Writing Conventions Redux -- Say Her Name

 I wrote about the use of Mr. and Ms. in Writing Conventions -- Mr. and Ms. in February 2021. After watching of Your Honor on NetFlix, I thought it worthwhile to revisit the issue. Spoiler alert, if you intend to watch the series and don't want to read the first three pages of the last chapter of the book first, just go back to the 2021 post. 

Breonna Taylor was shot and killed by police officers in Louisville, Kentucky, during the service of a no knock warrant. The protests that followed carried the cry, "Say her name." ABC produced a multi-part documentary about Taylor. YouTube lists six videos, #SayHerName, an open letter to the mother of Breonna Taylor. Stripping Taylor of her name removes the human from the equation. Our culture demands that we recognize the person by saying their name. 

Back to Your Honor. The plot line related to the point of this piece, to say the name of our clients, is simple. Eugene Jones is on trial for trying to kill the son of a mobster that killed his brother (Kofi) but ends up killing the son (Adam) of a dishonored judge (Desiato) that tried to cover up the son's hit and run that killed the younger son (Rocco) of the mobster. That's all we need to know. To the pivotal scene, Eugene tells the jury that his mother had been busted for possession of drugs. Desiato dismisses the charges because the cops lied. The cops arrested Kofi for stealing Desiato's car, the one that Adam drove in the hit and run. 

Eugene describes the next day, he left the house to go get food because the family had not eaten all day. On his way back, the house explodes with his mother and three younger siblings inside. After further examination by defense counsel, the prosecutor objects on the grounds that the question mischaracterized "the deaths of a mother and her children." Eugene responds, "they have names." The judge in the trial asks Eugene to repeat what he said:

Everyone keeps saying ... mother and her children.

My mom was Female Jones, and her kids were Goodluck, Sophie, and Rose. And they have names.

Powerful scene beautifully rendered, and a poignant reminder that people have names. We don't speak to the consultative examiner by that title, we use the doctor's name. But it isn't the doctor's case yet we give more respect to the doctor than our own clients. Say her name. 

Whether it is the real life story of Breonna Taylor or the fictional account of Eugene Jones saying the names of Female, Goodluck, Sophie, and Rose the result is the same. People want their names to be said. The speaking of their names makes their intrinsic humanity real. 

I have long advocated for the use of our clients' last names in our briefing. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure gives a hollow veil of privacy using the first name, and often the middle name or initial, and partially redacting the last name to the initial. The docket is a public record available on a multitude of websites. If I want to know the name of a client in a particular case, give me five minutes but I only need two. Rule 5.2 is lattice that provides a hint of privacy. So let's drop the charade and listen to our culture, say her name. She is a person with dignity and rights. She has the right to not be called by a demonstrative pronoun or a non-specific temporal status identifier. Say her name. If you want to use the first name and last initial, go for it. But please, your client is not "plaintiff" or even "Plaintiff." 

Say her name. 

Postscript -- I find it difficult to watch legal shows. I struggle to suspend reality. So I confess, Maggie watched the entire two seasons, I watched the first episode, parts of several others, and the last episode. Maggie filled me in on the plot lines and character development. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Writing Conventions Redux -- Say Her Name, California Social Security Attorney (October 14, 2024) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.

 

The Rehearing and En Banc Processes -- Settling the Law of the Circuit

Using an immigration case to illustrate the rehearing and en banc processes, the case in Salguero Sosa v. Garland. The Court published Salguero Sosa in December 2022, Judge Milan Smith writing the opinion and District Judge George Wu concurring. 

Judge Wu agreed that the case should be remanded under the Convention Against Torture but did not agree with the alleged past prosecution claim. Judge Wu argued that the requirement of cumulative review effect was not required by the precedent. Judge Wu queried about the detail required in a cumulative effect analysis. Judge Wu complained that the majority opinion did not state the elements or steps in a cumulative review analysis. 

