Source: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/669/827/149356/
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 21:19:29
Document Index: 276303404

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 816', '§ 98', '§ 823', 'art:\n3', '§ 99', 'art:\n9', '§ 676']

669 F.2d 827: State of Maine, Office of Maine Ceta, Petitioner, v. the United States Department of Labor, Respondent :: US Court of Appeals Cases :: Justia
Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Federal Case Law > US Courts of Appeals Cases > F.2d > Volume 669 > 669 F.2d 827 - State of Maine, Office of Maine Ceta, ...	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
669 F.2d 827: State of Maine, Office of Maine Ceta, Petitioner, v. the United States Department of Labor, Respondent
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 669 F.2d 827
Argued Nov. 3, 1981.Decided Jan. 25, 1982
1 SAD # 43 was a subgrantee of the CETA prime sponsor, OMC, which had the prime contract with the Department of Labor. Because the prime sponsor is responsible for the operation of the subgrant, the Act and regulations permit the Department to proceed against the prime sponsor for violations of the Act, even though the alleged violations occurred at the local level. See 29 U.S.C. § 816(d)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 98.27(d)
2 29 U.S.C. § 823(g)(1) provides in pertinent part:
3 He so limited the finding due to the testimony of an OMC witness that when CETA teachers were used to substitute in grades for which they had not been hired, attempts had first been made to locate regular substitutes. From this he inferred that no such attempts were made when there was a qualified CETA person for that grade
4 Although on appeal OMC argues that the ALJ erroneously assigned to it the burden of going forward with its case ahead of the Department, it appears from the record that counsel for OMC, familiar with the regulation, was prepared to proceed and acknowledged that that was what the regulation required. Counsel stated at the hearing that "the burden apparently shifts to us" in an appeal from the Grant Officer's determination and indicated that she "was just pointing out to the Court the inequity of that."
5 There appears to be no question that the "proponent" in this case is the Department of Labor and that its "order" is the final determination by the Grant Officer
6 The budget data shows the following:
7 This is not, however, a rigid requirement. In Old Ben Coal Corp. v. Interior Bd. of Mine Operations Appeals, 523 F.2d 25 (7th Cir. 1975), for example, where the proponent of the order was held to have the burden of presenting a prima facie case, the court was unconcerned that the mine operator challenging the order proceeded first. The court noted that the operator was given the opportunity to rebut the case against it and failed to do so
8 29 C.F.R. § 99.34(h) (1974-77) provides in pertinent part:
9 20 C.F.R. § 676.88(c) (1979) provides in pertinent part: