STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION

ROBERT W. LASIEWICZ, Complainant

WATERTOWN METAL, Respondent A,

MACHINIST AEROSPACE, Respondent B

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 8102849

The Examiner of the Department of Industry. Labor and Human Relations issued a decision in the above-captioned matter on February 4, 1983. Complainant filed a timely petition for review of the Examiner's decision. Neither party submitted written arguments to the Commission.

Based upon a review of the record in its entirety, the Labor and Industry Review Commission issues the following:

ORDER

That the decision of the Examiner is affirmed by the Commission subject to the following modifications:

1. That the year "1978" be deleted from paragraph 2 of the Findings of Fact and the year "1977" be substituted therefor. This modification has been made to make this finding conform with the evidence.

2. That paragraph 2 of the Examiner's Conclusions of Law be deleted and the following paragraph substituted therefor:

"Complainant filed a timely complaint with the Department."

3. That the period after the word "handicap" be deleted in paragraph number 4 of the Examiner's Conclusions of Law and the phrase "within the meaning of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.", be added to that Conclusion of` Law.

4. That the language "and that he filed a complaint within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination" be deleted from Conclusion of Law number 5.

As modified, the Examiner's decision shall stand as the FINAL ORDER herein.

Dated and mailed August 31, 1983.

/s/ David A. Pearson, Chairman

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner

/s/ Hugh C. Henderson, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Respondents assert that because the alleged act of discrimination (discharge) occurred on April 15, 1980 and Complainant's charge of discrimination was not filed with the Department until April 7, 1981, his complaint herein is untimely.   The Respondents assert that Complainant's January 28, 1981 letter to the Department is of no consequence as that letter does not constitute a valid complaint because it was not verified.   The Commission disagrees.   The failure to verify a complaint is a mere technical defect and has no effect on the effective filing date of a complaint.   It is well settled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that a written unsworn charge which is timely filed can be amended after the statutory period to add the sworn verification to meet the oath requirement.    Complainant's sworn charge filed with the Department on April 7, 1981 operates as an amendment to his unsworn charge (January 28, 1981) which was filed within the 300 day statute of limitations.

125

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

uploaded 2001/02/21