PATRICIA D. CORPENING, Complainant

PURITY-CLEAN CORP, Respondent

An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

The decision of the administrative law judge (copy attached) is affirmed.

Dated and mailed November 28, 2007
corpepa . rsd : 125 : 9

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

Patricia Corpening petitions for a review of the ALJ's decision which found that she failed to establish probable cause to believe the respondent discriminated against her on the basis of race, sex and age with respect to her terms and conditions of employment and termination of employment. Corpening is a black female whose date of birth is June 28, 1952.

Jane Aldridge, a white female, is the owner and president of the respondent. The respondent is a commercial janitorial firm that specializes in cleaning medical facilities and newly constructed residential units. Aldridge, whose date of birth is February 9, 1959, hired Corpening, along with her fiance, Council Jones, as cleaning technicians in early February 2005. On February 24, 2005, Corpening and Council were issued written warnings for unsatisfactory work performance. On March 2, 2005, Aldridge informed Corpening and Jones that their employment was terminated for poor work performance. Aldridge documented the basis for terminating Corpening in a form titled "Termination Record" dated that same day, stating that it was for poor performance, that she was instructed on many occasions how to do her job and failed to comply with our policies and procedures and that she also damaged client property which the respondent must pay for.

In her petition for review, with respect to her terms and conditions of employment, Corpening asserts that she and Council were written up for complaints received on work at a condo while Tom Fuchs and St. Paul Williams were not written up for complaints about work Fuchs and Williams didn't do (but were supposed to) at the same condo, and that Chris Sivulka had gotten into an argument with another worker but Sivulka was not written up.

However, the individuals that Corpening is asserting received more favorable treatment than she were 16- and 17-year-old high school students, one of whom is black, that were employed by the respondent as fill-ins for temporary cleaning jobs and holiday season decorating. Based upon Corpening's several years experience as a cleaner, Aldridge reasonably expected her to have been able to perform her job adequately without instruction and without much supervision.

With respect to her termination, Corpening in effect asserts that the complaints the respondent received about the unsatisfactory work performance was not her fault or was the fault of her supervisor, Jeff Schuetz, and that she did not cause the damage to the client's property. Aldridge was convinced, however, that Corpening's work performance was indeed unsatisfactory and that she had damaged the client's property. The evidence fails to present reason to believe that the respondent terminated her because of her race, sex or age. Aldridge knew Corpening's race, sex and age when Aldridge hired Corpening. It is unlikely that Aldridge hired Corpening knowing her race, sex and age, but then terminated her employment a month later because of her race, sex and age. Furthermore, Aldridge testified that she employed many black women who were over the age of 40. This was not refuted by Corpening.

Corpening also asserts that she "didn't get a chance to question Ms. Aldridge's witnesses because they didn't show." However, if Corpening wanted to question any potential witnesses for the respondent it was her responsibility to have had those individuals subpoenaed to ensure their presence at the hearing. Apparently, it was not until the hearing or later that Corpening decided she wanted to question potential witnesses for the respondent because prior to the hearing Corpening had not identified any witness for her case other than Council Jones.

[ Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]

uploaded 2007/11/30