29 C.F.R. § 1979.107

Hearings

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

(a) Except as provided in this part, proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and procedure for administrative hearings before the Office of Administrative Law Judges, codified at subpart A, of 29 CFR part 18.

(b) Upon receipt of an objection and request for hearing, the Chief Administrative Law Judge will promptly assign the case to a judge who will notify the parties of the day, time, and place of hearing. The hearing is to commence expeditiously, except upon a showing of good cause or unless otherwise agreed to by the parties. Hearings will be conducted as hearings de novo, on the record. Administrative law judges shall have broad discretion to limit discovery in order to expedite the hearing.

(c) If both the complainant and the named person object to the findings and/or order, the objections will be consolidated and a single hearing will be conducted.

(d) Formal rules of evidence shall not apply, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most probative evidence shall be applied. The administrative law judge may exclude evidence which is immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly repetitious.

[68 FR 14107, Mar. 21, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 1788, Jan. 11, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 522 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 522 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (a)-(b); id. at § 1979.”

Bombardier, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, 145 F. Supp. 3d 21 (D.D.C. 2015). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (b). Administrative law judges have broad discretion to limit discovery to expedite the hearing.”

Barker v. Admin. Review Bd., 302 F. App'x 248 (5th Cir. 2008). “29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (d) (2008). 5 . Allen v.”

Murray v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 237 P.3d 565 (Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (a)-(b); id. at § 1979.”

Nicholas Servs., LLC; & Corr Flight S., Inc. v. United States Dep't of Labor, Lori Chavez-Deremer, in her offic (N.D. Miss. 2026). “29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (b). Any party who objects to the findings of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) “must file a written petition for review with the Administrative Review Board [(“ARB”)].”

Vernon Jones v. LABR (7th Cir. 2014). “But he does not explain how these witnesses or documents would have helped his case.”

Murry v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. (9th Cir. 2008). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1979.107 (a)-(b); id. at § 1979.”

Jones v. United States Dep't of Labor, 556 F. App'x 535 (7th Cir. 2014). “Jones next asserts that the administrative hearing was unfair because the company refused his request to turn over unspecified documents and make available five of its employees as witnesses. But he does not explain how these witnesses or documents would have helped his case.”

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.