29 C.F.R. § 18.12

Proceedings before administrative law judge

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Designation. The Chief Judge designates the presiding judge for all proceedings.

(b) Authority. In all proceedings under this part, the judge has all powers necessary to conduct fair and impartial proceedings, including those described in the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556. Among them is the power to:

(1) Regulate the course of proceedings in accordance with applicable statute, regulation or executive order;

(2) Administer oaths and affirmations and examine witnesses;

(3) Compel the production of documents and appearance of witnesses within a party's control;

(4) Issue subpoenas authorized by law;

(5) Rule on offers of proof and receive relevant evidence;

(6) Dispose of procedural requests and similar matters;

(7) Terminate proceedings through dismissal or remand when not inconsistent with statute, regulation, or executive order;

(8) Issue decisions and orders;

(9) Exercise powers vested in the Secretary of Labor that relate to proceedings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges; and

(10) Where applicable take any appropriate action authorized by the FRCP.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2025 · leading case: Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lindsey Gulden v. Exxon Mobil Corp, 119 F.4th 299 (3rd Cir. 2024). “§ 556 (c); 29 C.F.R. § 18.12 (b). Complementing those authorities is an opinion by the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board explaining that, after a SOX 11 claimant sues in federal district court, the agency “no longer ha[s] jurisdiction to enter any order in the…”

Horizon Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Albert Jackson (11th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “; see also 29 C.F.R. § 18.12 (b). The LHWCA provides that, when a party asserting a work- ers’ compensation claim “unreasonably refuses to submit .”

Compunnel Software Grp. Inc. v. Gupta (2d Cir. 2021). “” 29 C.F.R. § 18.12 (b). Gupta has not pointed to any provision of the INA or its implementing regulations that limits the ALJ’s (or ARB’s) authority to dismiss a case pursuant to a valid settlement agreement.”

Mitchell v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. (E.D. Pa. 2020). “22 She concluded that even if she were to consider it, the letter was “insufficient to establish good cause for Complainant’s failure to appear for the scheduled prehearing conference in this matter” because it “fail[ed] to convey that circumstances existed beyond the control of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.