Pants suit judge hanging on to job by a thread

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - It hasn’t been easy to fire a D.C. administration law judge, thanks to a 2001 law designed to defuse politics from the little publicized but influential adjudication agency.

For months, calls have poured in from around the globe demanding the dismissal of Roy Pearson, the city judge who unsuccessfully sued a Northeast Washington dry cleaners for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

A five-person commission today is expected notify Pearson and his boss of their concerns with Pearson. Some D.C. government officials had hoped to have the matter wrapped up last month.

But, according to government source, the commission cannot vote to fire Pearson from his $100,000 position until he has had a chance to meet with the panel. Pearson will have 15 days to request an appearance and only after he has argued his case can the commission vote to oust him.

The Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges of the Office of Administrative Hearings was created under former Mayor Anthony Williams to staff the city’s administrative tribunal with more qualified ALJs and to remove substantial power from the chief administrative law judge.

Pearson could be the first judge of his rank to be fired by the commission and panelists have been careful about how the treat his case, particularly because Pearson has shown to be litigious, according to several government sources who asked to remain anonymous because the issue is a personnel matter.

At least one panelist has expressed concern that the commission should even consider Pearson’s controversial lawsuit because his actions occurred while away from the bench.

The commission is expected to follow the advice of Pearson’s boss, who initially recommended Pearson to a 10-year term before changing his position during height of the controversy, government sources told The Examiner.

In pursuing the case for $54 million, Pearson turned down a $12,000 settlement, claimed to have logged 1,400 legal hours and opened the trial by claiming, “Never before in recorded history have a group of defendants engaged in such misleading and unfair business practices.”

smccabe@dcexaminer.com

Advertisement