The Attorney General sought panel rehearing. Judges Smith and Sidney Thomas voted to deny panel rehearing. Judge Wu voted to grant panel rehearing. Judge Smith describes that petition for panel rehearing in the concurrence to the denial of en banc review:

Indeed, it was not until its petition for panel rehearing only that the government made the remand-accepting argument on which the dissent now piggy-backs. By doing so, the government took a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose approach to this case. At the panel stage, the government argued: The court should not remand because cumulative-effect review is not a legal requirement. After we rejected that argument, the government then argued at the panel-rehearing stage: The court’s discussion of cumulative-effect review being a legal requirement was unnecessary—it should just remand. At a minimum, the government forfeited this remand-accepting argument by raising it for the first time in its petition for panel rehearing. 

So how did this en banc review process start? One judge called for a vote to rehear the matter en banc even though the AG did not ask for en banc review. 

Historically, the public knew two things about the en banc process, that it was granted or denied. See I Say Dissental, You Say Concurral. Alex Kozinski and James Burnham observed:

By our count, 45 judges have filed some 290 dissentals in over 230 cases in the Ninth Circuit. This includes 41 of the 71 who have served as active judges since 1970. 32 And all but 10 of those 71 have joined dissentals written by others.34 Hundreds more dissentals have been filed in the courts of appeals nationwide.35 Some judges are so dissental-happy they file two in the same case.36

Judge Wu is not a judge of the Court of Appeals. He cannot call for en banc review nor sit on an en banc panel. Someone else called for the en banc vote. And now we have a 33-page concurral and dissental opinion of the court that functions as a treatise on the cumulative review analysis, how to discern precedent from prior cases, and the dangers of misplacing the modifier on when facts may lead to a conclusion and when the agency must conduct an analysis. Judge Smith's concurral is mandatory reading for anyone serious about administrative law, not just immigration substantive law.

Enjoy the ride. 

_______________

1 Judge Wu identifies the person as Sosa. Judge Smith identifies the person as Salguero Sosa. I have a passing familiarity with Latin culture by immersion for 30+ years. Nery Adeli Salguero Sosa's surname (or his father's surname) is Salguero and his mother's surname is Sosa.  Adeli is what Anglos would call the middle name. If we identified Nery by a singular name in formal respectful address, it would be Senor Salguero. To call Nery by his mother's last name is culturally wrong. Nery is either Salguero or Salguero Sosa, but never Sosa.

Not to be outdone, Judge Callahan furthers the name confusion in her dissent from the denial of the sua spone en banc call. Judge Callahan identifies Sosa v. Callahan, 55 F.4th 1213 (9th Cir. 2022). Judge Smith identifies the case as Salguero Sosa v. Callahan, 55 F.4th 1213 (9th Cir. 2022). Misnaming a case will lead to confusion in the future.  

Example, the leader of the PRC from 1949 to his death was Mao Zedong (or Mao Tse Tung in the older translation). The world called him Chairman Mao not Zedong to Tse Tung. Why? Because it is common in East Asian culture to put the family surname first and the familiar name later in the sequence with variations between people groups. Where the person's surname appears in the full name is a matter of cultural history. 

Back to Latin culture, it gets confusing when a family assimilates into the predominant Anglo culture. There is no firm convention. Some keep a "maiden" name as a middle name and some hyphenate with the  maiden name before and the adopted name second. Some people insist on the hyphenated version of their name, others prefer just the terminal name in the sequence. How do we figure it out? Look at the way that the person signs or writes their name. The proper noun by which we identify is a culturally agreed upon and negotiated process that warrants respect. Does Salguero Sosa use the name Sosa alone? I doubt it. The observation that the majority opinion uses Salguero Sosa and the concurrence uses Sosa does tell us that one of the opinions is wrong. We don't refer to Chairman Zedong. 

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, The Rehearing and En Banc Processes -- Settling the Law of the Circuit, California Social Security Attorney (August 18, 2023) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com

The author has been AV-rated since 2000 and listed in Super Lawyers since 2008.

Writing Conventions -- Mr. and Ms.

