1981 Subpart B
Proceedings are conducted under the Office of Administrative Law Judges rules of practice and procedure at subpart A, part 18 of 29 CFR. The standard states that, except as otherwise provided in part 1981, hearings will follow the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges.
The Chief Administrative Law Judge promptly assigns the case to a judge who notifies the parties of the hearing date, time, and place. The rule requires prompt assignment and notice to parties and that the hearing be scheduled to begin expeditiously unless there is good cause or the parties agree otherwise; see 1981.107(b).
It means the administrative law judge starts the case anew and decides the matter based on the hearing record rather than deferring to prior agency findings. The standard explicitly states hearings will be conducted de novo, on the record, which requires the judge to consider the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing when reaching a decision; see 1981.107(b).
Yes. The administrative law judge has broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing. The rule explicitly authorizes judges to restrict discovery to keep proceedings moving promptly; see 1981.107(b).
A showing of good cause or agreement by the parties is required to delay an otherwise expeditious hearing start. The regulation says hearings are to commence expeditiously except upon a showing of good cause or unless the parties agree to a delay; see 1981.107(b).
If both object, their objections are consolidated and a single hearing is held. The regulation requires consolidation of objections by the complainant and the named person so the issues are resolved in one proceeding; see 1981.107(c).
No, formal rules of evidence do not apply; instead, the judge applies rules or principles to assure production of the most probative evidence. The regulation states formal rules of evidence will not apply but directs judges to exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious; see 1981.107(d).
Yes. The judge may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious to ensure the record focuses on the most probative information. This exclusion authority is stated in the regulation to promote efficient and fair hearings; see 1981.107(d).
Except where part 1981 provides differently, the Office of Administrative Law Judges' rules in subpart A, part 18 govern the procedures for these hearings. In other words, part 18 applies unless part 1981 specifically provides an alternative; see 1981.107(a).
The regulation only requires that the judge notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing; it does not mandate a specific geographic area. The hearing place is set by the assigned judge when providing notice to the parties; see 1981.107(b).
Yes. The regulation allows the hearing to be delayed or scheduling changed if the parties agree to do so. Absent party agreement, a showing of good cause is required for delay; see 1981.107(b).
When both the complainant and the named person object, the regulation provides that their objections will be consolidated and a single hearing conducted; the text does not require an additional motion to consolidate in that specific circumstance. The consolidation is mandatory under 1981.107(c).
Parties should present evidence that is relevant and probative and avoid immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious material because the judge will apply principles that favor the most probative evidence. The regulation encourages focusing on useful evidence rather than following formal evidence rules; see 1981.107(d).
It means the Chief Administrative Law Judge should assign the case to an administrative law judge without unnecessary delay so the assigned judge can notify parties of the hearing schedule. The regulation emphasizes prompt assignment and notice so hearings can commence expeditiously; see 1981.107(b).