ALLEN BEDYNEK-STUMM, Complainant

MADISON AREA TECHNICAL COLLEGE, Respondent

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.

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

Dated and mailed June 27, 2001
bedynal . rsd : 125 : 9

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

The complainant, Allen Bedynek-Stumm, petitions for a review of the ALJ's decision, which dismissed his complaint of alleged age and sex discrimination with respect to the respondent's failure to hire him for the position of Adult Basic Education Instructor.

The complainant submitted an application for the position of Adult Basic Education Instructor in June 1999. While he met the minimum qualifications for initial consideration for the position, due to an additional requirement that he have recent teaching experience he was not invited for an interview and thus eliminated from further consideration. The complainant's last teaching experience occurred in 1979.

In his petition for review, the complainant claims that he was improperly denied requested discovery materials, which prevented him from establishing discrimination and resulted in the dismissal of his case. The complainant has not shown that the respondent improperly denied any material requested by him. For example, the complainant asserts that he was denied interview process materials such as interview notes, memoranda and other communications that stated the reason candidates were not hired. The respondent denied that it had any such material. The respondent indicated that what it did have was initial and final interview evaluation summaries for the candidates, and these materials were provided to the complainant. The complainant asserts that he was denied data which showed that the successful candidate (Elizabeth Bremer) and others who were interviewed possessed experience with instructional technologies. However, the respondent furnished the complainant the application materials submitted by these individuals. The complainant complains that in response to a number of his discovery requests the respondent's response was to object to the request as vague and overly broad. However, despite its objections, the respondent nevertheless referenced material furnished to the complainant that responded to his requests, or denied that the requested data existed.

Additionally, the complainant contends that the respondent's recent teaching experience requirement was a pretext for discrimination. For instance, he apparently argues that while the respondent asserts that recent teaching experience was likely to show experience with instructional technologies, the respondent has admitted that no definition of instructional technologies exists. The respondent did admit that it had no written definition of instructional technologies. However, it is quite obvious that the criteria that the respondent established in order for a candidate to continue in the hiring process was that the candidate possess knowledge of current educational methods and processes. Clearly, the complainant cannot reasonably maintain that a requirement that a candidate possess knowledge of current educational methods and processes served no legitimate purpose in the hiring process. The complainant last taught in 1979.

The complainant also notes that he had applied for the identical position in 1991 and that at that time he had been invited for an interview. However, the complainant's invitation for an interview for a job vacancy that existed in 1991, but elimination from consideration for a 1999 job vacancy without receiving an interview, provides no reason to believe that he was unlawfully discriminated against in connection with the 1999 job vacancy.

Another argument the complainant makes is that the respondent has not disputed that recent college graduates without any teaching experience are hired as teachers. But this argument ignores the fact that recent college graduates are also more likely than not to have knowledge of current educational technology.

Additionally, the complainant claims that a recent teaching experience requirement has an adverse impact on persons over 40. This argument also fails. Possession of recent teaching experience is not something that is limited to individuals under age 40. And, the complainant has not presented any statistical evidence to substantiate his claim that a requirement of recent teaching experience has a disparate impact on persons over age 40.

cc: Attorney John M. Moore

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

uploaded 2001/06/29