Presentation Transcript

1. Findings of Fact in Formal Proceedings (Rulemakings & Adjudications)

   Universal Camera & the Substantial Evidence Test
2. Universal Camera – putting yourself in place of the trial examiner (initial trier of fact) Trial Examiner findings: Despite handshake between Chairman & Weintraub, the latter continued to be angry at what he considered Chairman’s impermissible conduct during their 12/30 altercation Chairman never told Politzer he intended to resign but Politzer told Weintraub that Chairman intended to resign, motivated either by “honest mistake” or by the thought that their quarrel would be forgotten if action was delayed. The resulting belief that Chairman would resign resulted in several week delay between 12/30 incident and Weintraub’s command that Chairman be fired. What evidence supports the trial examiner’s findings in Universal Camera? What detracts? Would you have found the same facts based on this evidence?
3. Acting as a reviewer of another entity’s fact findings – “substantial evidence” What is the appropriate standard of review for findings of fact in situations like Universal Camera? APA – “substantial evidence” standard (APA 706(2)(e)) Why? Because these kinds of NLRB proceedings are “formal” – conducted much like a trial w/ findings of fact We will learn later when such “formal” proceedings are “triggered” under the APA. For now, just know that Sec. 556/557 reqm’ts are “trial-like” Taft-Hartley Act Standard of review in Universal Camera is actually gov’d by the Taft-Hartley Act It is common for organic statutes to contain standards of review which could trump the APA (remember – APA is a default statute) In this case, SCT says that the test was meant to apply the same as the APA – thus, the lengthy analysis of the APA’s history
4. What does “substantial evidence” mean? Before Universal Camera? Common law & Wagner Act (precursor to Taft-Hartley) – “Substantial evidence” means “more than a mere scintilla” “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” What problems arose w/ application of this standard prior to Universal Camera?
5. What does “substantial evidence” mean? After Universal Camera? APA Sec. 706(2)(E): Reviewing court shall . . . set aside agency . . . findings, . . . unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 & 557 . . . [T]he court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party. Taft-Hartley Sec.10(e) – Findings shall be conclusive if “supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole.” How does SCT interpret this? What does it mean? Focus is on “fairness” not “rightness” of finding. A court should not set aside fact finding if there is more than one reasonable reading of the evidence and the agency used one of them. Increased deference might be warranted if agency’s specialized knowledge is integral to the fact finding – but total abdication still inappropriate
6. Acting as a reviewer in Universal Camera – applying “substantial evidence” Assume you are the courts in Universal Camera? Applying the “substantial evidence test,” how do you rule? Note – now there is a conflict between the trial examiner’s findings and the agency’s findings) Which facts/evidence affect your conclusion/analysis?
7. How to treat the trial examiner (aka “ALJ”) under the “substantial evidence” test? How does the SCT treat the trial examiner’s evidence under the substantial evidence test? Does it modify the substantial evidence to take it into account? Is it accorded special deference? How is a reviewer supposed to treat it? Did the SCT get it right on this question?