CHARLES H WILLIAMS, Complainant
MARTIN SECURITY SYSTEMS, 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 March 29, 2007
willich . rsd : 115 : 9
/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman
/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner
The complainant asserts in his appeal to the commission that, at hearing, the ALJ:
(1) "informed me that I was able to ask the respondent questions but that I was unable to present any of my [documentary] evidence since most of it had previously been sent to him for his review, so as a result that information was not made a matter of record at the time of the ...hearing;"
(2) "said that I could not make a closing argument since I was not legal counsel;"
(3) did not permit the complainant to offer the documents he had mailed to the ALJ as potential exhibits because the complainant "was not represented by counsel;"
(4) would not permit the complainant to offer most of his evidence;
(5) continually stated to the complainant at hearing that "he had all the evidence to consider since it was previously sent to him and therefore did not want to waste time going through it all at the hearing."
However, the record of the hearing does not support these assertions. In fact, the record shows that the ALJ, after asking the complainant whether he wanted to offer any exhibits, reviewed and received the documents the complainant offered; and then asked the complainant whether he had anything else to offer and the complainant indicated he did not. In addition, as each witness, including the complainant, testified, the ALJ asked the complainant if he had any further testimony/questions and permitted the complainant to proceed until he indicated he had nothing further. There is no reference in the record to any ruling or procedure being dependent upon the presence of legal counsel. The hearing record shows, contrary to the complainant's assertions in his appeal, that the ALJ provided him a full and fair opportunity to present his case at hearing.
The complainant, in his appeal to the commission, cites to certain information the parties provided to the department investigator, and to certain information exchanged during discovery, which did not become part of the hearing record. The complainant did not offer this information as impeachment evidence or otherwise at hearing and the commission may not consider it as a result.
Finally, the complainant requests in his appeal that the commission permit him to augment the record with the respondent's answers to his discovery interrogatories. The complainant argues that this request should be granted because the respondent did not provide these answers until two days before hearing. However, despite the fact that the complainant had reason to be aware, on or around December 13, 2005, that this matter had been scheduled for a March 2, 2006, hearing, he waited until after business hours on Friday, February 3, 2006, to transmit the subject interrogatories. The respondent, pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 804.08(1)(b) and Wis. Adm. Code § DWD 218.14(3), had 30 days to answer these interrogatories, but apparently provided an answer on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, before this 30-day period had expired. Any delay in this regard is attributable to the complainant, and this circumstance does not justify augmenting the hearing record as he has requested.
cc: Attorney Jodi L. Arndt
[ Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]