AALJ v OPM

[jrh83]

Attached is a copy of the amended complaint downloaded from PACER.

[Harry]

Unless I am mistaken, there is no difference in this complaint and the one previously circulated that disparaged the Agency Attorneys as being unqualified, having prior notice, and taking off from work to complete the application.  Am I missing something?

[barkley]

I think there was some concern that the complaint that got circulated around was a hoax.  By getting it off PACER, we know it is real.

Also, I saw a version that did not have the three outside attorneys as named plantiffs.  The PACER version does.  By filing a joint complaint, the AALJ gains standing on the issue.   

I wish some of the ALJs would ask their association why the AALJ is spending their dues money litigating an issue for outside, non-member attorneys.

[jrh83]

Lots of AALJ members are asking just that, loudly!

[Bob]

I will reserve final judgment until I wade through the entire complaint, and I say this as someone who has a great deal of inherent respect for the unusual and good role of protection played by AALJ, but respectfully, it appears the AALJ may have moved into murky waters as far as how this complaint furthers its historic role.