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


DAVID GMEINER, Complainant

PRINTRON ENGRAVERS INC, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 199601227, EEOC Case No. 26G961232


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 25, 1997
gmeinda.rsd : 125 : 9

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The complainant, a male, worked for the respondent during 1993 through a temporary employment agency. He alleges that the respondent failed to hire him in 1995 for a customer service department position because of his sexual orientation, his sex and because when employed in 1993 he had opposed the respondent's alleged practice of not hiring males for customer service positions.

The complainant worked in the respondent's print department during 1993 beginning on May 18. The complainant asserts that on his first day of work he told Dennis Steffins, who worked in the respondent's human resources department, that he would like to work in the customer service department and that Steffins told him that Steve Barry controlled that area and only wanted to employ males in that department. The complainant states that he told Steffins he felt this was discriminatory.

The complainant's employment at the respondent in 1993 ended after he had worked approximately a week. The complainant states that the temporary employment agency informed him that Steffins had asked that he be removed from the position.

The complainant states that he is bisexual. He asserted that while employed at the respondent an employe of the respondent accused him of being a "queer" and a "faggot" in a discussion with his supervisor and that his supervisor replied that she would talk to Steffins about it. The complainant conceded, however, that he did not know if his supervisor had in fact talked to Steffins about this. Further, he also conceded that he was not claiming that Steffins, the person responsible for his nonhire in 1995, knew about his being bisexual.

By correspondence dated September 10, 1995, the complainant sent a cover letter together with his resume to the respondent stating his interest in employment at the respondent. The complainant sent the letter and resume to the respondent in response to the respondent's advertisement for a customer service representative position. The complainant's materials did not specifically list the job in which he was interested, although his resume did show that he had been a customer service representative for his last 3 employers between January 1992 and February 14, 1995.

On October 20, 1995, the complainant spoke to a person named Karen at the respondent who set up an appointment for an interview with him for October 24, 1995. On October 21, 1995, Karen called the complainant back and told him that she had talked to Steffins who said the respondent was not allowed to hire him back, so there was no need to have an interview. Karen told the complainant that the respondent's policy was not to hire people back that had previously worked for it, even as a temporary.

Shortly after Karen canceled his interview, the complainant called Steffins as he was curious as to why the respondent did not hire people back. Apparently Steffins mentioned that the complainant had previously had a problem of not wanting to learn the respondent's method of computer operations, and the complainant stated that he did not agree. Steffins then told the complainant that he had a note which stated this, apparently referring to a note in the complainant's file. (This note was received into evidence at the hearing as respondent's exhibit 1. It refers to the complainant as having an "attitude" about not wanting to learn computer work the respondent's way.) The complainant then asked Steffins if he was sure that it was nothing else and Steffins told the complainant that "we had gotten off on the wrong foot," apparently referencing the fact that the complainant had reported for work late more than once during his previous employment, including on his first day of work. (Respondent's exhibit 1 also speaks about the complainant's tardiness for work.) The complainant testified that he then asked Steffins, "Are you sure it was nothing that happened in `93 that I don't know about," and that Steffins replied, "No, it was just (your) unwillingness to learn the computer from the manager."

It was the complainant's burden to establish probable cause to believe that the respondent refused to hire him as a customer service representative because of his sexual orientation, his sex and because he had opposed a discriminatory practice under the Act. He has failed to satisfy that burden.

cc: Patrick D. Dolan


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