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

GEORGE T. WASHINGTON, Complainant

UNITED WATER SERVICES, Respondent A

AFSCME LOCAL #336, Respondent B

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 19902104, EEOC Case Nos. 26G991469, 26G991470

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 September 22, 2000
washige.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 his complaint is timely because he is a current employee of the respondent's, who has not been provided with work within his medical restrictions. The complainant states that on April 5, 1998, he was told by the respondent that there was no work available within his restrictions and that, although he has repeatedly requested a job, the respondent has refused to place him in a position until his permanent restrictions are lifted. The complainant maintains that the administrative law judge's decision is defective in that it was not based on pertinent information supplied to him, including, but not limited to, the fact that the complainant has never been terminated and that the discrimination against him continues to date. The complainant's argument fail. As the administrative law judge accurately pointed out in his decision, the complainant knew or should have known of the facts giving rise to his discrimination claim by August 7, 1998, if not earlier, and no separate act of discrimination is alleged to have occurred after that date. The fact that the respondent continues to refuse to place the complainant in a job does not extend the statute of limitations in this case. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc: Michael T. Sheedy
Barry L. Chaet

Appealed to Circuit Court. Reversed and remanded, June 18, 2001.

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