RUZICA KUZMANOVIC, Complainant

AURORA HEALTH CARE, 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 April 19, 2011
kuzmaru . rsd : 164 : 9

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

In her petition for commission review the complainant argues that an internal investigation by the respondent was underway, but the administrative law judge cut this off with his order. The complainant asks why the administrative law judge did not want to wait with his decision until after reading the results from the investigation. She states that she wants to see the results from the investigation first and then make a decision whether to withdraw or not.

The complainant's argument fails. The dismissal in this matter is final and conclusive, and the complainant no longer has the option to decide whether she wants to withdraw her complaint.

On September 15, 2010, the complainant signed a settlement agreement which, among other things, required the respondent to pay half the deposition costs incurred during the proceedings. The agreement included the following provision:

Parties agree that upon Respondent's payment Complainant will submit a signed withdrawal of complaint to the Equal Rights Division, Honorable James A. Schacht.

If the request to withdraw is not forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time after the Department has received notice of Respondent's payment, this agreement authorizes dismissal based solely on this agreement.

On December 17, 2010, the respondent paid the complainant the monies contemplated in the settlement agreement and notified the administrative law judge that it had done so.

On January 21, 2011, the administrative law judge dismissed the complaint in accordance with the settlement agreement. While the complainant apparently believes that the administrative law judge should have waited until the completion of an investigation before issuing a dismissal, the agreement which the complainant signed, in the presence of her attorney, clearly provided for the dismissal of her complaint upon receipt of payment from the respondent.

In her petition the complainant also makes arguments regarding an "original agreement" that apparently differed in some way from the final settlement agreement that was signed by the parties. The complainant's arguments on this point are unclear, but it appears that the complainant is unhappy with the agreement she signed. However, the commission may not disregard the final settlement agreement simply because the complainant regrets having signed it. In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the department, and where there is nothing in the terms of the settlement agreement itself which makes it invalid, the agreement will be treated as final. There would be no incentive to enter into a settlement if, once entered into, it could be repudiated simply because one party thought better of it later. Pustina v. Fox & Fox, ERD Case No. 9100377 (LIRC April 27, 1993). Because the settlement agreement that was signed by the complainant in the presence of her attorney is conclusive and final, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc: Attorney Mary Pat Ninneman

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

uploaded 2011/04/22