U.S. Department of Labor
Office of Administrative Law Judges
50 Fremont Street, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone (415) 744-6577
Fax (415) 744-6569
DATE:October 7, 1998
CASE NO:98-CAA-10
98-CAA-11
In the Matter of
TOD ROCKEFELLER, Complainant,
v.
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY and
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondents.
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER FOR CLARIFICATION OF
ORDER BARRING COUNSEL FROM FUTURE APPEARANCES
On September 28, 1998, the undersigned issued an Order Barring Counsel
from Future Appearances before the undersigned. On page 5 of said Order, the undersigned stated
in the last paragraph, "[t]he document for which the OSC was issued, Objection to ALJ's
Conduct of Proceedings and Motion for Leave to File Motion for Judicial Recusal, speaks for itself,
was not addressed by Counsel in his response, and he did not request a hearing on this matter."
For purposes of clarification, such statement was intended to convey that he did not request a hearing
before the undersigned in his Response to the Order to Show Cause, re: barring Counsel from future
appearances pursuant to 29 C.F.R. Sections 18.34(g)(3) and 18.36.
I acknowledge that in paragraph 8 of Complainant's Motion for Judicial
Recusal, Counsel did request a hearing "on all pending motions and the Court's Show Cause
order before an independent Administrative Law Judge, and for reassignment of this case to another
Administrative Law Judge." However, this request is deficient for various reasons. Counsel
is not entitled to a hearing before another Administrative Law Judge under 29 C.F.R. Section
18.34(g)(3). In addition, 29 C.F.R. Section 18.31, upon which the Motion for Judicial Recusal
relies, and which was incorporated by reference in paragraph 24 of the Counsel's Response to Order
to Show Cause, does not authorize a hearing before another Administrative Law Judge. Further, the
undersigned did not address Counsel's Motion for Judicial Recusal in the Order of September 28,
1998, as it was a non-responsive document to the Order to Show Cause.
