United States Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges Law Library

NOTICE: THIS INDEX WAS PREPARED BY THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, FOR INTERNAL USE. IT IS NOT AN OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CASES, AND WAS LAST REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 1996.

Return to Table of Topics, 503 Index

When the decision of an administrative law judge is a recommended one, an administrative decision of the Secretary is binding and dispositive of the issue. OFCCP v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co., 80-OFCCP-4, ALJ Rec. Dec., February 6, 1980, slip op. at 2.

In approving a Consent Decree entered into by the parties after the ALJ's recommended decision and order but prior to entry of final order, the Deputy Under Secretary for Employment Standards stated that the ALJ opinion was to be accorded no precedential value or weight. OFCCP v. Roadway Express, Inc., 80-OFCCP-5, Deputy Under Secretary for Employment Standards Final Order Approving Settlement, January 31, 1984.

The process of filing complaints under Section 503 is similar to the process under the National Labor Relations Act and ALJ looked for guidance to a case decided under NLRA to interpret Section 503. OFCCP v. Commonwealth Aluminum, 82-OFC-6, ALJ Rec. Dec., June 29, 1986, slip op. at 9, rev'd on other grounds, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Final Decision and Order, February 10, 1994, remanded sub. nom., Commonwealth Aluminum Corp., v. United States Department of Labor, No. 94-0071-0(c)(W.D. Ky. September 6, 1996).

The Act's precepts are generally construed with reference to Title VII law. OFCCP v. American Commercial Barge Line, 84-OFC- 13, ALJ Rec. Dec., September 30, 1986, slip op. at 21, rev'd on other grounds, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Final Decision and Order, April 15, 1992.

The shifting tripartite burdens of proof established under Title VII, Section 501 and Section 504 apply to cases brought under Section 503. Id.

When there is no case law under the Act on a particular issue, it is appropriate to find guidance under the law of other civil rights statutes. OFCCP v. Yellow Freight Systems, Inc., 82-OFC-2, ALJ Rec. Dec., September 3, 1986, slip op. at 6; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

The shifting, tripartite burdens of proof established under Title VII, Section 501 and Section 504 apply to cases brought under Section 503. Id. at 17; remanded on other grounds, Acting Assistant Secretary Decision and Order of Remand, October 6, 1993; Consent Decree, January 31, 1994.

The burdens of proof to be applied in disputed motive cases arising under the Rehabilitation Act are those enunciated in Dartey v. Zack Company of Chicago, 82-ERA-2, Secretary of Labor's Decision and Order, August 25, 1983, a case which arose under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §585, (1982). OFCCP v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 80-OFCCP-14, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Remand Order, December 8, 1986, slip op. at 5, rev'g and remanding, ALJ Rec. Dec. December 16, 1983, ALJ Rec. Dec. and Order on Remand, June 20, 1989, dismissal aff'd, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Order, November 19, 1991.

The burdens of proof to be applied in a dual or mixed motive case are enunciated in Mt. Healthy School District Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1976). Id. at 6.

The burdens of proof set forth in Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 348 (1981), are inapplicable in dual or mixed motive cases. Id.

A case decided before the complainant was discharged was applicable law even though another case that clarified the first case was decided after the discharge. Id. p. 10.

Issues which were raised in a previous motion and ruled on by an ALJ are law of the case and cannot be raised again. OFCCP v. University of North Carolina, 84-OFC-20, ALJ Rec. Dec., December 12, 1986, slip op. at 1-2, aff'd on other grounds, Acting Secretary of Labor Dec. and Final Administrative Order, January 23, 1989, aff'd on other grounds, Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina v. United States Department of Labor, 917 F. 2d 812 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 916 (1991).

While cases arising under Title VII and the National Labor Relations Act are useful guidelines, they are not binding in Section 503 cases, particularly where specific regulations and policy considerations which require a different result have been adopted. OFCCP v. WMATA, 84-OFC-8, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Order Denying Motion to Amend August 23 Order, November 17, 1989, slip op. at 9, vacated on other grounds, WMATA v. DeArment, 55 EPD ¶40,507 (D.D.C. 1991).

The Assistant Secretary concluded that, similar to Title VII and the National Labor Relations Act, once a complaint is filed OFCCP may seek relief on behalf of individuals found to have been subject to handicap discrimination even if they have not filed a complaint. OFCCP v. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp., 82-OFC-6, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Final Decision and Order, February 10, 1994, at 9; remanded sub. nom. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., No. 94-0071-0 (C), (W.D.Ky. September 6, 1996).

Although there are differences among Sections 501, 503, and 504, there are common elements in each section which are intended to be interpreted uniformly. Id. at 10, n.5; remanded sub. nom. Commonwealth Aluminum Corp. v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., No. 94-0071-0 (C), (W.D.Ky. September 6, 1996).

OFCCP is not bound by an adverse administrative decision of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and may litigate a Section 503 Rehabilitation Act enforcement action involving the same alleged discriminatee and employer who were subjects of the Ohio administrative action, provided that jurisdiction is first established. OFCCP v. Norfolk Southern Corporation, 89-OFC-31, Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards Decision and Order of Remand, October 3, 1995, at 1-2.

The Assistant Secretary held that OFCCP was not collaterally estopped by the administrative decision of a state agency that did not rule on the separate nondiscrimination/affirmative action policy and standards allegations in OFCCP's enforcement action. Id. at 5-6.

A judicial decision of a state administrative agency has a preclusive effect on a subsequent Section 503 proceeding, . . . , only if the federal tribunal has first determined that preclusion itself is consistent with Congressional intent. Id. at 6-7, n.4.

Under traditional estoppel principles OFCCP's absence from the state administrative agency proceeding, and the exclusion of OFCCP's nondiscrimination/affirmative action employment policies, practices and procedures as issues in the state administrative agency proceeding eliminates the possibility of there being a collateral estoppel effect on that portion of this proceeding. Id. at 12-13.