|
|
|
 |
 |
||||||||||||||
 |
| September 23, 2008 DOL Home > OALJ Home > WIA/JTPA/CETA Collection |
|
USDOL/OALJ Reporter OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 800 K STREET, N.W., SUITE 400N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001-8002
Date: November 25, 1996 Case No.: 96-JTP-11
In the Matter of:
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND WELFARE AGENCY,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
The above-captioned matter is before the Office of Administrative Law Judges upon Complainant's request for a hearing under the Job Training Partnership Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1501, et seq., and the regulations issued thereunder at 20 C.F.R. Part 636. On October 8, 1996, this Office received a petition from the Texas Workforce Commission (Texas) to intervene in this matter. No response or objection to this petition has been received. Under applicable regulations, a party has a right to intervene in an action if the administrative law judge determines that:
29 C.F.R. § 18.10(b). The Texas Workforce Commission, the state's administrative entity for the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), states that a resolution of the state of California's appeal may affect Texas's entitlement to present and future grants and that it could provide the court with useful information involving the award of JTPA grants. Texas does not offer, however, how it could contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings or how its interests are not adequately protected by the existing parties. [Page 2] In addition, this Office received a Notice of Intent to Participate from the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation with the Attorney General's office in Maryland (Maryland). This Notice included none of the information outlined above. The Department of Labor of the State of New York (New York) has indicated its desire to participate in this matter, and the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation of the State of Nevada (Nevada), one of the grant recipients, "is extremely interested in protecting [its] Grant." The parties are also informed of 29 C.F.R. § 18.12, which provides that
Requests for intervention that are denied shall be treated as requests for participation as amicus curiae. See 29 C.F.R. § 18.10(d). Accordingly, if Texas, Maryland, New York, and Nevada wish to further pursue their right of intervention, they are each ORDERED to show cause, within twenty days of the date of this Order, (1) how a final decision could directly and adversely affect it; (2) how it could materially contribute to the proceedings; and (3) how its interests are not adequately protected by the existing parties. Any party opposing the intervention of any of these parties may object within forty days of the date of this Order. SO ORDERED.
JOHN M. VITTONE
JMV/cy 1This Order was originally issued on October 31, 1996; however, Texas was inadvertently omitted from the service sheet. Thus, I am reissuing this Order, effective this date, to allow Texas the proper opportunity to respond. In addition, notices of intent to participate have also been received from the States of Maryland, New York, and Nevada, and the Order to Show Cause has been amended to require a response from these parties as well.
|
||||||||
| ||||||||
