|
|
Lucia II
May 2, 2019 22:46:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by nothingtoseehere on May 2, 2019 22:46:35 GMT -5
protective custody at a top secret government wharehouse Which is the incorrect letter? (!) They used the letter "a" instead of "o" I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on May 2, 2019 22:52:40 GMT -5
Some things are best left unsaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by natethegreat on May 3, 2019 5:24:48 GMT -5
And more importantly, firing THIS^^^
If you read the solicitor general's opinion in Lucia, the administration devotes a substantial portion of its brief to removal of ALJs and how it should be easier for the executive to remove them
Again, while classification as competitive service might serve the practical purpose of providing additional protections, whether or not a job is classified competitive or excepted does not appear to hinge on whether or not we wish to protect those employees from improper interference/influence. It appears the default is competitive service classification unless it would be "impracticable to examine for the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for the job". It would appear it was determined attorneys are best classified as excepted due to that, not that they simply did not wish to protect us. There appears to be some disconnect then to make ALJs (highly experienced attorneys in a higher level position) competitive unless we are finding their role is so homogeneous across agencies that unlike attorneys, it is practical to test for the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. While it is very possible they classified ALJs competitive just to add extra job protection, it does not appear slapping a "competitive" stamp on a job for that purpose is an accurate use of the competitive/excepted classifications. |
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on May 3, 2019 21:05:03 GMT -5
[T]o make ALJs (highly experienced attorneys in a higher level position) competitive . . . we are finding their role is so homogeneous across agencies that unlike attorneys, it is practical to test for the required knowledge, skills, and abilities. You have your answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on May 4, 2019 11:20:02 GMT -5
Frankly, the "competitive" portion always seems a nod to the Veteran's lobby (Full disclosure: I'm a 10-pointer). It's much easier to quantify a vet's preference to a scaled numerical score than to sort of amorphously consider it with an excepted position. I suppose it will depend on how they accommodate vet preference going forward, but I always thought, particularly post-Adzell, that was a key reason ALJs remained in the competitive service.
As always, I could easily be wrong about that and probably am.
|
|
|
|
Lucia II
May 4, 2019 13:34:38 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by natethegreat on May 4, 2019 13:34:38 GMT -5
Frankly, the "competitive" portion always seems a nod to the Veteran's lobby (Full disclosure: I'm a 10-pointer). It's much easier to quantify a vet's preference to a scaled numerical score than to sort of amorphously consider it with an excepted position. I suppose it will depend on how they accommodate vet preference going forward, but I always thought, particularly post-Adzell, that was a key reason ALJs remained in the competitive service. As always, I could easily be wrong about that and probably am. You are likely onto something. From what I am seeing, it appears the competitive service label has little to do with the actual nature of ALJ work. |
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Jun 5, 2019 11:19:27 GMT -5
Where are the "Lucia II" challenges on the ALJ removal issue procedurally? Have any of them risen to the Circuit Court level yet? Are there even any District Court decisions? How far out are we from the SC potentially considering the issue? (I could look, but I'm lazy, and I bet one of you knows offhand.)
|
|
|
|
Post by foghorn on Jun 5, 2019 11:25:58 GMT -5
note the seminar I posted on the Post Lucia Administrative Law thread
|
|
|
|
Post by unlisted on Jun 5, 2019 11:47:03 GMT -5
Where are the "Lucia II" challenges on the ALJ removal issue procedurally? Have any of them risen to the Circuit Court level yet? Are there even any District Court decisions? How far out are we from the SC potentially considering the issue? (I could look, but I'm lazy, and I bet one of you knows offhand.) Are you asking if ssa claimant reps are raising the objection cited in Lucia II at the SSA disability hearings? I have not heard of one single clmt rep doing that. Actually they have - see this thread: aljdiscussion.proboards.com/thread/5096/lucia-challengesThe Lucia II case is in the Southern District of California is at the Motion to Dismiss stage. 3:18-cv-02692-DMS-JLB Raymond J. Lucia, Companies, Inc. et al v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission et al; Dana M. Sabraw, presiding Thanks. Are there other cases, making the same argument, wending their way up through the courts? |
|
|
|
Post by privateatty on Jun 5, 2019 17:12:07 GMT -5
Frankly, the "competitive" portion always seems a nod to the Veteran's lobby (Full disclosure: I'm a 10-pointer). It's much easier to quantify a vet's preference to a scaled numerical score than to sort of amorphously consider it with an excepted position. I suppose it will depend on how they accommodate vet preference going forward, but I always thought, particularly post-Adzell, that was a key reason ALJs remained in the competitive service. As always, I could easily be wrong about that and probably am. I don't think you're wrong. And I think the agencies are very happy that they don't have to worry about veterans' preference in hiring ALJs now. After all, the application of the point system produced a lot of litigation--chief amongst it Azdell.Now if I (we) are wrong and agencies are giving vets any kind of leg up in hiring at present, I would love to hear it. |
|
|
|
Lucia II
Aug 3, 2020 17:29:31 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Crash Landers on Aug 3, 2020 17:29:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Prrple on Aug 3, 2020 17:49:12 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing this information. |
|
