context: The reason for the durational difference matters. Here, no evidence exists that the difference resulted from any determination that relied on ALJ status to impose a longer furlough, let alone a determination aimed at or causing an impairment of decision-making independence.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 787 F.2d 1563, 1563
citation_a.parenthetical: agency actions "based on reasons which interfere with the quasi-judicial functions" of ALJs cannot stand
citation_a.sentence: See Brennan, 787 F.2d at 1563 (agency actions “based on reasons which interfere with the quasi-judicial functions” of ALJs cannot stand); cf. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (“Whatever the employer’s decision-making process, a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee’s protected trait actually played a role in that process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.”).
citation_b.signal: cf.
citation_b.parenthetical: "Whatever the employer's decision-making process, a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee's protected trait actually played a role in that process and had a determinative influence on the outcome."
citation_b.sentence: See Brennan, 787 F.2d at 1563 (agency actions “based on reasons which interfere with the quasi-judicial functions” of ALJs cannot stand); cf. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701, 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993) (“Whatever the employer’s decision-making process, a disparate treatment claim cannot succeed unless the employee’s protected trait actually played a role in that process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.”).