|
|
Post by rose1022 on Jul 14, 2017 23:43:36 GMT -5
Yeah, I think you captured what I intended by "less prestigious" in your own answer. Take a look at my follow up comment a few back as well. I think its a great job, that's why I am a colleague of yours. There is some grunt work/admin work that you have to do. No "bench" to preside from or robe to wear, and you get to know experience the full panoply of government conference rooms across the bureaucracy for your hearings (or VTC), so that's all I meant by "less prestigious". i |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Jul 14, 2017 23:48:17 GMT -5
I think it depends what EEOC office you are in. In mine we have a dedicated hearings room that is set up like a courtroom. At the last NJC training session we had, they recommended that we all wear robes but nothing like that has been implemented yet. I'm hoping that the upcoming federal sector regs revamp will have some positive changes, like having us subject to the Admin Procedures Act. That will make a big difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Aug 3, 2017 11:21:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Aug 3, 2017 12:15:45 GMT -5
I know many of us are focusing on SSA ALJ hiring, but as often comes up on this board, there are other less prestigious (but nonetheless good) judge positions in the government. One that often comes up on the board is the Administrative Judge (Attorney-Examiner) positions at the EEOC. Current opening in Charlotte, NC, and I have it on good authority there will be more positions around the country opening up in the next couple weeks. link (EDIT: Just noticed that this is EEOC internal only, but Keep watching for the subsequent postings for external hires) Job goes up to GS-14. Source: Me, current EEOC AJ For non-EEOC people, too? And would you need to have an extensive employment discrimination background, or might general admin law suffice? I've worked adjudication in the federal government for over a decade and am a 14, but it's not in that field. It's certainly a very interesting area of the law, though, and I'd jump at the opportunity if it came up. |
|
|
|
Post by lucy on Aug 3, 2017 12:38:59 GMT -5
I know many of us are focusing on SSA ALJ hiring, but as often comes up on this board, there are other less prestigious (but nonetheless good) judge positions in the government. One that often comes up on the board is the Administrative Judge (Attorney-Examiner) positions at the EEOC. Current opening in Charlotte, NC, and I have it on good authority there will be more positions around the country opening up in the next couple weeks. link (EDIT: Just noticed that this is EEOC internal only, but Keep watching for the subsequent postings for external hires) Job goes up to GS-14. Source: Me, current EEOC AJ For non-EEOC people, too? And would you need to have an extensive employment discrimination background, or might general admin law suffice? I've worked adjudication in the federal government for over a decade and am a 14, but it's not in that field. It's certainly a very interesting area of the law, though, and I'd jump at the opportunity if it came up. I put in an application for that a couple of years ago while awaiting the reopening of the ALJ exam, and it totally got lost in a black hole. Never heard anything at all back from it, though it still appears on Voldemort. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 9, 2017 11:29:38 GMT -5
An EEOC AJ opening for Milwaukee office just posted today. Go to USAJobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 9, 2017 11:32:13 GMT -5
For non-EEOC people, too? And would you need to have an extensive employment discrimination background, or might general admin law suffice? I've worked adjudication in the federal government for over a decade and am a 14, but it's not in that field. It's certainly a very interesting area of the law, though, and I'd jump at the opportunity if it came up. I put in an application for that a couple of years ago while awaiting the reopening of the ALJ exam, and it totally got lost in a black hole. Never heard anything at all back from it, though it still appears on Voldemort. I think it will depend on the particular EEOC office and what they are looking for. I've seen attorneys hired in Legal with litigation experience but not much employment law experience. Don't hesitate to apply if you are interested. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 9, 2017 13:43:05 GMT -5
Another EEOC AJ position for Washington DC just posted. Go to USAJobs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ssa on Aug 9, 2017 13:46:59 GMT -5
Another EEOC AJ position for Washington DC just posted. Go to USAJobs. I searched USAJobs for "EEOC" and didn't see these postings. But when I searched for "administrative judge," many jobs appeared (although I still did not find the EEOC AJ jobs), including one posted today (a 14-15) for the MSPB: www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/476609100 |
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 9, 2017 13:57:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by gary on Aug 10, 2017 6:09:22 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 7:18:08 GMT -5
This EEOC thread and AJ hiring into same is very interesting in light of the current ongoing federal case in the 2nd Circuit; Zarda v. Altitude Express et al. 15-3775.
If you are considering position with the EEOC I would highly recommend that you read this entire and current case before proceeding. There is quite a bit of chest thumping going on between the EEOC and the USDOJ under the current US Attorney General.
Summary: The US via the Attorney General enforces Title VII protections for federal employees as does the US EEOC for private employees. Thus the United States as a whole enforces Title VII protections for both federal and private employees. In this case the US EEOC properly, as per federal statute, sought to enforce the Title VII provisions against a private employer.
Now this is where it gets very twisted.
The very same United States has now stepped into the same case via the current Attorney General and filed an Amicus Brief arguing against itself; i.e. the US EEOC.
