SANDRA L BENEDICT, Complainant

WISCONSIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION COUNCIL, Respondent

EAU CLAIRE ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATORS, Respondent

An administrative law judge 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 administrative law judge. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the administrative law judge, 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 September 19, 2011
benedsa . rsd : 164 : 5

BY THE COMMISSION:

Robert Glaser, Chairperson

/s/ Ann L. Crump, Commissioner

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Commissioner

In the brief in support of her petition for commission review the complainant argues that her claims remain unlitigated due to the fact that all previous decision makers got it wrong, and now is the time to remedy all these wrongs. The complainant asks the commission to provide her with the due process she contends she has been denied. However, as the administrative law judge noted in his decision, final judgments issued in previous complaints and lawsuits filed by the complainant, which involved the same parties, claims and issues, have preclusive effect over this most recent complaint. That the complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of her previous complaints and lawsuits does not change the fact that those matters have already been litigated and may not be litigated again. The dismissal of the complaint is, therefore, affirmed.

NOTE: In its brief to the commission the respondent requests an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 227.483, "Costs Upon Frivolous Claims." The respondent did not raise this claim when the case was before the administrative law judge, and the administrative law judge did not address that issue in his decision. The commission has held that a party seeking a ruling on a request under § 227.483 must make such a request before the administrative law judge issues the final findings and order in the case. Henderson v. Dept. of Corrections, ERD Case No. CR200304180 (LIRC March 19, 2009). The commission cannot act on a request under § 227.483 made for the first time before the commission. Kutschenreuter et ano. v. Roberts Trucking, ERD Case Nos. 200501465 and 2005014 (LIRC April 21, 2011).

The respondent also requests that the commission issue a standing order that would limit the complainant's access to the Equal Rights Division, akin to the order issued by Judge Gabler of the Eau Claire County Circuit Court. However, the respondent has not cited to any authority permitting the commission to issue such an order and the commission does not believe it has such authority.

cc: Attorney Michael J. Van Sistine

Appealed to Circuit Court.

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

uploaded 2011/09/26