|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Mar 21, 2021 9:43:18 GMT -5
“ Union Newsletter
March 20, 2021
Explosive Whistleblower Allegations Against Saul & Black
In the article titled, Trump-appointed Social Security Administration officials test Biden's ability to forge new agenda, an explosive IG complaint against Commissioner Saul, Deputy Commissioner Black and "Office of Hearing Operations leadership [Ms. Gruber and Chief Judge Nagle]" was reported:
"The whistleblower asserted that this demand to fire judges based on positive disability check rulings came from agency leadership, namely Saul and Black.
'I am concerned about the apparent acquiescence of the Office of Hearings Operations leadership to Trump Administration demands to bring norm-shattering illegal pressure on ALJs to reduce the ratio of disability grants to rejections,' wrote the whistleblower in one of their complaints."
The momentum for Commissioner Saul and Deputy Commissioner Black's removal seems to be growing.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Ace Midnight on Mar 21, 2021 10:16:03 GMT -5
To quote a great American, "I'm skeptical."
|
|
|
|
Post by Legal Beagle on Mar 21, 2021 13:48:38 GMT -5
I can say that in 12 years, I have NEVER seen any such pressure, and my office has ALJs from both ends of the spectrum. The only constant has been to get the cases out the door.
|
|
salvo
Full Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by salvo on Mar 21, 2021 14:07:30 GMT -5
news.yahoo.com/trump-appointed-social-security-administration-officials-test-bidens-ability-to-forge-new-agenda-090005885.htmlFull article here. From the article, it looks like a meeting in February 2020 where the administration, Saul, and Black tried to pressure, and OHO management, to their credit, pushed back (though the IG complaint says that OHO capitulated eventually). If the allegations are true, it looks like the pandemic and the attendant circumstances is probably the only thing that prevented this from going through, which...yikes. I too have never felt any pressure at OHO (besides the constant "move cases move cases move cases chicken deboner"), but I can't say that in all my time as an ALJ it has never happened. I have been obliquely threatened as a state ALJ over the way I decided certain types of cases (though my immediate supervisors always had my back). So, I'm not as skeptical over whether this could have happened. Hell, per the article, this did happen before.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsox1 on Mar 21, 2021 15:45:45 GMT -5
I can say that in 12 years, I have NEVER seen any such pressure, and my office has ALJs from both ends of the spectrum. The only constant has been to get the cases out the door. I don’t think that TPTB would be that direct about it. They likely would not say “you are fired because you pay too many claims or stop paying so many claims.” They start with things like “AC look at FF’s now“. Which moves to “This Judge is not policy compliant look at all the remands let’s do a focused review.” You get the picture. I doubt local mgt would be involved except to the extent that they would pass along talking points provided by the RO. |
|
|
|
Post by roymcavoy on Mar 21, 2021 17:41:15 GMT -5
To me, this story has to be viewed through the lens of Lucia, et al. If there was any confusion in anyone’s mind regarding why the prior administration wanted the ability to terminate ALJs without cause, this should clear that confusion up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ba on Mar 21, 2021 19:54:40 GMT -5
To me, this story has to be viewed through the lens of Lucia, et al. If there was any confusion in anyone’s mind regarding why the prior administration wanted the ability to terminate ALJs without cause, this should clear that confusion up. And why they dragged their heels and ignored the SGs advice to ratify all ALJ appointments... |
|
|
|
Post by generalsherman on Mar 21, 2021 20:59:14 GMT -5
I have no doubt this is the sort of thing the previous administration would have tried to do. However, that article makes it sound like the IG complaint was based on a rumor, which, well, I don’t have to talk about its probative value with a bunch of lawyers😂.
|
|
|
|
Post by jagvet on Mar 21, 2021 23:21:24 GMT -5
Biden fired Sharon Gustafson, EEOC General Counsel who refused a "request" to resign after January 20 because her term wasn't up. Three hours later, she was out-and-out fired.
I suspect they will let Saul stay, at least for a while, to avoid having to deal with Social Security (Third-rail and all that), but I think enough people dislike Black to make Saul can him. Just a SWAG.
|
|
|
|
Post by steelrain on Mar 22, 2021 7:41:33 GMT -5
I can say that in 12 years, I have NEVER seen any such pressure, and my office has ALJs from both ends of the spectrum. The only constant has been to get the cases out the door. I don’t think that TPTB would be that direct about it. They likely would not say “you are fired because you pay too many claims or stop paying so many claims.” They start with things like “AC look at FF’s now“. Which moves to “This Judge is not policy compliant look at all the remands let’s do a focused review.” You get the picture. I doubt local mgt would be involved except to the extent that they would pass along talking points provided by the RO. Exactly. There is NO way that this pressure would have been direct. Let’s not forgot that the Union exposed the Agency hiring of a team of attorneys to just review ALJs and to pursue discipline issues, if I recall correctly these were GS15 positions that would need to be involved in litigation or lose that pay level status. I concur that but for the pandemic we would have been hearing of high payers being disciplined for any number issues - none of which have been “you are paying too many cases.” But the end result would have been the same. Also this would have been coordinated at the national level and not involve local management. Just my .02 cents |
|
