California OAH special education order · July 2, 2015

Order Denying Challenge to Administrative Law Judge

OAH Case No. 2015010467 · ALJ June R. Lehrman

OAH denied Parents' bid to disqualify ALJ Marian Tully for discrimination, finding that complaints about her hearing management, witness questioning, time limits, and evidentiary rulings fall within ALJ discretion and show no actual bias.

Denied Disqualifying a judge for cause

This case went to decision

Buena Park School District v. Student: Buena Park School District loses bid to defend assessments and reassess without consent after failing to provide Romanian-language plans. (2015)

Summary

After a multi-day due process hearing, Parent asked OAH to disqualify ALJ Marian Tully and appoint a new judge, saying they felt discriminated against based on rulings at the April 24, 2015 prehearing conference and the June 16, 2015 hearing. The objections concerned how the ALJ handled witness and exhibit lists, questioning of witnesses, the time allotted, and evidentiary rulings. Presiding ALJ June R. Lehrman denied the challenge because disqualification for cause requires a factual showing of actual bias, and these matters are within the ALJ's discretion.

Why it matters

Disagreeing with how a judge ran the hearing or ruled on evidence is not enough to remove the judge. A disqualification request needs specific facts showing actual bias, prejudice, or a personal interest in the case.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11425.40
  • Gov. Code, § 11512, subd. (b)
  • Gov. Code, § 11513
  • American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 464
  • Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017
  • Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152

People named in the order

  • Marian Tully, Administrative Law Judge (subject of challenge)
  • June R. Lehrman, Presiding Administrative Law Judge

Topics

disqualification alj bias hearing conduct evidentiary rulings due process hearing

Full text of the order

Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Matter of:

BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2015010467 v. ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.

On July 2, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed a challenge seeking to disqualify Administrative Law Judge Marian Tully from deciding this case, and seeking the appointment of a new ALJ.

An ALJ may be disqualified for bias, prejudice, or interest in the proceeding. (Gov.

Code, § 11425.40, subd. (a).) The following, without further evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest, are not by themselves grounds for disqualification: 1) the ALJ is or is not a member of a racial, ethnic, religious, sexual, or similar group and the proceeding involves the rights of that group; 2) the ALJ has experience, technical competence, or specialized knowledge of, or has in any capacity expressed a view on, a legal, factual, or policy issue presented in the proceeding; or 3) the ALJ has as a lawyer or public official participated in the drafting of laws or regulations or in the effort to pass or defeat laws or regulations, the meaning, effect, or application of which is in issue in the proceeding. (Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (b).)

In other words, to disqualify an ALJ for cause, a factual showing of actual bias or prejudice is required. (See American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. New Motor Vehicle Board (1986)

186 Cal.App.3d 464, 472.) For example, in order to be a basis for disqualification, the financial interest of the ALJ in the outcome of the case must be direct, personal, and substantial, rather than slight. (Haas v. County of San Bernardino (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1017, 1031.) Similarly, personal involvement in the case by the ALJ or familial connections may warrant disqualification based solely on the probability of bias. (See Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1170-1173.) However, in most other cases, including claims of bias arising from the hearing officer’s personal or political views, disqualification will not occur absent a showing of actual bias. (Haas, supra, at p. 1032.)

DISCUSSION

Parents state that they felt discrimination during the multi-day due process hearing recently conducted by ALJ Tully, citing specific rulings made at the prehearing conference on April 24, 2015 and the hearing on June 16, 2015. Parents’ allegation appears to be based upon Parents' understanding of the evidence and exhibits admitted in the case, and upon their objection to the manner in which the ALJ directed the witness and exhibit lists, the questioning of witnesses, and the allotment of time. All such matters regarding the conduct of the hearing, questioning of witnesses, time allotted, and evidentiary rulings, are within the ALJ’s discretion and do not constitute grounds for an allegation of discrimination. (Gov.

Code, §§ 11512, subd. (b) & 11513.) The challenge is denied.

ORDER

Parents’ challenge of ALJ Marian Tully is denied.

DATE: July 2, 2015

/ S/

JUNE R. LEHRMAN

Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings