VIVIAN MCCARTER, Complainant

JOHNSON CONTROLS, Respondent

An administrative law judge for the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations issued a decision in the above-captioned matter on April 2, 1993. Complainant filed a timely petition for review by the commission.

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

The decision of the administrative law judge (copy attached) is affirmed and shall stand as the FINAL ORDER herein.

Dated and mailed May 1, 1993

/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman

/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner

/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner

NOTE: The fact that the complainant mailed her response to the ALJ's certified letter within 20 days of her receipt of that letter, is irrelevant under the statute. The 20 days within which a complainant must respond to a certified letter from the Equal Rights Division is measured from the date on which the original correspondence from the Equal Rights Division is mailed to the date on which the complainant's response is received by the Equal Rights Division. Schilling v. Walworth County (LIRC, May 10, 1984). If the response is late, the statute absolutely requires the dismissal of the complaint. Dixon v. Genesis Program (LIRC, July 22, 1991).

In this case, the investigation was extraordinarily delayed because of complainant's failure, despite numerous requests, to file any written statement of position. The ALJ therefore had a reason to want to seek confirmation from the complainant of her intention to go forward in the matter. The correspondence to the complainant which she failed to timely respond to, was thus a purposeful piece of "correspondence from the department concerning the complaint" within the meaning of that statute.

110 / T

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

uploaded 2003/07/10