Effective Dates: 02/23/2015 - Present Previous | Next

Last Update: 2/23/2015 (Transmittal I-3-98)

HA 01320.025 Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges

Renumbered from HALLEX section I-3-2-25

A. General

If, in conjunction with a request for review, the Appeals Council (AC) receives an allegation of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, discrimination, or its equivalent (allegations) about an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the AC reviews the allegation under the abuse of discretion standard in Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law (HALLEX) manual HA 01330.002. See also 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470, and Social Security Ruling (SSR) 13-1p, Titles II and XVI: Agency Processes for Addressing Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (ALJs).

As explained in HA 01320.025 B below, while the AC evaluates all allegations under this standard of review and addresses certain allegations in the action documents, it also may refer certain allegations to the Division of Quality Service (DQS) for handling.

Additionally, the AC may independently identify ALJ conduct that warrants referral to DQS, even when no allegation or request for review is submitted. These procedures are outlined in HALLEX HA 01320.025 C.

B. Processing Allegations

1. Identifying an Allegation

a. Responsibility to Identify Allegations

The first Office of Appellate Operations (OAO) employee to identify an allegation is responsible for referring it as follows:

  • •

    AC staff preparing a case for an analyst will refer the case to the branch chief (BC) immediately, regardless of whether the case is ready to be worked. The BC will confirm the presence of the allegation and follow the procedures in HALLEX HA 01320.025 B.3.

  • •

    An analyst will notify the OAO Executive Director's Office (EDO) of the allegation when the case is placed in “final complete” status and the action document has been drafted.

  • •

    An appeals officer (AO) or administrative appeals judge (AAJ) will notify the EDO or return the case to the assigned analyst to make the notification.

b. Determining if Statement is an Allegation

Many allegations are easily identified in a request for review or in other correspondence submitted in the record. For example, common allegations against ALJs include statements such as:

  • •

    “The ALJ is biased against me [individually].”

  • •

    “The ALJ is prejudiced because the ALJ did not find me disabled.”

  • •

    “The ALJ is biased against claimants who receive workers compensation benefits or unemployment benefits.”

  • •

    “The ALJ shows prejudice toward women.”

Some allegations do not use the specific terminology set forth in SSR 13-1p. If a statement in the record suggests that an ALJ's conduct is improper or unethical, the procedures in this section apply. When the statement is unclear and an analyst is uncertain whether a particular allegation needs to be referred, the analyst should consult with an AAJ.

NOTE: 

When an analyst observes possible non-compliance with a policy or procedure that may warrant feedback to the hearing operation, but does not warrant a referral to DQS under these provisions, see HALLEX HA 01320.035.

2. Analyst's Workup of the Case

The analyst must analyze the case, prepare a draft of the action document, and place the case with the adjudicator in “final complete” before referring the allegation under HALLEX HA 01320.025 B.3.

a. Case Analysis

The analyst will follow usual procedures in making a recommendation to the AC, using the applicable procedures in HALLEX HA 01320.000. The analyst must evaluate the allegations, review the entire record, and, when appropriate, audit the hearing recording. An audit is always necessary when an allegation refers to specific conduct at the hearing.

In doing so, the analyst will consider whether the record establishes an abuse of discretion by the ALJ, pursuant to 20 CFR 404.970 and 416.1470. See also HALLEX HA 01330.002. The analyst must also determine whether there is a basis to remand to another ALJ under 20 CFR 404.940 and 416.1440.

In the Appeals Review Processing System (ARPS) analysis, the analyst will make a recommendation about whether the ALJ abused their discretion. However, the analyst must not include findings about the allegation of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, discrimination, or the equivalent. Instead, the analyst will only determine whether the record establishes an abuse of discretion by the ALJ.

For example, it would be appropriate to state, “The claimant alleges the ALJ was biased, but the record does not support an abuse of discretion.”

In contrast, it would not be appropriate to state, “The ALJ showed bias against the claimant, and the record supports an abuse of discretion.”

b. ARPS Entries

In every case involving an allegation, the analyst will add the contention of “Unfair Hearing Allegation” from the drop-down menu (found in the “Case Analysis – Procedural” section, under the heading “Contentions”).

NOTE: 

The ARPS entry merely documents the allegation. It does not signify that the analyst, AO, or AAJ agrees with the allegation.

If the analyst recommends that the AC grant review due to an abuse of discretion, the analyst will:

  • •

    select Abuse of Discretion (found in the “Case Analysis – Analysis Outcome” section, under the heading “Analysis Conclusion”); and

  • •

    use “Remarks” to discuss any other related issue(s).

c. Action Documents

All action documents involving an allegation will:

  • •

    acknowledge the allegation(s) (by direct quotation when possible) of unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, or discrimination;

  • •

    not include any statement that the AC agrees or disagrees with the allegation(s);

  • •

    state that the AC considered the allegation(s) under the abuse of discretion standard; and

  • •

    address whether or not the AC found an abuse of discretion, using the applicable language below.

