DENNIS L MAXBERRY, Complainant

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, 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 first paragraph of the “Discussion” portion of the administrative law judge's decision (on page 2) is deleted, and the following paragraph is substituted therefor:

“In order to file a complaint under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, which prohibits acts of unlawful employment discrimination, one must be a past, present, or prospective employee of the named respondent, or otherwise allege that the respondent engaged in an action that directly relates to a specific employment opportunity.”

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

Dated and mailed March 19, 2015

112.1

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson

/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

The complainant's petition for commission review is difficult to decipher, and it is not clear on what basis the complainant believes that reversal of the administrative law judge's decision is appropriate.  The complainant makes reference to the respondent having defamed him and written slanderous statements in his “C-file” with the Veterans Association, but does not elaborate on these assertions and does not explain how this alleged conduct is related to any of the allegations raised at the hearing.  The complainant alleged, in a previous complaint, ERD Case No. CR200900827, that he applied for a job or jobs with the respondent in 2008 and 2009, for which he was not hired.  That complaint was dismissed for lack of probable cause.  The complainant has not established that he applied for a job with the respondent thereafter, and certainly not within 300 days of his December 5, 2013, discrimination complaint.  While at the hearing the complainant suggested he applied for a housekeeping job in 2012, which would have been outside of the statute of limitations period for this complaint, he was unable to provide any further details about that job, and the respondent had no record of any job application from the complainant.  The complainant later testified that he filed an online application in early January of 2013--again outside of the statute of limitations period--but could not explain what job or jobs he believed he had applied for.

At the hearing the complainant also advanced a theory that the respondent was somehow connected with his work for a vocational rehabilitation program called Compensated Work Therapy (CWT), which involved making door signs, and that CWT later began making spray nozzles instead of door signs but did not offer him that work.  (The complainant testified, in contradiction with his allegation that he was discriminated against based upon his race, that the work went to African American and Native American employees who were over the age of 60.)  The complainant suggested that the respondent was responsible for CWT's switching from the manufacture of door signs to spray nozzles to his financial detriment.  The complainant's sole evidence in support of his contentions is his testimony that CWT has “social work connections” through the respondent, and that someone associated with CWT brought in equipment that had the respondent's name on it.  However, the respondent's witness denied any knowledge of CWT or any association with the individual who allegedly began the spray nozzle operation.  He indicated that the respondent is not involved in the production of spray nozzles and that he is unaware of the respondent having a spray nozzle program “in any way, shape or form.”

Under all the circumstances, the commission concludes that the complainant has not established that he had an actual or potential employment relationship with the respondent or that the respondent engaged in any action that directly related to an employment opportunity for him.  Consequently, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc: Attorney Jason Kunschke

uploaded 2017/01/23