Does he have a constitutional challenge for the revocation of a license?
The firm has a constitutional mandate to challenge the revocation of its license in participation if it has sufficient evidence that the actions by the agency were unreasonable, illegal, and did not follow the due process. For EPA to revoke a license, it has to send the notice showing the facts that merit the revocation in writing and allowing the license holder to comply with all lawful requirements. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act contemplates an administrative hearing order if a party contest a notice of revocation and the complainant should be given a chance to comment (Thomas, 2016). However, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act provides exceptions, which do not warrant notice and opportunity for hearing in the aspects of public safety, interest, and health. Therefore, as much as the agency has the licensing power to revoke a license it has to observe the due process and since the waste management firm does not pose any threat, it can challenge the revocation of its license based on the due process because EPA did not grant it a hearing and it appears that the agency misused its licensing power.
If he is unsuccessful in challenging the EPA regarding the revocation of his license, can he take the revocation of his license to court?
The waste management firm can file a suit in court against the agency for the revocation of a license as an agency is subject to legal action from the licensed holder. However, a legal suit is only acceptable in court as the last resort after all the steps provided by the agency fail. The firm can make a claim of violation of rights and procedures by the agency. The court then decides whether the agency’s revocation of license complied with the appropriate procedures within the realm of the statutes that created the agency. In this view, the agency has to follow the due process diligently for any action that does not comply with statutory requirements constitutes violation and abuse of powers.
How to file a complaint with the EEOC
On filing a complaint, a person has to approach the EEOC organization and file a proper document that is provided after having an interview with the EEOC counselor. A formal complaint includes name, address, and phone contacts. The person will have to give a short narrative of the events on how the discrimination occurred, reasons believing that the employer discriminated them, and the injuries incurred from the acts of discrimination (the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2017). The complainant has 15 days to prepare the charge and can file for more time if necessary. Once the complaint is filed, the agency will send a reply upon receiving it and a notice is then forwarded to the employer within ten days of filing. After that, the agency starts reviewing the complaint.
What the EEOC’s investigative powers are and how the EEOC conducts an investigation
The EEOC gets its investigative power from the Civil Rights Act (1964) and other equality laws in the workplace. The agency has the authority to investigate employer discrimination against a person’s color, race, national origin, sex, age, or disability. The agency has power to an administrative subpoena on a company to produce the necessary documents at any time and make the necessary compliance with the investigations. Besides, the agency can do an administrative search of a company and ensure that it adheres to all the rules against discrimination. Therefore, the EEOC has the authority to investigate complaints of discrimination against employers covered and protected by the law.
The agency conducts its investigation after completing a procedural review of the filed complaint. The EEOC has 180 days to complete its investigation from the time of filing the complaint (the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2017). The agency will start by reviewing the employment files of the complainant as well as that of any witnesses mentioned. The agency investigators collect all the essential information related to the complaint. The agency will also go through the alleged unlawful acts in detail to capture both party scenarios.
Whether the final agency action would be a decision or alternative dispute resolution. Explain both types of final agency actions
Once the agency completes its investigation, it gives two options to the complainant. One option is to give its decision and grant a notice to file a lawsuit at the federal district court and another option is to seek an administrative hearing order through an alternative dispute resolution such as mediation. Through ADR, the agency will hand over the case to the EEOC administrative judge or the EEOC legal team to handle the settlement. Through the mediation process, the parties will have to come to a voluntary settlement or the EEOC can provide administrative remedies that parties are at liberty to decline or counter offer. If the complainant and the company come to a settlement, the complaint is dismissed, with the two sides liable to do as agreed and no further action will be taken.
The differences between formal and informal rulemaking
The difference between formal and informal rulemaking is mainly in the establishing process as provided by the administrative agency rules. In the formal rulemaking, it is required that a hearing is on record with presentations of evidence made, similar to court proceedings. Only the parties affected by the rule are entitled to a notice of hearing and can only intervene directly during the proceedings. A panel of judges or an administrative law judge who provides the necessary administrative remedies to a rule makes the final decision. By making an administrative order of removing the building exemption from being a handicapped-accessible without notifying the building owner and hearing their comments of the public is substantive in rulemaking.
In the informal rulemaking, it is required that a notice is provided to the public and an opportunity for comment offered on the proposed rule. The public may provide comments on proposed rules, and it is the prerogative of agencies to decide whether to hold hearings or not for people to object or comment. By using the informal rulemaking, the building owners can be involved in the process and allowed to make comments to the proposed rule. In consideration of the comments, the agency may then codify it as is or make changes to the rule.
The differences between substantive and interpretive rulemaking
The difference between substantive and interpretative rulemaking is that the substantive rulemaking is binding to the public and is similar to a statute as it has the effect of the law. It has to go through a notice and comment rulemaking to become more efficient. The process is lengthy as the agency allows the public to make their views on a proposed version of the rule before making a response. The public comments from time to time have a significant influence on the content of the substantive rules. Whereas the interpretive rulemaking only states agency interpretation of its existing governing laws or regulations, the interpretive rulemaking only provides explanation or clarification to a statute or regulation and does not attempt to create new law (Federal Office Register, 2015). Also, the Administrative Procedure Act provides that the notice and comment requirement does not apply to interpretative rulemaking as it only reminds the public of existing duties.
Why a substantive rule allows for the public notice and comment and how one can find the rule
The notice and comment are permitted by the substantive rule as it ideally offers all critics equivalent access to the agency and a forum for the interested parties to comment on decisions that may influence them. By allowing the public notice and comment, the substantive rule promotes agency accountability and helps illuminate issues on how the agency thinks about them.
Notice and comment rulemaking is a common procedure that agencies publish in the Federal register where anyone can find the rule. Agencies are required to publish an agenda of regulatory and deregulatory actions twice a year, and a regulatory plan once a year (Federal Office Register, 2015). The regulatory agenda and the regulatory plan commonly referred to as the Unified Agenda is a platform through which updates on pending and completed regulatory actions are made to the public and announcements of future rulemaking activities. People can easily access an updated copy of the Unified Agenda from RegInfo.gov and Regulations.gov. The version by the Federal register and a distinct unified agenda collections are stored in and accessed from the Federal Digital System (FDsys.gov).
References
Federal Office Register (2015). A guide to the rule making process.Web.
Thomas, Z. (2016). Administrative law handbook: From the administrative law division. Web.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2017). Filing a charge of discrimination.Web.