|
|
Post by Pixie on Jan 13, 2020 12:48:00 GMT -5
One of our members asked that I post this for her:
Would you mind posting these questions anon on my behalf? The position is a four-year term, with possible renewal. I'm not sure I want to give up what I have for a 4-year job, knowing we have an election coming up this fall and possibly a new administration a year from now.
1. What is a typical work week for the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board members?
2. What pay scale are they on?
3. If someone takes an appointment to a board for a 2-year or 4-year term, what is their typical career path after their term expires? Does their department typically find room for them? Is it easy to find another job?
4. Is there a willingness to allow these types of panel members work remotely for some/most/all of their work? In other words, would it require a relocation to DC for the duration of the appointment?
5. Is this the type of position that is likely to end with a new administration?
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenixrisingALJ on Jan 13, 2020 14:05:00 GMT -5
One of our members asked that I post this for her: Would you mind posting these questions anon on my behalf? The position is a four-year term, with possible renewal. I'm not sure I want to give up what I have for a 4-year job, knowing we have an election coming up this fall and possibly a new administration a year from now. 1. What is a typical work week for the Department of Labor Administrative Review Board members? 2. What pay scale are they on? 3. If someone takes an appointment to a board for a 2-year or 4-year term, what is their typical career path after their term expires? Does their department typically find room for them? Is it easy to find another job? 4. Is there a willingness to allow these types of panel members work remotely for some/most/all of their work? In other words, would it require a relocation to DC for the duration of the appointment? 5. Is this the type of position that is likely to end with a new administration? 1- workweek depends on the number of decisions pending. It is typically a straight 40 hour work week. 2- they are administrative appeals judges- so that is their rate( which is same as for ALJs)- it should be in the announcement so check there. 3. Some terms are extended... some retire - for those wanting an additional term there is no guarantee... it depends on workload and the Secretary as to whether your term is extended. No there is no obligation to find you a position when your term ends. 4- DOL allows telework - between 1-2 days per work week. However I would note that many agencies have pulled back on telework. DOL has issued a memo stating managers are limited to 1 telework day per week. I do not know if that applies to appeal judges. No they will not agree to remote work for majority of your work week ( there are plenty of applicants so they don’t need to do so). The Board decides collaboratively- so there is an expectation that you can be present in the office for discussions and to attend presentations on law by the staff attorneys 5) no it does not end with a new administration- however if your term ends and a new Secretary is in place then s/he may want their own appointees and not renew your appointment. |
|
|
|
Post by tsatty on Jan 13, 2020 23:29:56 GMT -5
About 1.5 to 2 years ago, former Secretary Acosta issued an administrative directive that tried to take any partisanship out of the ARB appointments (DOL has three administrative appeals boards; ARB is one of them—the directive applies to all three). I can’t locate it currently, but I have seen it before—it’s buried deep in the DOL webpage. Anyway, if I recall, DOL has a panel of 6 people, including lawyers and non-lawyers, who review all applications and rate them. The top few candidates’ resumes are given to the deputy secretary, who recommends one to the Secretary. The Secretary gets the recommended selection, along w the other top few candidates. While the Secretary and the deputy are political appointees, the rating folks are not. While political gamesmanship can happen, in theory, it’s supposed to be apolitical.
The job is located in DC, and I think, as a practical matter, there is no way of getting out of living in DC for the job (or at least living in DC during the week).
Some ARB judges stick around awhile, but I think there has been a lot of turnover there in recent years, so I there may be a bit of a backlog due to simply lacking a quorum for a while. I don’t know what former ARB members do, but I’d imagine there are plenty of private sector opportunities for a former ARB judge. I don’t know that it’s easy to transition into DOL’s solicitor’s office from there. DOL also has a decent number of ALJs.
|
|
|
|
Post by tsatty on Feb 28, 2020 0:54:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by SPN Lifer on Feb 28, 2020 19:10:22 GMT -5
The Attorney General recently did so with respect to the EOIR BIA.
