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:
(1) the final decision could directly and adversely affect the party;
(2) the party may contribute materially to the disposition of the proceedings; and
(3) the party's best interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties.
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
[a] brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only with the written consent of all parties,
or by leave of the administrative law judge granted upon motion, or on the request
of the administrative law judge, except that consent or leave shall not be required
when the brief is presented by an officer of an agency of the United States, or by a
state, territory, or commonwealth. The amicus curiae shall not participate in any way
in the conduct of the hearing, including the presentation of evidence and the
examination of witnesses.
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
Chief Administrative Law Judge
JMV/cy
[ENDNOTES]
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.