One of the practices that irks me is the reference to the plaintiff in a case as Plaintiff, not the person's name -- by the court.  This happens more often in the district court decisions and memoranda.  The Commissioner never uses the person's name.  As the attorney for the human being, we should always use our client's name.  I am categorical about that.  My client is not defined for the legal record by a temporary status in a single case but by the name by which the person chooses to proceed through life.  If you don't call your client by name in briefs to the Administrative Law Judge, Appeals Council, District Court, or Court of Appeals, start today.

Once we decide to give the client the dignity of the name, the next step is whether we attach the gender specific designator to that name -- Mr., Mrs., Miss, and Ms.  Garner forcefully points out that society does not change the designation for a man based on marital status and neither should we make that differentiation for women.  Taking Garner at his word, we can jettison Mrs. and Miss unless we know for certain that the person prefers to have that descriptor attached to the surname.  We have narrowed our writing conventions to Mr. and Ms. in the majority of writings on behalf of our client.  

I like to take my cues from the Supreme Court.  Those nine Justices decide the legal issues and set the tone for much of how attorneys and courts write.  For example, Chief Justice Roberts uses contractions.  But we focus on the use of Mr. and Ms. today.  Looking at Biestek v. Berryhill, the syllabus refers to Michael Biestek as Biestek.  The syllabus is written by the reporter so does not warrant much persuasive power.  The opinion addresses Biestek by name 66 times.  Justice Kagan introduces Michael in section I and thereafter refers to the petitioner as Biestek.  Justice Sotomayor introduces Michael in the first paragraph of her dissent and then refers to him as Biestek seven more times.  Justice Gorsuch introduces Michael in the first paragraph and then addresses him as Mr. Biestek 13 times.  The lesson that we extract from these three opinions is that there is no hard and fast rule.  

The Seventh Circuit decided Brace v. Saul in August 2020.  Judge Sykes refers to Aaron Brace as Brace 24 times.   

The Eighth Circuit decided Lucus v. Saul in June 2020.  Judge Kobes refers to Eric Lucus by the full name once and simply Lucus 22 times.  

The Ninth Circuit decided Ashe v. Saul in December 2020.  Judge Nguyen refers to Julie Ashe by first and last name once and 33 times by simply Ashe.  Interesting to point point out that court staff prepared the summary and refers to Ashe as Plaintiff which is not the proper status title.  When the case got to the Court of Appeals, Ashe became the plaintiff-appellant and the primary status is the latter, not the former.  Judge Nguyen refers to Ashe or other people seeking benefits as plaintiff when quoting other sources.

The Tenth Circuit decided Carr v. Comm'r, SSA in June 2020, a case pending oral argument next month before the Supreme Court.  Judge Matheson refers to Willie Carr as Mr. Carr eight times, never simply by Carr.  

The Eleventh Circuit decided Walker v. Soc. Sec. Admin., Comm'r yesterday.  Judge Pryor refers to John Walker as that three times and as simply Walker 53 times.  

Of the decisions that I sampled, the Tenth Circuit has a culture of using the gender-specific title and at least four others do not.  Justice Gorsuch hails from the Tenth Circuit and uses that convention.  I submit that using any gender indicator represents a problem for the writer.  

First, I don't know my client's title preference.  Second, the gender identity or title that my client uses or wants is truly irrelevant to my representation in the case.  Third, I have a word count in briefs and especially appellate briefs.  Why waste a word?  As Magistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth said at a bench bar meeting several years ago on the subject of wasted words, "I will never get that nanosecond back."  Considerations of knowledge, relevance, and efficiency suggest that legal writing abandon Mr. and Ms. in referring to the party absent some reason germane to the case for using them (family law cases for example need a differentiation).  But please, stop referring to your client by that temporary status title.  That is disrespectful to your client's humanity.  

That's my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.  

