LINDA B MANWELL, Complainant

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN - MADISON, Respondent

An administrative law judge 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 administrative law judge. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the administrative law judge, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own, except that it makes the following modification:

The administrative law judge's CONCLUSIONS OF LAW are deleted and the following substituted therefor:

1. The respondent, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is an employer within the meaning of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (Act).

2. There is no probable cause to believe that the respondent discriminated against the complainant with respect to the terms or conditions of her employment because of sex or because she opposed a discriminatory practice under the Act, in violation of the Act.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge (copy attached), as modified, is affirmed.

Dated and mailed March 17, 2006
manweli . rmd : 164 : 9

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

The complainant has not submitted a brief in support of her petition for review, and has provided no specific indication as to why she believes she should prevail based upon this record. Notwithstanding this, the commission has reviewed the hearing record in order to determine whether the administrative law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law are supported. The evidence presented at the hearing indicates that, following the dissolution of a consensual sexual relationship between the complainant and her supervisor, the respondent made changes to the complainant's job assignment which she found objectionable. The record indicates that the respondent was motivated by the legitimate business goal of trying to prevent the personal relationship between the complainant and her supervisor from having a disruptive effect on the entire department, and that its actions were unrelated to the complainant's sex or to any protected activity on her part. The evidence also establishes that the supervisor engaged in conduct which was not always professional or appropriate, including failing to list the complainant as an author on a paper to which she had contributed. Again, however, it is clear from the record that his actions arose in the context of a failed personal relationship, and were not based on the complainant's protected status.

The commission notes that the administrative law judge's decision contains several conclusions of law that are not necessary to the decision, and has modified the decision to delete those conclusions of law which it considers extraneous. This modification notwithstanding, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge's ultimate conclusion that the complainant failed to establish probable cause to believe she was discriminated against in the manner alleged. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc:
Attorney Bruce M. Davey
Attorney John C. Dowling

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

uploaded 2006/03/20