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

JANET L. BROOME, Complainant

TACO BELL CORPORATION, Respondent

PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION DECISION
ERD Case No. 199703108

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: December 18, 1997
broomja.rsd : 125 : 9

Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

David B. Falstad, Commissioner

James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

An equal rights officer for the Equal Rights Division issued a preliminary determination on September 15, 1997, dismissing the complainant's claim that the respondent, which apparently has its headquarters in California, discriminated against her based upon her physical disability by airing a television commercial targeting individuals with spasmodic torticollis. The complainant describes this condition as a neurological disorder that affects the muscles in the neck causing the head to pull, turn or jerk toward the shoulder. The equal rights officer dismissed the complaint on the ground that the division had no jurisdiction over businesses located in another state.

The complainant timely appealed the preliminary determination asserting that because this commercial aired in all states that anyone who saw it should have a right to take action. (Apparently, the commercial in question is the one where basketball player Shaquille O'Neal is shown eating a taco with his head tilted to one side.)

The administrative law judge for the division affirmed the dismissal of the complainant's complaint on slightly different grounds, finding that the Wisconsin Public Accommodations Act (WPPA) did not cover the complainant's claim that she was ridiculed because of her disability by the airing of the television commercial.

The complainant has timely petitioned for commission review of the ALJ's decision. The decision of the ALJ is correct. The complainant's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the WPPA. The acts specified as constituting a violation of the WPPA include denying, on a prohibited basis (e.g., disability), the full and equal enjoyment of any public place of accommodation or amusement, charging a higher price than the regular rate for the full and equal enjoyment of any public place of accommodation or amusement because of a prohibited basis, giving preferential treatment with respect to the provision of services or facilities in any public place of accommodation or amusement because of a prohibited basis, and directly or indirectly publishing, circulating, displaying or mailing any written communication which the communicator knows is to the effect that any of the facilities of any public place of accommodation or amusement will be denied, or that the patronage of a person is unwelcome, objectionable or unacceptable because of any prohibited basis. See Wis. Stat. § 106.04(9)(a).

In her petition for review the complainant continues to argue that the respondent aired a commercial that targeted her because of her neurological disorder. This claim fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the WPPA, however. Accordingly, the decision of the ALJ must be affirmed.

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