___________________________

Suggested Citation:

Lawrence Rohlfing, Writing Conventions -- Mr. and Ms., California Social Security Attorney (February 12, 2021) (revised February 26, 2021) https://californiasocialsecurityattorney.blogspot.com/2021/02/writing-conventions-mr-and-ms.html

Interrogatories to a Examining or Non-Examining Medical Source

The claimant has moderate limitation in detailed and complex tasks and in interacting with supervisors, coworkers, and the public.  That is the general framework of limitations that are set forth by examining psychologists/psychiatrists and part of the work sheet portion of the mental residual functional capacity assessment made by state agency psychologists/psychiatrists.  Moderate limitations are ambiguous.  The claimant, representative, and the ALJ have no idea what moderate means.  If we had a case worth a half a million dollars, we would resolve that ambiguity before trial.  Many time, we have exactly that, a half a million dollar case.  Every Social Security disability case, whether involving disability insurance or supplemental security income is a big case by standards applicable to other legal endeavors.  To the client, it isn’t big, it is everything.  So let’s propound interrogatories to the examining and non-examining psychologists/psychiatrists based upon POMS DI 25020.010 and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Appendix C.  

Be judicious and ask the questions reasonably related to the opinions expressed.  For instance, a psychiatrist that opines that the claimant with low average or borderline intellectual functioning can do complex work, it is reasonable to ask about reasoning level 4.  Other reasoning levels apply when the claimant has a skilled background and a colorable mental impairment, even non-severe.  

INTERROGATORIES TO <NAME OF PSYCHOLOGIST/PSYCHIATRIST>

1.    Did you examine (review the record for) <client name> on <date of evaluation>?

__________________________

2.    Is the document attached as exhibit <exhibit no.> a true copy of your report of findings and opinions?

__________________________

3.   In the <functional assessment title>, you describe <client name> as having moderate limitations in <designate the functional limitation>.  Can <client name> sustain of a full-time regular work schedule (mark all that apply) where the employer treats the function as critical to performing work:

A.   Memory Functions

o Remember work-like procedures (locations are not critical).

o Understand and remember very short and simple instructions.

o Carry out very short and simple instructions.

o Apply principles of logical or scientific thinking to a wide range of intellectual and practical problems. Deal with nonverbal symbolism (formulas, scientific equations, graphs, musical notes, etc.) in its most difficult phases. Deal with a variety of abstract and concrete variables. Apprehend the most abstruse classes of concepts.

o  Apply principles of logical or scientific thinking to define problems, collect data, establish facts, and draw valid conclusions. Interpret an extensive variety of technical instructions in mathematical or diagrammatic form. Deal with several abstract and concrete variables.

o  Apply principles of rational systems to solve practical problems and deal with a variety of concrete variables in situations where only limited standardization exists. Interpret a variety of instructions furnished in written, oral, diagrammatic, or schedule form.

o Apply commonsense understanding to carry out instructions furnished in written, oral, or diagrammatic form. Deal with problems involving several concrete variables in or from standardized situations.

o Apply commonsense understanding to carry out detailed but uninvolved written or oral instructions. Deal with problems involving a few concrete variables in or from standardized situations.

o Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in or from these situations encountered on the job.

B.   Concentration, Persistence and Pace Functions

o Maintain attention for extended periods of 2-hour segments (concentration is not critical).

o Maintain regular attendance and be punctual within customary tolerances. (These tolerances are usually strict.) Maintaining a schedule is not critical.

o Sustain an ordinary routine without special supervision.

o Work in coordination with or proximity to others without being (unduly) distracted by them.

o Make simple work-related decisions.

o Complete a normal workday and workweek without interruptions from psychologically based symptoms and perform at a consistent pace without an unreasonable number and length of rest periods. (These requirements are usually strict.)

C.   SOCIAL FUNCTIONS

o Ask simple questions or request assistance.

o Accept instructions and respond appropriately to criticism from supervisors.

o Get along with coworkers or peers without (unduly) distracting them or exhibiting behavioral extremes.

D.  ADAPTATION FUNCTIONS

o Respond appropriately to changes in a (routine) work setting.

o Be aware of normal hazards and take appropriate precautions.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing are my true and correct opinions. 