NOTE: 

The document will not say that the AC referred the allegation to another component.

d. No Abuse of Discretion - Denial or Dismissal

If the AC determines that the ALJ did not abuse their discretion, and that no other basis exists to grant review, or if the AC issues a dismissal, the following language, with the exception in the NOTE below, must be included in the action document:

With your request for review, you alleged that the Administrative Law Judge [quote the specific allegation]. Under our rules described below, we considered your allegations solely as they relate to your case for abuse of discretion. After reviewing the entire record, [including the hearing recording,] we determined that the Administrative Law Judge did not abuse their discretion and none of the other reasons in our rules existed to review your case. We have completed our action on your request for review.

NOTE: 

If the AC issues a dismissal based on standing only, then the dismissal order should not contain the language noted above.

e. No Abuse of Discretion - Remand or Decision

If the AC determines the ALJ did not abuse their discretion but another basis exists to grant review, the applicable language below must be added in the action document.

For remands and decisions, the following language applies:

Additionally, the claimant alleged that the Administrative Law Judge [quote the specific allegation]. The Appeals Council considered the allegations solely as they related to abuse of discretion. After reviewing the entire record, [including the hearing recording,] the Appeals Council determined that the Administrative Law Judge did not abuse their discretion in this case. The Council found, however, another reason to grant review.

For interim actions, the following language applies:

With your request for review, you also alleged that the Administrative Law Judge [quote the specific allegation]. Under the rules explained above, we considered your allegations solely as they relate to your case for abuse of discretion. After reviewing the entire record, [including the hearing recording,] we have determined that the Administrative Law Judge did not abuse their discretion in your case. We found, however, another reason to review your case.

NOTE: 

Except in unusual circumstances, if the AC does not find an abuse of discretion, a remand order need not direct that a different ALJ handle the case. When the AC does direct the case to a different ALJ based on an allegation, the order should specifically identify the conduct or language that justifies the reassignment.

f. Abuse of Discretion - Remand or Decision

If the AC determines the ALJ did abuse their discretion, the document should cite the abuse of discretion standard as well as any other applicable standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence).

For remands and decisions, select “Finding an abuse of discretion” in the applicable template and insert the following language:

Additionally, the claimant alleged that the Administrative Law Judge [quote the specific allegation]. The Appeals Council considered the allegations solely as they relate to the abuse of discretion. After reviewing the entire record, [including the hearing recording,] the Appeals Council has determined that the Administrative Law Judge abused their discretion because [cite specific reasons for the determination].

For interim actions, select “Finding an abuse of discretion” in the applicable template, and insert the following language:

With your request for review, you also alleged that the Administrative Law Judge [quote the specific allegation]. Under our rules explained above, we considered your allegations solely as they relate to your case for abuse of discretion. After reviewing the entire record, [including the hearing recording,] we determined that the Administrative Law Judge abused their discretion because [cite specific reasons for the determination].

NOTE: 

Ordinarily, the AC will direct that a different ALJ handle the case on remand when it finds an abuse of discretion, regardless of whether the claimant specifically requested such a reassignment. However, this is not required. There may be circumstances in which an AAJ determines that it is unnecessary to direct the case to a different ALJ on remand.

3. Procedures to Refer an Allegation

a. Notify the EDO

Send an email notification to the EDO at ^DCARO OAO with the subject line: “Allegation of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination.” Format the email as follows:

Claimant's First and Last Names [John Q. Public], SSN: xxx-xx-xxxx – [insert the location of the allegation – for example, Exhibit 10B, page 3 or dated January 24, 2013]. The claimant (or representative) alleges, [insert a direct quote of the allegation – for example, “The ALJ was prejudiced against me because of my prior drug use.”]. (Insert ALJ Name).

If not available in an electronic claim file, the analyst will attach a copy of the draft AC action document to the notification email.

NOTE: 

The email should only contain the information listed above. It should not include any language suggesting the ALJ's conduct was or was not unfair, prejudiced, partial, biased, constituted misconduct or discrimination, or the equivalent. If it was necessary to audit the hearing recording, identify where in the hearing recording the alleged conduct appears.

b. Document Allegation in ARPS

The employee who sends the notification to the EDO will document it in the “Remarks” section in ARPS (found in the Worksheet tab) by creating a “Special Attention” remark. The ARPS “Remarks” annotation will read, “Allegation of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination sent to the Executive Director's Office by email on xx/xx/xx.”

If the referral is made by an analyst, the analyst should send the referral only after completing the action document(s) and placing the case with the adjudicator in “final complete.” Do not hold the case after notifying the EDO of the allegation. Continue to process using normal procedures.

