Source: http://openjurist.org/998/f2d/581/omaha-tribe-of-nebraska-v-united-states-department-of-labor
Timestamp: 2016-04-30 05:48:29
Document Index: 90131531

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 817', '§ 676', '§ 97', '§ 98', '§ 676', '§ 98', '§ 98', '§ 98', '§ 96']

998 F2d 581 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. United States Department of Labor | OpenJurist
998 F. 2d 581 - Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. United States Department of Labor HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 998 F.2d.
998 F2d 581 Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. United States Department of Labor 998 F.2d 581
The OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA, Appellant,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Appellee.
No. 92-2713.
Submitted Jan. 12, 1993.Decided July 9, 1993.
Petitioner, the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska (Tribe), a prime sponsor under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) of 1973, Pub.L. No. 93-203, §§ 1-613, 87 Stat. 839 (1974), amended by CETA Amendments of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-524, §§ 1-809, 92 Stat. 1909 (1978) (repealed 1982), seeks review of a final order of the Department of Labor (Department) requiring repayment of $653,426.64 in disallowed CETA grant funds. The Tribe's sole argument is that the Department deprived it of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment by failing to provide the Tribe with a meaningful hearing in which to resolve the disputed costs. We affirm.
The scope of our review is narrow. CETA specifically provides that we must uphold the Secretary's factual conclusions if they are supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. Section 107(b) of CETA, 29 U.S.C. § 817(b) (repealed 1982).3 Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.... This is something less that the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's findings from being supported by substantial evidence...." Consolo v. F.M.C., 383 U.S. 607, 620-21, 86 S.Ct. 1018, 1026, 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966).
CETA regulations placed on the party requesting the hearing the burden of establishing compliance with CETA and entitlement to the relief requested. 20 C.F.R. § 676.90(b) (1979). See Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States Dept. of Labor, 723 F.2d 733, 735 (9th Cir.1984); Maine v. United States Dept. of Labor, 669 F.2d 827, 829 (1st Cir.1982). Because the Tribe offered no evidence to substantiate its expenditures, the Secretary properly disallowed the costs. Accordingly, the ALJ's finding that the Tribe failed to carry its burden of proof in these cases was not improper.
The grant officer disallowed costs based upon the Tribe's failure to: seek approval for expenditures, 29 C.F.R. § 97.161(b)(3) (1978); provide documentation for expenditures, 29 C.F.R. § 98.1811(a) (1978); prove that costs incurred were in compliance with the Act, 20 C.F.R. § 676.40 (1979) and 29 C.F.R. § 98.12(a) (1978); pay fines and penalties, 29 C.F.R. § 98.12(b)(3) (1978); properly charge direct and indirect costs, 29 C.F.R. § 98.12(a)(2) (1978); and pay required wages, 29 C.F.R. § 96.34(c)(1) (1978)
Section 107(b) of CETA, as amended, Pub.L. No. 95-524, 92 Stat. 1929 (1978) (repealed 1982).
In his opinion, the ALJ noted that "[i]t would be extremely difficult to obtain documentary evidence from third party sources concerning expenditures which occurred some 15 years ago. However, Omaha Tribe could have produced witnesses who participated in its CETA programs or served in staff positions. Even testimony regarding the Grantee's accounting procedures and the difficulties the CETA staff experienced could have proved useful. Indeed, the administrative files admitted in evidence contain voluminous vouchers and invoices on which testimony perhaps would have proved useful." Decision and Order of ALJ at pp. 5-6