Yes you read that correctly.
In fact the US DOJ has now gone so far as to argue in its brief for the United States against the United States that the EEOC (including its employees, judge, etc) "is not speaking for the United States and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade."
Yes, AJ's and EEOC, have just received their own chicken deboner classification.
Tread with caution. |
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Aug 10, 2017 7:33:39 GMT -5
This EEOC thread and AJ hiring into same is very interesting in light of the current ongoing federal case in the 2nd Circuit; Zarda v. Altitude Express et al. 15-3775.
If you are considering position with the EEOC I would highly recommend that you read this entire and current case before proceeding. There is quite a bit of chest thumping going on between the EEOC and the USDOJ under the current US Attorney General.
Summary: The US via the Attorney General enforces Title VII protections for federal employees as does the US EEOC for private employees. Thus the United States as a whole enforces Title VII protections for both federal and private employees. In this case the US EEOC properly, as per federal statute, sought to enforce the Title VII provisions against a private employer.
Now this is where it gets very twisted.
The very same United States has now stepped into the same case via the current Attorney General and filed an Amicus Brief arguing against itself; i.e. the US EEOC.
Yes you read that correctly.
In fact the US DOJ has now gone so far as to argue in its brief for the United States against the United States that the EEOC (including its employees, judge, etc) "is not speaking for the United States and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade."
Yes, AJ's and EEOC, have just received their own chicken deboner classification.
Tread with caution.
I have practiced in this area and a bit more nuance is helpful. Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex (gender), or national origin. In the 2nd Circuit case, a homosexual individual brought a discrimination case based solely up sexual orientation. Within the past few years, EEOC has taken the position that sexual orientation is a subset of sex (gender) based upon sexual stereotyping ("you don't act like a typical man/woman"). DOJ has taken the position that since Title VII doesn't identify sexual orientation as a protected class, it is it for Congress, not the courts, to add it.
IMHO, while the EEOC position has some merit and works well in the hyper-effeminate male or super-butch female fact pattern, it becomes a bit more difficult when the person doesn't display any of gay stereotypes that play out in comedy in TV or movies. Likewise, DOJ's position is that since the statute doesn't say sexual orientation, the courts shouldn't read that into it. Both positions have some merit and this will be a difficult case for the courts to decide.
As an aside, culturally, EEOC has long ignored court decisions they did not like. Anyone who practices in this area in the administrative forum knows to cite to their (EEOC's) opinions and not the local Circuit Court.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2017 7:47:23 GMT -5
Yes, but the point is not the merit of the underlying suit but the US's chicken deboning of its very own EEOC/AJ's.
What will be interesting is that on appeal to the US Sct, the US Solicitor General argues only for the United States.
Who is the United States here?
The US DOJ?
The US EEOC?
Subtle murmurings I am getting from inside EEOC is this is first step by TPTB toward future desired elimination of EEOC/AJs.
|
|
|
|
Post by sealaw90 on Aug 10, 2017 8:02:23 GMT -5
And what would they be replaced with, ALJs?
|
|
|
|
Post by desert2beach on Aug 10, 2017 10:59:54 GMT -5
Yes, but the point is not the merit of the underlying suit but the US's chicken deboning of its very own EEOC/AJ's. What will be interesting is that on appeal to the US Sct, the US Solicitor General argues only for the United States. Who is the United States here? The US DOJ? The US EEOC? Subtle murmurings I am getting from inside EEOC is this is first step by TPTB toward future desired elimination of EEOC/AJs. Perhaps I am missing something, but I'm not sure what you mean by "chicken deboning." It sounds as if you are equating DOJ taking an adverse position to EEOC as undermining their authority. As I understand it, DOJ is the official law firm of the US government and that statute authorizes their opinion to trump other opinions. I'm not commenting on whether that is good or not, just the way things are.
I don't know anything about elimination of EEOC AJs and would pose sealaw's question as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by prospect on Aug 10, 2017 11:05:42 GMT -5
Yes, but the point is not the merit of the underlying suit but the US's chicken deboning of its very own EEOC/AJ's. What will be interesting is that on appeal to the US Sct, the US Solicitor General argues only for the United States. Who is the United States here? The US DOJ? The US EEOC? Subtle murmurings I am getting from inside EEOC is this is first step by TPTB toward future desired elimination of EEOC/AJs. Yeah, I think you are completely misinterpreting Zarda's impact on the EEOC, especially as some sort of threat to the AJs. Zarda is a fight over the whether TVII encompasses sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC and DOJ are now at odds over that interpretation; an issue you that will likely be decided by SCOTUS. I cannot see how this decision impacts AJs in any manner unless and until SCOTUS rules regarding sexual orientation coverage under TVII, or the EEOC Commissioner's change the EEOC's position, the AJs will continue interpreting TVII to cover sexual orientation. Nevertheless, the idea that this particular case has any bearing on the future existence of AJs is ludicrous. |
|
|
|
Post by acttwo on Aug 10, 2017 12:55:50 GMT -5
This EEOC thread and AJ hiring into same is very interesting in light of the current ongoing federal case in the 2nd Circuit; Zarda v. Altitude Express et al. 15-3775.
