Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin
Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Scott Bollman v. LIRC and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Co., December 13, 2002)
Digest Codes: MC 666.01 MC 673 MC 675 - Single isolated act
After an African-American employee signed up on the office vacation sign-up sheet for 4 weeks of vacation, more time than other employees thought he ought to use, a co-worker (not the claimant herein) made a noose out of a length of rope and hung it over the African-American employee's desk. The claimant herein then wrote and attached to the noose a note reading, "It's a black thing. 4 weeks?". The African-American employee was very upset when he arrived later and found the noose and the note. The claimant herein was subsequently terminated for violating the employer's policies on Violence and Weapons in the Workplace and on Discrimination and Harassment. The claimant claimed that he had intended to write, "It's not a black thing" on his note and simply forgot the word "not". He argued that he was simply attempting to be humorous and meant no harm, and that at most he engaged in a single act of poor judgment. The Initial Determination found no misconduct and allowed benefits, and an ALJ affirmed.
LIRC reversed, finding discharge for misconduct. LIRC found not credible the claimant's assertion that he had intended to write "It's not a black thing". The claimant's note stating "It's a black thing" identified the noose as being associated with race. Even if LIRC credited the claimant's assertion that he meant no harm, his conduct was discriminatory, threatening and inexcusable.
Held: Affirmed. Case law indicates that a single act can rise to the level of misconduct. Suggesting that multiple incidents would be required before misconduct could be found, would undermine the public policy supporting employers who seek to preclude workplace harassment. It was not unreasonable for LIRC to reject the claimant's assertion that he simply forgot to include the word "not" in his note. It was also reasonable to conclude that, regardless of the claimant's intent, his conduct in attaching the note to the noose was discriminatory, threatening and inexcusable. LIRC's decision is therefore affirmed.
Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]