COUNCIL B JONES, Complainant

PURITY CLEAN CORP, 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 May 11, 2007
jonesco . rsd : 125 : 8

/s/ James T. Flynn, Chairman

/s/ Robert Glaser, Commissioner

Council Jones petitions for a review of the ALJ's decision, which dismissed his complaint of alleged age and race discrimination with respect to his terms and conditions of employment and termination of employment.

Jane Aldridge, a white female, is the president and owner of the respondent, a janitorial firm. Aldridge hired Jones to work as a cleaning technician in early February 2005, and then fired him on March 2, 2005. Jones was age 44 when hired and fired. Jones is black.

Aldridge testified that she received customer complaints about work performed by Jones and that he was fired due to poor performance. The ALJ found that there was no reason to believe Jones's age or race were factors in the respondent's treatment of him during his employment with the respondent, or in the decision by Aldridge to terminate Jones's employment.

Jones's claim is that he was written up for poor work performance and discharged, whereas the respondent took no action against three other individuals with poor work performance. In addition, Jones apparently argues that he was unable to prove his case since he could not question the witnesses for the respondent "because they didn't show."

Jones has failed to present reason to believe that the respondent discriminated against him because of his age or race.

The individuals Jones asserts received more favorable treatment than him were 16- and 17-year-old high school students, one of whom was black, that the respondent hired as fill-ins for temporary cleaning jobs and holiday season decorating. Jones states he has 20 years of cleaning experience. Furthermore, Aldridge knew Jones's age and race when she hired him and thus it is highly unlikely that she hired him knowing his age and race but then subsequently fired him because of his age and race.

Prior to the hearing the respondent had identified several individuals as potential witnesses for the hearing. After Jones completed the presentation of his case, which had included calling Aldridge to testify, Aldridge decided that the respondent would not put on its case. It is not clear from the record whether the respondent's witnesses had actually not shown up for the hearing, or were waiting outside the hearing room and simply not called on by the respondent to testify at the hearing. If those individuals were waiting outside the hearing room, Jones could have called them to testify, as he had called Aldridge to testify. If they were not present for the hearing and Jones required their presence in order to prove his case, it was his responsibility to have had those individuals subpoenaed to ensure their presence.

cc:
Purity Clean Corp.

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

uploaded 2007/05/15