Executed this ___ day of ___________, ____, at _____________, _________. 

<signature block> 

Be aggressive in using interrogatories, your client's entitlement to benefits may depend on it.

Sedentary General Office Clerks -- A Continued Basis for Table 1 of the Medical-Vocational Guidelines

The Medical-Vocational Guidelines (grids) state that "'Sedentary work' represents a significantly restricted range of work, and individuals with a maximum sustained work capability limited to sedentary work have very serious functional limitations."  The Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) lists 137 unskilled sedentary occupations.  Based on current data, 77 of those occupations represent no jobs.  The remaining 60 occupations represent approximately 1.4 million jobs in the national economy.  

That really is not accurate.  The remaining 60 occupations are in occupational groups that represent 1.4 million jobs in the national economy.  That is the more accurate statement.  About 45% of those jobs fall into the category of office clerks, general (SOC 43-9061).  The three occupations in the group are not good examples and probably don't exist in the national economy as described in the DOT in significant numbers that provide for substantial gainful earnings on a sustained basis.  The three occupations:

205.367-030 election clerk
249.587-014 cutter-and-paster, press clippings
249.587-018 document preparer, microfilming

Election clerk works during the election cycles, twice a year.

ELECTION CLERK (government ser.)

Prepares documents, such as brochures, pamphlets, and catalogs, for microfilming, using paper cutter, photocopying machine, rubber stamps, and other work devices: Cuts documents into individual pages of standard microfilming size and format when allowed by margin space, using paper cutter or razor knife. Reproduces document pages as necessary to improve clarity or to reduce one or more pages into single page of standard microfilming size, using photocopying machine. Stamps standard symbols on pages or inserts instruction cards between pages of material to notify MICROFILM-CAMERA OPERATOR (business ser.) 976.682-022 of special handling, such as manual repositioning, during microfilming. Prepares cover sheet and document folder for material and index card for company files indicating information, such as firm name and address, product category, and index code, to identify material. Inserts material to be filmed in document folder and files folder for processing according to index code and filming priority schedule.

That is not a good example of full-time  work representing a significant number of jobs in the national economy.

Cutter-and-paster, press clippings work with paper media.

CUTTER-AND-PASTER, PRESS CLIPPINGS (business ser.)

Tears or cuts out marked articles or advertisements from newspapers and magazines, using knife or scissors. Records name of publication, page and location, date, and name of customer on label, and affixes label to clipping.

Few people if anyone does that anymore.  These jobs are probably obsolete in the modern economy.

Document preparer, microfilming is similarly obsolete.

DOCUMENT PREPARER, MICROFILMING (business ser.)

Prepares documents, such as brochures, pamphlets, and catalogs, for microfilming, using paper cutter, photocopying machine, rubber stamps, and other work devices: Cuts documents into individual pages of standard microfilming size and format when allowed by margin space, using paper cutter or razor knife. Reproduces document pages as necessary to improve clarity or to reduce one or more pages into single page of standard microfilming size, using photocopying machine. Stamps standard symbols on pages or inserts instruction cards between pages of material to notify MICROFILM-CAMERA OPERATOR (business ser.) 976.682-022 of special handling, such as manual repositioning, during microfilming. Prepares cover sheet and document folder for material and index card for company files indicating information, such as firm name and address, product category, and index code, to identify material. Inserts material to be filmed in document folder and files folder for processing according to index code and filming priority schedule.

And that brings up to the Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH).

 43-9061 Office clerks, general

Typical Education Needed	High school diploma or equivalent
Work Experience in a Related Occupation	None
Typical On-The-Job Training Needed to Attain Competency	Short-term on-the-job training
2016 Employment	3,117,700

We have been down this path before.  The typical education is a high school diploma or equivalent and the typical on-the-job training is 30 days or less.  The question is whether these occupations represent sedentary unskilled work and if so, how many jobs.  We start with Labor's statement that the O*NET provides current occupational information.  

