STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

JEANANNE HITCHCOCK, Complainant

INJECTION TECHNOLOGIES INC, Respondent

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 199902749

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.

DECISION

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

Dated and mailed June 15, 2000
hitchje.rsd : 164 : 9

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review the complainant argues that the administrative law judge's decision regarding her claim of "mental harassment" is wrong. The complainant states that "mental harassment" in the work place is almost as bad as sexual harassment and happens almost as often. The complainant's argument fails. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate based upon age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest or conviction record, membership in the national guard, state defense force or any other reserve component of the military, or the use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours. Wis. Stat. § 111.321. Had the complainant alleged that she was subjected to "mental harassment" on any of those enumerated bases, she would arguably have a claim under the WFEA. However, harassment that is not related to the complainant's age, race, creed, color, disability, or other protected status, is not prohibited by the WFEA and, therefore, not the proper subject of a discrimination complaint. While in her petition the complainant argues that the law should be changed to protect against the type of harassment which occurred in her case, the commission lacks the authority to expand or change the law as it was written by the legislature. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

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