30:43 GMT -5
moopigsdad and sealaw90 like this
Post by Propmaster on Dec 10, 2014 15:30:43 GMT -5
I was surprised not to see info posted here already, which makes me wonder if I missed some agreement or directive not to discuss it here. But if so, an admin please delete this post.
I saw a report on the oral arguments in the7th Circuit yesterday in the AALJ lawsuit (which I don't remember the name of, and which wasn't included in what I saw, which in and of itself makes that suspect). In any case, it appears Judge Posner is a panelist for the appeal, and he is the harshest critic of ALJ workproduct in existence at this time, I think. Not boding well for the union.
I leave you all to independently go to the 7th Circuit site to listen to the arguments, or to research a summary. I will share this tidbit, which may be of interest to potential and sitting ALJs, and which I am excerpting from a website called "Courthouse News," which I also leave you to search for on your own due to my lack of confidence in being responsible for including redirecting links in my post, and I disclaim all errors of trasncription to that site:
---------------
The 7th Circuit heard oral arguments in the case today, with Social Security Judge Marilyn Zahm representing her ALJ colleagues.
"This case is about judicial integrity across the entire system - not working conditions," Zahm began.
"But the bottom line is your clients are employees of the executive branch, not the third branch of government," said Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Kanne.
Zahm replied that "the rule requires judges to render favorable decisions or cut corners."
Judge Posner's hounding of Zahm did not let up until her time ended. "How does having to do 500 cases interfere with judicial integrity?" he asked. "Some jurisdictions have a higher workload. Why do you think they've done this?"
"For political expediency," Zahm replied. "To move a certain number of cases. It's perverting..."
"It only perverts it if judges refuse to work harder," said Posner. "What's the evidence that judges can't work harder?"
"There are no studies showing that a judge can do this and still comply with the law," Zahm said. "The agency asserts it should take us only two and a half hours to hear a case, including reading the record and holding a fair hearing. I don't think it's a question of working harder."
"How many cases have they been handling?" Posner asked.
"It varies..."
"No, you answer my question!"
"Three to four hundred."
"And what's the problem with adding 25 percent?"
Zahm spoke of her own experience as a judge with Social Security, an agency she described as cash-strapped and judge-short.
Echoing the lower court's finding, Posner disputed that the quota was anything more than a changed working condition. He hammered Zahm with hypothetical changes the administration might make.
"What if they raised hours to 10 per day?" he asked.
When Zahm replied that this would not affect the outcome of cases, he was unforgiving. "That's wrong," he said. "You're saying they'll compel you to rubber stamp. That's wrong too. That's not Social Security's goal. They've always been cheap actually."
I saw a report on the oral arguments in the7th Circuit yesterday in the AALJ lawsuit (which I don't remember the name of, and which wasn't included in what I saw, which in and of itself makes that suspect). In any case, it appears Judge Posner is a panelist for the appeal, and he is the harshest critic of ALJ workproduct in existence at this time, I think. Not boding well for the union.
I leave you all to independently go to the 7th Circuit site to listen to the arguments, or to research a summary. I will share this tidbit, which may be of interest to potential and sitting ALJs, and which I am excerpting from a website called "Courthouse News," which I also leave you to search for on your own due to my lack of confidence in being responsible for including redirecting links in my post, and I disclaim all errors of trasncription to that site:
---------------
The 7th Circuit heard oral arguments in the case today, with Social Security Judge Marilyn Zahm representing her ALJ colleagues.
"This case is about judicial integrity across the entire system - not working conditions," Zahm began.
"But the bottom line is your clients are employees of the executive branch, not the third branch of government," said Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Kanne.
Zahm replied that "the rule requires judges to render favorable decisions or cut corners."
Judge Posner's hounding of Zahm did not let up until her time ended. "How does having to do 500 cases interfere with judicial integrity?" he asked. "Some jurisdictions have a higher workload. Why do you think they've done this?"
"For political expediency," Zahm replied. "To move a certain number of cases. It's perverting..."
"It only perverts it if judges refuse to work harder," said Posner. "What's the evidence that judges can't work harder?"
"There are no studies showing that a judge can do this and still comply with the law," Zahm said. "The agency asserts it should take us only two and a half hours to hear a case, including reading the record and holding a fair hearing. I don't think it's a question of working harder."
"How many cases have they been handling?" Posner asked.
"It varies..."
"No, you answer my question!"
"Three to four hundred."
"And what's the problem with adding 25 percent?"
Zahm spoke of her own experience as a judge with Social Security, an agency she described as cash-strapped and judge-short.
Echoing the lower court's finding, Posner disputed that the quota was anything more than a changed working condition. He hammered Zahm with hypothetical changes the administration might make.
"What if they raised hours to 10 per day?" he asked.
When Zahm replied that this would not affect the outcome of cases, he was unforgiving. "That's wrong," he said. "You're saying they'll compel you to rubber stamp. That's wrong too. That's not Social Security's goal. They've always been cheap actually."
