STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

KIERA M CASTLE, Complainant

ST CHARLES YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. CR201203205; EEOC Case No. 26G201300087C

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 modifications:

1.             Paragraph 6 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT is deleted and the following paragraph is substituted therefor:

“During the course of the complainant's employment, the respondent employed another manager by the name of Anthony Pearson.  Mr. Pearson began working for the respondent about two years before the complainant was hired.”

2.             In the second sentence in paragraph 22 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT the phrase “that she need four hours” is deleted and the phrase “that she would need four hours” is substituted therefor.

3.             In paragraph 24 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT the name “Scott Castle” is deleted and the name “Scott Carpenter” is substituted therefor.

4.             In the last full paragraph on page 6 of the administrative law judge's decision the citation “Jeffrey Baill vs. Western Wisconsin Technical College” is deleted and the citation “Jeffrey Naill v. Western Wisconsin Technical College” is substituted therefor.

5.            The second and third sentences on page 7 of the administrative law judge's decision are deleted.

DECISION

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

Dated and mailed April 17, 2015

133.1

BY THE COMMISSION:

/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson

/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner

/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The arguments raised by the complainant in her petition for commission review are difficult to understand, and it is not clear whether the complainant is requesting a new hearing or, if not, on what basis she believes the administrative law judge's decision should be reversed.  However, notwithstanding the incoherence of the complainant's arguments, the commission has nonetheless reviewed the hearing record in order to determine whether the complainant received a fair hearing and whether the factual findings and conclusions made by the administrative law judge are supported.  Based on its review of the record, the commission concludes that the complainant did receive a full and fair opportunity to present her evidence and that the findings made by the administrative law judge are supported. 

The complainant contended that she was discharged from her employment based on her sex and because she opposed a practice of discrimination.  There is no evidence to establish that the complainant ever opposed a practice of discrimination prior to the termination of her employment.  Although the complainant testified that she did make a verbal complaint of discrimination prior to being discharged, she did not explain who she complained to, when the complaint was made, or what the nature of the complaint might have been.  The complainant's supervisor testified that the complainant never told him she felt she was being treated differently than Mr. Pearson, and never complained about discrimination in the workplace.  Absent any reason to believe that the complainant engaged in protected conduct under the statute, no prohibited retaliation could have occurred.

With respect to the claim of sex discrimination, the complainant maintained that a male employee was treated more favorably than she was in terms of the discipline he received for his attendance violations.  Specifically, the complainant contended that her male co-worker received progressive discipline for his attendance, whereas she was immediately discharged.  However, the respondent credibly explained that the complainant was not discharged based upon her attendance violations, and the complainant agreed that attendance was not mentioned as a reason for her discharge.  Rather, the evidence indicates that the complainant was discharged based upon poor work performance and a poor attitude, which culminated in her refusal to attend a meeting called by the employer in order to discuss her work performance.  There is no reason to believe that the complainant's sex had anything to do with the decision to terminate her employment.

 

NOTE:

The commission has modified the administrative law judge's decision to correct typographical errors and to more clearly set forth some of the relevant facts.  The commission has also deleted a portion of the administrative law judge's memorandum opinion which erroneously implies that an employee must make a written complaint of discrimination, with documented allegations, in order to be said to have engaged in protected conduct under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.  There is, in fact, no statutory requirement that the protected opposition take the form of a written complaint or that it contain any specific information.  All that is necessary is that the employee convey to the employer that she believes discrimination has occurred.  See, Matthews v. Bassett Bedding, ERD Case No. 8902772 (LIRC Oct. 27, 1993).

 


uploaded 2017/01/23