Administrative hearing procedures

Yes. Under 1984.107(a), proceedings are conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A of part 18 of this title, except as otherwise provided in part 1984.

• This means the general procedures in subpart A of part 18 apply unless part 1984 specifically provides a different rule. See the overall part 1984 overview for context.

The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns the case to an ALJ, and that ALJ notifies the parties of the day, time, and place of the hearing, as required by 1984.107(b).

• Expect a prompt assignment and official notice from the ALJ once the Chief ALJ has assigned the case.

The hearing is to commence expeditiously, but it can be delayed if a party shows good cause or the parties agree to a delay, according to 1984.107(b).

• "Expeditiously" means hearings should start promptly; however, the rule allows reasonable postponements for good cause or by mutual agreement of the parties.

Hearings being "de novo on the record" means the ALJ conducts a new hearing and makes findings based on the evidence presented in that hearing record, as stated in 1984.107(b).

• The ALJ does not merely review the previous decision; the case is heard afresh and adjudicated based on the hearing record created before the ALJ.

Yes. Under 1984.107(b), ALJs have broad discretion to limit discovery to expedite the hearing.

• Expect the ALJ to balance the parties' need for information against the need for a timely hearing; discovery may be narrowed if it would unduly delay the proceeding.

If both the complainant and the respondent object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be held, as provided in 1984.107(c).

• If only one party objects, 1984.107(c) does not mandate consolidation; consolidation under this provision specifically requires objections from both parties.

No. Formal rules of evidence do not apply, but the ALJ will apply rules or principles designed to ensure production of the most probative evidence and may exclude evidence that is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious, per 1984.107(d).

• Expect flexible admissibility standards focused on getting reliable, useful information rather than strict technical compliance with formal evidence rules.

It means the ALJ may exclude multiple pieces of evidence that repeat the same point without adding new probative value, because such repetition can waste time and clutter the record, as authorized by 1984.107(d).

• For example, submitting many duplicate documents or having multiple witnesses give identical testimony without new details could be limited or excluded.

The Chief Administrative Law Judge assigns the case to an ALJ who then notifies the parties and is responsible for moving the hearing forward expeditiously, as set out in 1984.107(b).

• Parties can request delays, but the ALJ manages scheduling and will only grant delays for good cause or by agreement of the parties.

You should consult the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings in subpart A of part 18, which apply to these proceedings under 1984.107(a) and the general part 1984 overview for context.

• Subpart A of part 18 contains the detailed procedural rules the ALJ follows unless part 1984 provides a different rule.

Yes. Because formal rules of evidence do not apply, hearsay may be admitted if it is probative, but the ALJ may still exclude it if it is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious, under 1984.107(d).

• Admission of hearsay will depend on its relevance and probative value and on whether admitting it would prejudice or unduly burden the proceeding.