43-9061.00 - Office Clerks, General

Structural Job Characteristics	%	Response
Duration of Typical Work Week — Number of hours typically worked in one week.	15	More than 40 hours
	59	40 hours
	26	Less than 40 hours
Exertional	%	Response
Spend Time Sitting — How much does this job require sitting?	60	Continually or almost continually
	25	More than half the time
	7	About half the time
	8	Less than half the time
	0	Never
	%	Response
Spend Time Standing — How much does this job require standing?	1	Continually or almost continually
	7	More than half the time
	12	About half the time
	72	Less than half the time
	9	Never
	%	Response
Spend Time Walking and Running — How much does this job require walking and running?	4	Continually or almost continually
	14	More than half the time
	14	About half the time
	32	Less than half the time
	36	Never

About 74% of the jobs are presumptive substantial gainful activity as full-time work; 60% sit the vast majority of the day; relatively few spend the majority of the day standing/walking.

43-9061.00 - Office Clerks, General

On-the-Job Training
Duration	Value
None or short demonstration	4.85%
Anything beyond short demonstration, up to and including 1 month	27.91%

Related Work Experience
Duration	Value
None	7.72%
Up to and including 1 month	1.14%

Required Level of Education
Education Level	Value
Less than a High School Diploma	1.5%
High School Diploma or the equivalent	40.59%

The O*NET Resource Center suggests that less than 9% of these jobs would not require some skills.  Related work experience is a component of Specific Vocational Preparation along with education and on-the-job training.  We check the O*NET OnLine and Resource Center data against the Occupational Requirements Survey (ORS).  

43-9061.00 - Office Clerks, General

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000064

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; svp is short demonstration only

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: svp is short demonstration only

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	4.4

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000064

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000065

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: svp is beyond short demonstration, up to & including 1 month

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	31.3

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000065

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000661

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; strength is sedentary

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: strength is sedentary

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	73.3

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000661

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000134

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: office clerks, general; hours of sitting (25th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: hours of sitting (25th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	5.25

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000134

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000135

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: office clerks, general; hours of sitting (50th percentile - median)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: hours of sitting (50th percentile - median)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	6.4

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000135

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000136

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: office clerks, general; hours of sitting (75th percentile)

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: hours of sitting (75th percentile)

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	7.2

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000136

Series ID: ORUP1000075800000139

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Requirement: Physical Demands

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: sitting vs. standing/walking at will is allowed

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	81.4

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUP1000075800000139

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000085

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; literacy is required

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: literacy is required

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	15

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000085

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000075

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; no minimum education requirement

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: no minimum education requirement

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	15.2

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000075

Series ID: ORUV1000075800000076

Not seasonally adjusted

Series Title: % of office clerks, general; minimum education level is a high school diploma

Requirement: Education, Training, And Experience

Occupation: Office Clerks, General

Estimate: minimum education level is a high school diploma

Year	Period	Estimate
2018	Annual	78.7

https://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/ORUV1000075800000076

The ORS describes a large segment of the work as unskilled and 73.3% as sedentary. 

43-9061.00 - Office Clerks, General

Office clerks, general		Jobs
Total reported jobs		3,117,700
Full-time (O*NET)	74.2%	2,313,333
Unskilled (ORS)	35.7%	825,860
Sedentary (ORS)	73.3%	605,355

More than half require sitting more than 6 hours per day. Over 80% of the jobs permit discretion of when to perform sitting versus standing/walking tasks.  Workers without a high school or equivalent education can perform 15.2% of the jobs.  Workers illiterate in English can perform must 0.2% of jobs.  

Even for workers without a high school equivalent education, the number of jobs is over 90,000.  A combination of a limitation on sitting and a limited education would leave around 25,000 jobs.  This occupational group remains viable for sedentary unskilled workers absent a combination of three or more limiting factors eroding the capacity for sedentary work. 

Look for the Occu Collect Calculator as part of the Sedentary Compendium breaking down the number of unskilled sedentary jobs in the national economy at OccuCollect.com in July 2019. 

See When to Use Occu Collect.