C. AC Identifies ALJ Conduct that Warrants Referral to DQS

If an analyst or AO believes that an ALJ may have engaged in egregious conduct, which is defined as conduct that shows unfairness, prejudice, partiality, bias, misconduct, discrimination, or the equivalent, the analyst should bring that case to the attention of an AAJ, even when no allegation is submitted. In these situations, the AAJ will determine whether a referral to the EDO is appropriate.

An AAJ will not refer allegations under this process if the AAJ determines that the ALJ abused their discretion, but did not engage in egregious conduct. If the AAJ finds the ALJ abused their discretion and may have engaged in egregious conduct, the AAJ will refer the allegation. The AAJ may refer the allegation by sending an email to the EDO or by returning the case to the analyst or AO to notify the EDO.

NOTE: 

If an AAJ believes egregious conduct occurred, a denial of the request for review is not appropriate. When an AAJ observes possible non-compliance with policy or procedure at the hearing level that may warrant feedback to the hearing operation but does not warrant a referral to DQS under these provisions, see HALLEX HA 01330.020.

1. Notify EDO

Send an email notification to the EDO at ^DCARO OAO with the subject line: “AC Referral for Possible Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination.” Format the email as follows:

Claimant's First and Last Names [John Q. Public], SSN: xxx-xx-xxxx – [insert the location of the allegation – for example, conduct at hearing or language in decision]. AC Member referral for [insert a description of the egregious conduct – for example, the ALJ refused to allow the claimant to testify or cross-examine witnesses]. (Insert ALJ Name).

NOTE: 

The email should only contain the information listed above. It should not include any language suggesting the ALJ's conduct was unfair, prejudiced, partial, biased, constituted misconduct or discrimination, or the equivalent. If it was necessary to audit the hearing recording, identify the location of the alleged conduct in the hearing recording.

If not available in an electronic claim file, the analyst will attach a copy of the draft AC action document and any other relevant materials to the notification email.

2. Document the Allegation in ARPS

The person sending the referral to the EDO will make the following annotation in the “Remarks” section in ARPS (found in the “Worksheet” tab):

AC Referral for Possible Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination sent to the Executive Director's Office by email on xx/xx/xx.

NOTE: 

Cases involving an allegation referral should not be held. After all notification procedures are followed, the case should continue to be processed under normal procedures.

3. Action Documents

If the AC denies review or dismisses the request for review, the denial notice or the dismissal order should not include any language regarding the referral to the EDO.

If the AC grants review, in part based on an abuse of discretion, the document will cite the abuse of discretion standard as well as any other applicable standard of review (e.g., substantial evidence). Insert the following language in the action document when “abuse of discretion” is selected as a basis for review.

The Appeals Council determined that the Administrative Law Judge abused their discretion because [cite specific reason for the determination – for example, the ALJ did not allow the claimant to testify].

NOTE: 

It is important to remember that although the action document will explain why the AC determined that there appears to be an abuse of discretion in the case, the AC will not state that the ALJ's conduct was unfair, prejudiced, partial, biased, constitutes misconduct or discrimination, or the equivalent. Additionally, the document will not say that the AC referred the allegation to another component.

D. EDO Referrals to DQS

1. General Process

EDO staff will monitor the ^DCARO OAO mailbox for email notifications regarding allegations and AC member referrals. Each notification will be reviewed to determine if a referral to DQS is warranted. EDO staff will prepare a list of referrals to DQS and will send it to DQS at least once a month.

Following the email referral to DQS, the AC will have no further involvement with the ALJ complaint investigation process or recommendations about counseling, training, mentoring, or disciplinary action for the ALJ.

2. When EDO Refers an Allegation to DQS

Under SSR 13-1p, the EDO will refer the following allegations to DQS:

  • •

    ALJ's egregious conduct that an AAJ identified, even if the file contains no such allegation.

  • •

    Allegations that fall outside of the AC's jurisdiction, such as an allegation that an ALJ violated personnel regulations or policies.

  • •

    Allegations that an ALJ shows general bias or a pattern of bias or misconduct against a group or particular category of claimants, such as “The ALJ is biased against claimants who receive workers compensation benefits or unemployment benefits,” or “The ALJ shows prejudice toward women.”

The EDO will not generally refer allegations that relate solely to the ALJ's conduct and that are adjudicated under the abuse of discretion standard. For example, the following allegations would not be referred:

  • •

    “The ALJ is biased against me [individually].”

  • •

    “The ALJ is prejudiced because the ALJ did not find me disabled.”

To Link to this section - Use this URL:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/2501320025
HA 01320.025 - Allegations of Unfairness, Prejudice, Partiality, Bias, Misconduct, or Discrimination by Administrative Law Judges (I-3-2-25) - 02/23/2015
Batch run: 04/20/2025
Rev:02/23/2015