If you are considering position with the EEOC I would highly recommend that you read this entire and current case before proceeding. There is quite a bit of chest thumping going on between the EEOC and the USDOJ under the current US Attorney General.
Summary: The US via the Attorney General enforces Title VII protections for federal employees as does the US EEOC for private employees. Thus the United States as a whole enforces Title VII protections for both federal and private employees. In this case the US EEOC properly, as per federal statute, sought to enforce the Title VII provisions against a private employer.
Now this is where it gets very twisted.
The very same United States has now stepped into the same case via the current Attorney General and filed an Amicus Brief arguing against itself; i.e. the US EEOC.
Yes you read that correctly.
In fact the US DOJ has now gone so far as to argue in its brief for the United States against the United States that the EEOC (including its employees, judge, etc) "is not speaking for the United States and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade."
Yes, AJ's and EEOC, have just received their own chicken deboner classification.
Tread with caution. Eeeshhh! <heavy sigh> Thanks for the heads up. As I have said before, started before the MSPB and ended up in front of EEOC a few times [yeah, they loved me back in my old agencies...I think they called me the Angel of Death or somesuch...] Anyway, I recall having a great deal of respect for the EEOC judges I appeared before. And while my client agencies were not ideal in their behavior, I always felt I got just the right amount of leeway, namely none when against pro se folks. Maybe going off thread here, but I have always thought that as a fed, I needed to remember I had a number of duties. First to my client, of course, but as a prosecutor/enforcement counsel, I knew I was getting taxpayer dollars and I had to be sure that everything I did was in the interest of justice and transparent. Prosecute, not persecute and to have some common sense and common decency. Decades later, I see it's still a hard standard, but one I still cling to. If ever I am put in the spot of the decider, any prestige would come from knowing I had achieved that standard. And I must say, reading the board, everyone on this board would achieve that same ideal, I know. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 10, 2017 15:49:32 GMT -5
Another EEOC AJ position for Washington DC just posted. Go to USAJobs. I searched USAJobs for "EEOC" and didn't see these postings. But when I searched for "administrative judge," many jobs appeared (although I still did not find the EEOC AJ jobs), including one posted today (a 14-15) for the MSPB: www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/476609100Search for "Attorney Examiner" - that is the official job series title for the position. |
|
|
|
Post by rose1022 on Aug 10, 2017 15:55:18 GMT -5
This EEOC thread and AJ hiring into same is very interesting in light of the current ongoing federal case in the 2nd Circuit; Zarda v. Altitude Express et al. 15-3775.
If you are considering position with the EEOC I would highly recommend that you read this entire and current case before proceeding. There is quite a bit of chest thumping going on between the EEOC and the USDOJ under the current US Attorney General.
Summary: The US via the Attorney General enforces Title VII protections for federal employees as does the US EEOC for private employees. Thus the United States as a whole enforces Title VII protections for both federal and private employees. In this case the US EEOC properly, as per federal statute, sought to enforce the Title VII provisions against a private employer.
Now this is where it gets very twisted.
The very same United States has now stepped into the same case via the current Attorney General and filed an Amicus Brief arguing against itself; i.e. the US EEOC.
Yes you read that correctly.
In fact the US DOJ has now gone so far as to argue in its brief for the United States against the United States that the EEOC (including its employees, judge, etc) "is not speaking for the United States and its position about the scope of Title VII is entitled to no deference beyond its power to persuade."
Yes, AJ's and EEOC, have just received their own chicken deboner classification.
Tread with caution. Eeeshhh! <heavy sigh> Thanks for the heads up. As I have said before, started before the MSPB and ended up in front of EEOC a few times [yeah, they loved me back in my old agencies...I think they called me the Angel of Death or somesuch...] Anyway, I recall having a great deal of respect for the EEOC judges I appeared before. And while my client agencies were not ideal in their behavior, I always felt I got just the right amount of leeway, namely none when against pro se folks. Maybe going off thread here, but I have always thought that as a fed, I needed to remember I had a number of duties. First to my client, of course, but as a prosecutor/enforcement counsel, I knew I was getting taxpayer dollars and I had to be sure that everything I did was in the interest of justice and transparent. Prosecute, not persecute and to have some common sense and common decency. Decades later, I see it's still a hard standard, but one I still cling to. If ever I am put in the spot of the decider, any prestige would come from knowing I had achieved that standard. And I must say, reading the board, everyone on this board would achieve that same ideal, I know. With regard to the Zarda case, the good news is that the EEOC is not backing down and is sticking to it's position. There is also other federal cases that agree with the EEOC's position. So we will see what happens. I suspect this could be a Supreme Court case if there is not already a case in the Court's pipeline to address the issue. |
|
