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


KURT HENDRICKSON, Complainant

EAST TROY COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 199701583


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: October 22, 1997
hendrku.rsd : 125 : 9

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The complainant, Kurt Hendrickson, failed to appear for his September 11, 1997 scheduled hearing on his complaint of alleged conviction record discrimination against the respondent. The ALJ therefore dismissed his complaint with prejudice.

The complainant acknowledges in his petition for review that prior to the hearing he had advised the ALJ (via the ALJ's voice mail) that he did "not have the luxury of taxpayers paying for my time away from work or for an attorney to represent myself, unlike the respondent, and could not take time off from work to attend the hearing...(and that) Instead, I informed him that I felt the information, already on file, was more than enough to support a review by the Labor and Industry Review Commission."

The case file shows that in a letter dated August 11, 1997, the ALJ responded to the complainant's voice mail message, informing the parties that while it was unfortunate that the complainant may have to miss work at another job, that this was not a sufficient reason to excuse attendance at the hearing and that if the complainant did not appear at the hearing, his complaint may be dismissed in accordance with the division's rules. The ALJ's letter also advised the parties that he would consider the possibility of deciding the matter without a hearing on September 11, 1997, if the parties were to submit a stipulation of facts signed by both parties along with a joint written request that he decide the matter based on the stipulation and without hearing witness testimony.

The complainant's reasons for not appearing at the scheduled hearing on his complaint do not constitute good cause for his failure to appear. Parties are expected to take time off from work to attend scheduled hearings. Talaska v. C.A.T.S. Nationwide, (LIRC, 2/8/94). Also, financial constraints do not provide a complainant with good cause for failing to appear at the hearing. Russ v. Milwaukee Area Technical College, (LIRC, 8/6/93). Additionally, the commission's authority is limited to review of final decisions and orders issued by an administrative law judge. See s.ILHR 218.21(1) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Finally, while asserting that no effort had been made by the respondent to have the case decided by the ALJ without the parties' presence, the complainant himself admitted that he had made no effort to do this, but claimed that he felt the "procedures to accomplish (the ALJ's) suggestion rather ambiguous." These assertions also fail. The ALJ provided an alternative procedure for the case to be decided but no signed stipulation of facts and joint written request was submitted to the ALJ. Further, if the complainant had difficulty understanding what was required he could have contacted the ALJ. There is nothing which indicates that he did.

cc: LAWRENCE T. LYNCH


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