The U.S. Labor Department, resisting Oracle America Inc.'s effort to end a pay-equity lawsuit, said the tech company is wrong that all of the agency's administrative law judges are unlawfully hearing cases after the U.S. Supreme Court threw the appointment of in-house judges into question.

U.S. Labor attorneys contend in a new filing that the agency's 40 administrative law judges were lawfully appointed by Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta, and that the case against Oracle should be allowed to proceed.

Labor regulators sued Oracle in January 2017, alleging Oracle's compensation practices discriminate against female, African-American and Asian employees. Oracle's attorneys deny the claims, and they are mounting a new effort to squash the case based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from June.

Oracle's lawyers at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe point to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case Lucia v. SEC, which set new requirements for how in-house judges are appointed. The attorneys argue the Labor Department's lawsuit should be dismissed or paused until new administrative law judges are appointed.

Jeremiah Miller, acting counsel for civil rights in the Labor Department's Office of the Solicitor, said Acosta's ratification of the in-house judges in December “cured any constitutional defect” and said Acosta's move was “unequivocal.”

“Oracle's argument that the ratification lacks 'gravitas' has no merit,” Miller wrote in the new filing. He said Oracle's attempt to make a distinction between ratification and appointment “collapses under its own weight.”

Before the Supreme Court court issued its ruling in Lucia, Acosta ratified all of the agency's administrative law judges, an attempt to head off challenges against the rulings in those courts.

The Supreme Court's ruling says agency heads—such as Acosta—do have the power to appoint administrative judges. Oracle's attorneys contend that ratification alone isn't sufficient. Acosta's ratification letters, according to Oracle's lawyers, “bear none of the necessary hallmarks for a proper appointment.”

The ruling in Lucia carried wide implications, setting up fresh arguments for companies and individuals at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and across all federal agencies.

The Labor Department's case against Oracle is one of several big carryover matters from the Obama era. In another pending case, against JPMorgan Chase & Co., an agency lawyer asked the administrative law judge to reassign the dispute to a different judge.

|

The Labor Department's response to Oracle is posted below:

|

Read more: