Key Senator calls for federal investigation into Branstad Administration’s efforts to harass and improperly influence judges

Contents:

News release
Statement by Senator Dotzler
Dotzler letter to US Labor Department
Supporting documents
News Conference Video: http://youtu.be/OLszpVG_pB0

March 19 News Release

Senator Bill Dotzler. Click for larger version.

State Senator Bill Dotzler, co-chair of the Joint Economic Development Subcommittee, presented evidence at a Statehouse news conference focusing on the actions of Iowa Workforce Development Director Teresa Wahlert. Dotzler said the evidence shows that Wahlert is improperly pressuring Administrative Law Judges to rule in favor of employers and against employees in unemployment cases.

“In a legal dispute, everyone should be treated fairly and with respect,” said Dotzler. “That’s not happening. Branstad political appointee Teresa Wahlert has put herself directly in charge of Administrative Law Judges and is improperly—and I believe illegally—pressuring these judges to rule in favor of employers and against Iowa workers.”

In Iowa Workforce Development, there are federally funded administrative law judges who rule on disputes between employers and employees regarding unemployment claims. Under normal conditions, these judges are overseen by a chief Administrative Law Judge.

Dotzler released a letter he has sent to U.S. Department of Labor that calls on federal investigators to determine if Wahlert is violating federal laws requiring the fair and impartial administration of unemployment insurance benefits. In February, the Department of Labor concluded a similar review of Maine’s system for handling unemployment claims.

In Dotzler’s letter, he listed a number of specific concerns about Director Wahlert’s actions. They include:

Director Wahlert created a hostile work environment for Administrative Law Judges who did not follow her pro-employer, anti-employee philosophy.

Director Wahlert, a political appointee, became the direct supervisor of the Administrative Law Judges after eliminating the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s position.
Director Wahlert directed the Administrative Law Judges to be involved with “outreach to community and business leaders” and required them to develop “tip sheets” to help employers win cases, actions which would interfere with their ability to impartially judge cases. Wahlert did not require anyone to create similar “tip sheets” to help employees in similar cases.

Dotzler drew attention to a similar case in Maine, where a federal review found that actions by conservative Governor Paul LePage put fair hearings at risk. In that case, US Department of Labor Regional Administrator Holly O’Brien wrote that:

“Under federal law, unemployment compensation appeal hearings must be fair and impartial, both in fact and appearance. Political interference or undue political influence, even in appearance, can potentially destabilize the appeals process, undermine the credibility of a state’s unemployment compensation program, and generate additional workload which may result in delays in decisions or benefit payments.”

end

Dotzler prepared statement

Iowa workers and Iowa employers deserve state government services that are delivered in a fair and impartial manner. That’s one of the things that makes our state and our country great.

Unfortunately, we have a problem in our state.

I believe the Branstad Administration has and continues to violate federal laws requiring the fair and impartial administration of unemployment insurance benefits.

In the last few weeks, I started to hear disturbing things about the fairness and impartiality of the legal system involved in Iowa unemployment claims.

Senate staff and I met with a number of administrative law judges.

Here’s what we have learned so far.

In Iowa Workforce Development, there are federally funded administrative law judges who rule on disputes between employers and employees regarding unemployment claims.

Under normal conditions, these judges are overseen by a chief Administrative Law Judge.

According to a Department of Labor letter regarding a similar problem in Maine:

“Under federal law, unemployment compensation appeal hearings must be fair and impartial, both in fact and appearance. Political interference or undue political influence, even in appearance, can potentially destabilize the appeals process, undermine the credibility of a state’s unemployment compensation program…”

That’s the problem in Iowa.

Teresa Wahlert, a Branstad political appointee, is the Director of Iowa Workforce. She is pressuring the judges to rule in favor of employers and against employees.

Her actions include:

• Demanding tallies on how judges were ruling, specifically how often they ruled for employers and how often for employees.

• Director Wahlert demanded judges create “tip sheets” to help employers win their cases.

• Most significantly, she fired the chief judge and has put herself directly in charge of the administrative law judges.

Here’s what I think should be done.

