STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

CHARLES CECIL GRAVES, Complainant

THE LADISH COMPANY ET AL, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 197605887, EEOC Case Nos. 055762048, 055762055

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.

DECISION

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

Dated and mailed: August 13, 1998
gravech.rsd : 125 :

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On May 18, 1998, the department sent a certified letter to the complainant (with copies to his attorney and the respondents) in an attempt to ascertain the status of his case. Some time ago, the department had placed the case in abeyance pending resolution of a federal court action in which the complainant was a member. The complainant was advised to respond to this letter within 20 days, and, that if he did not respond within that time, his complaint would be dismissed pursuant to § 111.39(3), Wis. Stat.

Section 111.39(3), provides that "The department shall dismiss a complaint if the person filing the complaint fails to respond within 20 days to any correspondence from the department concerning the complaint and if the correspondence is sent by certified mail to the last-known address of the person."

A return receipt for the May 18, 1998 certified mail sent to the complainant is contained in the file and shows that the complainant received and signed for the department correspondence on May 19, 1998.

On July 10, 1998, ALJ Larry Jakubowski issued a decision dismissing the complainant's complaint.

On appeal, the complainant asserts that he failed to respond to the certified letter because due to the length of time that had transpired he was under the impression that the matter was no longer being pursued, and because he did not understand the information contained in the letter until he called the department for an explanation. However, under § 111.39(3), dismissal of the complainant's complaint was required when he failed to respond within 20 days to the correspondence from the department. The complainant could have contacted the department regarding any questions he had prior to the end of the 20 days so that he could have responded to the letter in a timely fashion.

cc: Lawrence C. Hammond

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