It all depends.
Firstly, your hypothetical ALJ is scheduling around, but slightly less than, 500 cases per year. Our Chief Judge, without a study, without input from other "stakeholders," and with zero pretense at justification, dictates that 500 dispositions per year is reasonably achievable. When our Chief Judge, and his predecessors, without shame, pulls from his nether regions such a mandate and terms it reasonable and achievable--then he should prove it. Put up or shut up. Simply calling something "reasonable" or "achievable" does not make it so, and it insults the sentient ALJ Corps to refuse to back up the mandates with facts and figures. Does this mean that our Chief Judge is a "bad" Chief Judge?
Too, Our Leader mandates that ALJs schedule 50 hearings per month, and that such number of hearings is "reasonably attainable." Again, this was without a study, without input, and with zero pretense at explanation or justification. Failure to meet this dictate--which has never been temporarily relaxed on account of the pandemic or the shrinking backlog, can result in reproach, discipline, and/or (previously, anyway), the prohibition of telework. Does this mean that our Chief Judge is a "bad" Chief Judge?
When our Chief Judge and the other Powers That Be sign affidavits which are professionally insulting to the ALJ Corps--without nuance, and when seemingly multiple Regional Chief Administrative Law Judges are despised and distrusted by sober and thoughtful subordinate ALJs, does this mean that TPTB are "bad"?
When ALJs have to submit their calendars five months in advance, and then may be jerked around or even denied leave for something truly important that crops up by surprise (full disclosure--it happened to me), is that "bad"? What about transfer lists that aren't worked? I have a colleague (an AA) who requested a temporary hardship transfer to help a sick family member recovering from major surgery--her request wasn't even acted upon.
In at least one entire Region, earlier in the pandemic, teleworking employees were told they had to purchase their own office supplies which they needed to do their day-to-day Agency work--e.g., paper, pencils, pens, etc. IMHO--this is an appalling and illegal policy. I still do not know if it was nation-wide or just in that one Region. Soak the GS-7s and spare the Treasury!
When a minority of claimants outright lie to your face during hearings, and when at least one-third of the lawyer and non-lawyer representatives are incompetent and lazy (at least in my experience; YMMV), does this mean they're "bad"? What about all the claimants who ignore repeated calls from the hearing office, and who fail to return any paperwork, and who sometimes even fail to let us know they've moved, but who gobsmack us by nonetheless showing up at their hearing and complain we haven't updated their file since 2003?
When a Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge and the HOCALJ micromanage and interfere with an ALJ's reasonable management of his or her work--and are, in general, unpleasant people, are they "bad"? When our Agency, in the early days of the pandemic, prioritized dispositions over the lives of its employees, is that "bad"?
Sometimes, there is poor clerical support in an office, poor IT support, poor group supes and other Management folks who do not enforce reasonable, professional expectations, and poor writers. Who can understand a large percentage of the time why our friends at the Appeals Council do what they do?
So, perhaps your hypothetical ALJ is actually doing his or her level best to get their assigned work done without taking on other work. We do not know their particular circumstances. ALJs--who, admittedly, are well-compensated and have wonderful job security and benefits, work in a challenging environment. I expect that most do their utmost every day to impartially and professionally serve the public--in spite of the challenging environment. If, on the other hand, your hypothetical ALJ is just skiiving off, then, yes, he or she is a "bad" ALJ.
Respectfully, Hamster
Tiger
