JOHN T. DOLK, Complainant
MARQUETTE ELECTRONICS, Respondent A
MICHAEL CUDAHY, PRESIDENT, Respondent B
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 October 8, 1993. Complainant filed a timely petition for review by the commission and both parties submitted written arguments.
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 July 11, 1994.
164
/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman
/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner
/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner
In his petition for commission review the complainant makes reference to fraud, bias, duress, misprision of felony and denial of "substantive Personal and Private Rights," all of which allegedly occurred prior to or during the hearing in this matter. Although the complainant's arguments in this regard are undeveloped, it appears that he is primarily concerned about the fact that the respondents have been represented throughout these proceedings by out-of-state counsel, Attorney Mark P. Cohen, who is not licensed to practice law in the State of Wisconsin. As the administrative law judge explained at the hearing, the complainant is free to raise these concerns with the State Bar Association or District Attorney's office, if he so chooses. However, even if it is determined that Attorney Cohen's appearance at the hearing was in violation of the provisions of section 757.30, Stats., which governs the practice of law in Wisconsin, his actions would not constitute grounds for a reversal of the administrative law judge's decision. The commission has reviewed the record and is satisfied that the complainant was not prejudiced by the respondents' attorney's appearance at the hearing, and that the complainant was given a full and fair opportunity to present his case. The complaint in this matter was dismissed because the complainant failed to prove even a bare prima facie case of handicap discrimination. The complainant neither established that he is handicapped within the meaning of the statute, nor that the respondents subjected him to any adverse employment action on the basis of a handicap. Because the complainant did not establish probable good cause to believe that he was discriminated against by the respondents in the manner alleged, the administrative law judge's decision is affirmed.
cc: Mark P. Cohen
Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
uploaded 2005/06/30