First, I’m asking for the US Department of Labor to help by investigating if federal dollars are being misused.

Second, I’m asking Governor Branstad to ask Director Wahlert to resign. Enough is enough. It is time for her to go.

Letter to US Department of Labor and supporting documents

March 19, 2014

Mr. Gay Gilbert, Administrator

Office of Unemployment Insurance Employment and Training Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Mr. Gilbert:

I am writing to request that the Department of Labor begin an immediate investigation into improper actions by Iowa Workforce Department Director Teresa Wahlert. I believe she has and continues to violate federal laws requiring the fair and impartial administration of unemployment insurance benefits.

Through her actions, Director Wahlert has sent a clear message to her employees that Administrative Law Judges in Iowa Workforce Development are expected to rule in favor of employers when ruling on claims for unemployment compensation benefits.

In summary, I am especially concerned about:

Director Wahlert having created a hostile work environment for Administrative Law Judges that do not abide by her pro-employer, anti-employee philosophy. In recent weeks, I have had several conversations with current and former Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judges about the Director and the hostile work environment.
Director Wahlert is directly interfering in the independence of Administrative Law Judges. I have received clear evidence supporting this claim. I have also read a letter from Department of Labor, Regional Administrator Holly O’Brien, to Commissioner Paquette from Maine. In that letter Ms. O’Brien stated that “when pressure, real or perceived, is exerted upon first-level appeals hearing officers to rule in favor of one side or the other, the persons or entities exerting that pressure are interfering with the decision about an individual’s rights.” Instead of upholding the integrity of an impartial hearings process, Director Wahlert has exerted undue pressure on the Administrative Law Judges.

Director Wahlert eliminated the position of Chief Administrative Law Judge after the person in that position refused her request to tally up all the decisions by each Administrative Law Judge and determine how often they ruled in favor of the employers and how often they ruled in favor of the employees. (I have not enclosed evidence but the former Chief ALJ is willing to testify.)

Director Wahlert increased her efforts to put undue pressure on Administrative Law Judges by becoming their direct supervisor after eliminating the Chief Administrative Law Judge’s position. There was no effort to insulate the Administrative Law Judges from Director Wahlert, a political appointee.

As a result, it was easier for Director Wahlert to directly intervene in day-to-day activities of Administrative Law Judges. For example, Director Wahlert sent an email to Administrative Law Judges as part of a fishing expedition for gossip and sensational details about decisions that had not yet been finalized. Director Wahlert’s email stated: “What are the cases on tongues past week? And by whom?” (I have enclosed a copy of the email.)

Director Wahlert asked an Administrative Law Judge to develop “tip sheets” for employers to guide employers how to win cases. There were no similar requests by Director Wahlert to ask Administrative Law Judges to develop “tip sheets” to help employees in such cases. For example, one Administrative Law Judge was asked to do a “tip sheet” to help employers discharge employees for off-duty conduct that is not work related. (It should be noted that the Iowa Workforce Development’s website already features a 44-page document entitled “Unemployment Insurance Handbook for Employers.”)
Director Wahlert directed the Administrative Law Judges to be involved with “outreach to community and business leaders.” Some Administrative Law Judges believe this would interfere with their ability to impartially judge cases. (I have enclosed emails on this issue.)
Director Wahlert changed policies and practices that previously insulated Administrative Law Judges from other activities within Iowa Workforce Development. For example, Wahlert initiated a new policy to require Administrative Law Judges to participate in general Workforce Development staff meetings and in other Iowa Workforce Development programs that potentially interfere with the independence that Administrative Law Judges must maintain.
Director Wahlert requires one of the team leader Administrative Law Judges to send regular emails to all other Administrative Law Judges containing a list of Administrative Law Judges and the number of cases heard and decisions filed each week. This score keeping has resulted in a hostile and intimidating work environment according to some Administrative Law Judges.

The bottom line is that Director Wahlert is intentionally interfering with the neutrality and basic fairness of the appeals system in an effort to favor employers over employees. Federal law prohibits such interference.

Thank you for considering this request. I would be more than willing to provide any further information that might be helpful.

Sincerely

Bill Dotzler

State Senator