ANTHONY PERR, Complainant

WINAGAMIE GOLF COURSE, Respondent

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 June 30, 2004
perran . rsd : 125 : 9

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The Equal Rights Division received a complaint from Anthony Perr on November 25, 2003, but did not accept it because of the need for additional information. However, after Perr submitted the additional necessary information on January 20, 2004, the Division considered his complaint as having been filed with the Division on November 25, 2003.

Perr's complaint alleged that the respondent wrongfully terminated him on December 23, 2002, because the respondent believed that he was going to file a labor standards complaint.

Wisconsin Statute § 111.322(2m)(d) makes it unlawful to discharge or otherwise discriminate an individual because the individual's employer believes that the individual may, among other things, file a complaint or attempt to enforce any right under a number of statutes, including § 103.02 (Hours of Work) and § 109.03 (Wage Claim).

Wisconsin Statute § 111.39(1), however, requires that a complaint charging discrimination be filed with the department no more than 300 days after the alleged discrimination occurred.

On February 18, 2004, an equal rights officer issued a preliminary determination and order dismissing Perr's complaint, as it was not filed within 300 days of his discharge. November 25, 2003, was 337 days from December 23, 2002.

Perr's wife, Michelle Perr, filed a timely appeal from the preliminary determination.

After addressing what seemed to be Ms. Perr's arguments, an ALJ for the Equal Rights Division issued a decision on May 20, 2004, affirming the preliminary determination's dismissal of Perr's complaint. Ms. Perr has petitioned for a review of the ALJ's decision.

The focus of Ms. Perr's petition for review is an assertion that a timely complaint was filed regarding Anthony Perr's alleged discharge because the respondent believed he was going to file a labor standards complaint. Ms. Perr argues that:

"In my initial complaint to the ERD, dated January 21, 2003, I did not know exactly what to call my husband's termination from Winagamie; but I knew it was in violation of his rights somehow. I realize that my description of this particular violation was ambiguous, unfinished, obscured by the vague heading ('NOTE') that it was under, and hidden behind the many other grievances; but I did list a particular grievance against Winagamie for the unfair business practices under which [the respondent] fired my husband.  Even if this particular grievance was not categorized properly, I still gave [the equal rights officer] enough information to 'red flag' the ERD that YES! I had a valid complaint and the facts were there to be uncovered."

The January 21, 2003 complaint which Ms. Perr mentions was a Labor Standards Complaint Anthony Perr filed with the ERD regarding various wages allegedly owed him and the conditions under which he worked for the respondent. The January 21 complaint and the attached paperwork this complaint references have been carefully reviewed. The back of the complaint does show that under "Reason for leaving" a check mark appears in the box "Discharge." Also, one of the attached pieces of paperwork makes reference to Perr being informed on December 23, 2002, that his contract would not be renewed, while still another piece of paperwork, apparently received from the respondent, contains a handwritten statement on that letter that it is "filled with trumped up excuses to both fire and not pay monies." However, neither Perr's Labor Standards Complaint itself, or the attached pieces of paperwork, either explicitly or implicitly suggest that Anthony Perr was raising a claim that the respondent terminated him on December 23, 2002, because the respondent believed that he was going to file a labor standards complaint.

Accordingly, the commission has therefore affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge.

NOTE: In response to Ms. Perr's inquiry as to whether the commission will be reviewing claims that Anthony Perr had before the Labor Standards Bureau, the answer is that it will not be reviewing such claims. The commission has no review authority over decisions issued by the Labor Standards Bureau. The commission also notes that it received unsolicited correspondence from Ms. Perr regarding Anthony Perr's retaliation complaint after the commission had already reviewed and decided this case, but not yet issued its decision. Since this correspondence had not been solicited, and the commission had already reviewed and decided this case, no consideration has been given to Ms. Perr's correspondence.

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

uploaded 2004/07/06