Subpart B
Yes — proceedings follow the Office of Administrative Law Judges’ rules of practice and procedure unless this part says otherwise. See 1978.107(a), which directs that hearings be conducted in accordance with the rules codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title. These rules set out filing deadlines, motion practice, and other procedural steps the ALJ will use.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns the case to an ALJ and the ALJ must notify the parties of the hearing’s day, time, and place. See 1978.107(b). Expect written notice from the ALJ that includes scheduling details.
Hearings must commence expeditiously unless there is a showing of good cause or the parties agree otherwise. See 1978.107(b). If you need a delay, be prepared to show why the delay is necessary (good cause) or get agreement from the other party.
Hearings are conducted de novo on the record, meaning the ALJ makes an independent decision based on the hearing record rather than simply reviewing the prior investigator’s findings. See 1978.107(b). Parties should be prepared to present evidence and testimony at the hearing.
Yes — administrative law judges have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing. See 1978.107(b). If the ALJ limits discovery, you should explain why additional discovery is needed and document how it is relevant and proportional to the issues.
If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections are consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted. See 1978.107(c). Consolidation avoids duplicate proceedings and allows one ALJ hearing to resolve the contested issues for both parties.
No — formal rules of evidence do not apply, but the ALJ will use rules or principles designed to produce the most probative evidence. See 1978.107(d). Expect a flexible approach where relevance and probative value matter more than strict technical admissibility.
Yes — the ALJ may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious. See 1978.107(d). This means repetitive testimony or documents that do not help prove the issues can be kept out to keep the hearing focused.
Yes — the hearing schedule may be delayed if the parties agree to the postponement. See 1978.107(b). If you and the other side both consent, the ALJ will typically honor that agreement, though the ALJ may still require a formal request or explanation.
The party seeking a delay must demonstrate good cause to justify postponing the hearing. See 1978.107(b). In practice, good cause can include reasons like medical emergencies, unavoidable scheduling conflicts, or newly discovered evidence that requires time to investigate; provide documentation to support the request.
The detailed procedures are in the Office of Administrative Law Judges rules of practice and procedure, codified at subpart A of part 18; this is the framework used unless this part provides otherwise. See 1978.107(a). Consult those OALJ rules for specifics on motions, filings, and courtroom practice.
No — consolidation combines the objections into a single hearing but does not prevent a party from raising any valid objection to the findings or order. See 1978.107(c). Each party should prepare to present the evidence and arguments relevant to their objections.
The ALJ will apply rules or principles aimed at producing the most probative evidence and may weigh relevance, credibility, and usefulness when deciding what to admit. See 1978.107(d). Offer clear, direct evidence tied to the disputed issues and be ready to explain why a document or witness is important.