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

JOAQUIN RODRIGUEZ-SURO, Complainant

CARROLL COLLEGE, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 199801847, EEOC Case No. 26G981382

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 10, 1999
rodrijo.rsd : 164 : 9

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In his petition for commission review the complainant argues that tenure cannot be narrowly defined as having been denied in March of 1996, since tenure represents an indefinite period of time in which a professor teaches unless terminated by the college or university. In his case, the complainant argues that it was only on September 1, 1997, at which point a new professor took over his teaching duties, that he was denied tenure. The complainant contends that the statute of limitations should not begin to run until that point. This argument fails. The complainant was notified in March of 1996 that he had been denied tenure and that, after a one-year terminal appointment to end in May of 1997, he would no longer be employed by the respondent. While in his petition the complainant maintains that the respondent's personnel decisions were "whimsical," and that it was possible he would receive another appointment, the conduct which is alleged to be discriminatory is the failure to grant tenure, not the failure to extend the complainant's terminal contract for an additional year. Where the complainant was aware of the adverse employment decision in March of 1996, and where he immediately formed the belief that the respondent's actions were discriminatory, it must be found that the statute of limitations began to run at that point. That the complainant sat on his rights for over two years and allowed the statute of limitations to expire is unfortunate, but he cannot now resuscitate his claim by accusing the respondent of whimsy and attempting to redefine the concept of tenure. The dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc: Scott C. Beightol

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