P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)



ERD Case No. 199704815, EEOC Case No. 26G980399

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 November 27, 2000
butlech . rsd : 164 : 9

David B. Falstad, Chairman

/a/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner


In his petition for commission review the complainant submits several documents which he contends are of "great substance" in allowing him to prove his case. The complainant asks the commission to consider this information. However, the complainant's opportunity to present evidence on his behalf was at the hearing before the administrative law judge, and he has neither alleged nor demonstrated that the documents he now seeks to present could not have been presented at that time. Because by law the commission is required to base its review solely upon the sworn testimony and documentary evidence submitted at the hearing which has already been held, the commission will neither consider nor address those documents which the complainant has presented for the first time with his petition for review and are not supported by the record.

The complainant also argues that, although administrative law judge John Brown directed the respondent to submit certain information to him by March 22, 1999, he did not receive the information in question until April 1. However, the complainant's assertion is not supported by the documents in the case file, which show that the respondent provided the information in question to the administrative law judge on March 22, the date agreed upon. While in his petition the complainant indicates that he has provided the envelope from the respondent as proof of the date of receipt, he has not in fact done so, nor has he otherwise demonstrated that he did not receive the disputed information by the date required. Further, and more importantly, even if the complainant did not receive the information until April 1, no argument has been raised that this delay prejudiced him in his ability to present his case. The complainant received the information more than a week prior to the hearing and no contention has been made that he lacked sufficient time to review the information or otherwise prepare for the hearing.

The commission's review of the record, which is limited to that evidence presented at the hearing before the administrative law judge, reveals no reason to believe that the complainant was discriminated against in the manner alleged. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc: Matthew C. Carlson

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

uploaded 2001/04/17