Of course, IJs are not ALJs, so this is a very weak precedent.
|
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Feb 29, 2020 10:18:17 GMT -5
The Attorney General recently did so with respect to the EOIR BIA. Of course, IJs are not ALJs, so this is a very weak precedent. I am very curious why members of the immigration attorney bar do not object to IJ adjudication of immigration cases on the grounds that: 1.Immigration cases/hearings are formal proceedings "on the record," 2. Such cases are required to be adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges, 3. Immigration cases are being adjudicated by non-ALJs, and 4. Even if immigration cases can be legally adjudicated by non-ALJs, the respondents' due process rights are violated because the adjudicator is biased and/or not a neutral decisionmaker due to the political pressure from the Head of the Department or the President. ( www.govexec.com/management/2019/08/trump-administration-expands-power-political-appointee-over-career-immigration-judges/159453/ ). Issue presented: Can the head of an executive agency legally commandeer the administrative adjudication of formal cases/hearings within that agency without violating either the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process protections or the Administrative Procedure Act? it seems like this is the exact fight the current Admin wants—to get the constitutionality of the APA before the USSC. |
|
otter
New Member
Posts: 16 
|
Post by otter on Feb 29, 2020 10:23:19 GMT -5
He arguably does not have the legal authority give himself this alleged authority, and he is not an ALJ so it violates the APA. I don’t have a labor law background so I’m probably missing something, but isn’t the Board exercising the authority the Secretary delegated to it in the first place? Are you saying there’s something that bars him from partly undoing that delegation or using his statutory authority to review or decide a case? I think the APA gives the Secretary the authority to preside over hearings, see Section 556(b), and, on review, all the authority he would have had if he’d presided at the hearing, Section 557(b). |
|
otter
New Member
Posts: 16
|
Post by otter on Feb 29, 2020 10:28:26 GMT -5
I am very curious why members of the immigration attorney bar do not object to IJ adjudication of immigration cases on the grounds that: 1.Immigration cases/hearings are formal proceedings "on the record," 2. Such cases are required to be adjudicated by Administrative Law Judges, 3. Immigration cases are being adjudicated by non-ALJs, and 4. Even if immigration cases can be legally adjudicated by non-ALJs, the respondents' due process rights are violated because the adjudicator is biased and/or not a neutral decisionmaker due to the political pressure from the Head of the Department or the President. ( www.govexec.com/management/2019/08/trump-administration-expands-power-political-appointee-over-career-immigration-judges/159453/ ). Issue presented: Can the head of an executive agency legally commandeer the administrative adjudication of formal cases/hearings within that agency without violating either the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process protections or the Administrative Procedure Act? it seems like this is the exact fight the current Admin wants—to get the constitutionality of the APA before the USSC. For points 1 - 3, the APA doesn’t apply to immigration adjudication. On point 4, you probably have to get past Withrow v. Larkin. But if you are right, we should all just go home because then we probably can’t have administrative adjudication at all. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeKnot on Mar 10, 2020 6:44:29 GMT -5
For some context, "Prior to the review board’s establishment, labor secretaries personally issued all adjudications. Reich and his team believed that was an inefficient use of a labor chief’s time. They also wanted to transfer that power to a judicial panel so cases wouldn’t be judged purely through a political lens, said Harris, who went on to become deputy and acting labor secretary under President Barack Obama. Similar administrative boards exist inside agencies throughout the government, including at Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration."
The Secretary has the legal authority, even if he is not an ALJ, to review the lower adjudications. He has delegated his authority to the Board to review the decisions made by the ALJs. The Board Members are not ALJs either - they are Board Members. The Secretary could eliminate the Board entirely and have the sole authority to review ALJ adjudications.
|
|
|
|
Post by fingerscrossed on Oct 8, 2020 14:09:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by neufenland on Oct 8, 2020 18:31:10 GMT -5
It's also a four-year term appointment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pixie on Oct 9, 2020 8:30:25 GMT -5
I have merged the new thread on this topic into the extant thread. Pixie
|
|
