Wis.LIRC ER Decision: Mohr - December 27, 2001 - Failure to respond to correspondence from the department - while complainant may have been confused by receipt in same envelope of certified letter from ERD requiring response within 20 days and letter from EEOC requiring response within 30 days, this did not justify him in ignoring the 20-day requirement, and if he was confused he should have contacted the ERD; death in family on 19th does not appear to have had effect on ability to respond, and in any event dismissal for failure to respond is mandatory

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

MARK MOHR, Complainant

KOHLER CO, Respondent A

UAW LOCAL 833, Respondent B

FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 200002906, EEOC Case No. 26GA10116

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 December 27, 2001
mohrma . rsd : 164 : 9

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In the petition for commission review (1 ) the complainant argues that he was confused as to when his response to the administrative law judge's letter was due, since he received a separate letter from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission which cited a 30-day deadline to respond. The complainant also contends that a death in his family on October 21 prevented him from fully and competently addressing the matter. The complainant's arguments fail. While the simultaneous receipt of the two letters may have created some confusion for the complainant with respect to whether he had 20 or 30 days in which to respond, he was not justified in simply ignoring the 20-day deadline set forth in the administrative law judge's letter. To the contrary, the administrative law judge's letter specifically advised him to contact the hearing office if he had questions, and the complainant was obligated to do so if he felt clarification was necessary. Regarding the complainant's excuse that a death in the family prevented him from responding to the administrative law judge's letter, the commission is unpersuaded that an event occurring on the 19th day of the 20-day period had any bearing on the complainant's failure to respond to the administrative law judge's correspondence, particularly in light of the complainant's assertion that he was confused as to whether or not he was required to respond within 20 days. Further, and more importantly, even if the complainant had been able to establish a credible reason for failing to respond to the administrative law judge in a timely manner, the law nonetheless requires dismissal of his complaint. Wisconsin Statute § 111.39(3) mandates dismissal of a complaint where there is a failure to respond within 20 days to correspondence from the department sent by certified mail to the complainant at his last known address. The law does not provide for any exceptions, even where the complainant had a good reason for failing to comply. Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.

cc:
Attorney Jeffry P. Van Groll
Attorney Paul M. Ten Pas
Attorney George F. Graf

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

Footnotes:

(1)( Back ) Although the complainant's petition was directed to the administrative law judge rather than the commission, it is being treated as a petition for commission review.

uploaded 2002/01/03