KIERA M CASTLE, Complainant
ST CHARLES YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES, Respondent
The commission has considered the petition
and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to
the administrative law judge. Based
on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the
administrative law judge, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that
decision as its own, except that it makes the following modifications:
1.
Paragraph
6 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT is deleted and the
following paragraph is substituted therefor:
“During the course of the
complainant's employment, the respondent employed another manager by the name of
Anthony Pearson. Mr. Pearson began
working for the respondent about two years before the complainant was hired.”
2.
In the
second sentence in paragraph 22 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF
FACT the phrase “that she need four hours” is deleted and the phrase “that she
would need four hours” is substituted therefor.
3.
In
paragraph 24 of the administrative law judge's FINDINGS OF FACT the name “Scott
Castle” is deleted and the name “Scott Carpenter” is substituted therefor.
4.
In the last full paragraph on page 6 of
the administrative law judge's decision the citation “Jeffrey Baill vs. Western Wisconsin Technical College” is deleted
and the citation “Jeffrey Naill v. Western
Wisconsin Technical College” is substituted therefor.
5.
The second
and third sentences on page 7 of the administrative law judge's decision are
deleted.
DECISION
Dated and mailed April 17, 2015
133.1
BY THE COMMISSION:
/s/ Laurie R. McCallum, Chairperson
/s/ C. William Jordahl, Commissioner
/s/ David B. Falstad, Commissioner
The arguments raised by
the complainant in her petition for commission review are difficult to
understand, and it is not clear whether the complainant is requesting a new
hearing or, if not, on what basis she believes the administrative law judge's
decision should be reversed.
However, notwithstanding the incoherence of the complainant's arguments, the
commission has nonetheless reviewed the hearing record in order to determine
whether the complainant received a fair hearing and whether the factual findings
and conclusions made by the administrative law judge are supported.
Based on its review of the record, the commission concludes that the
complainant did receive a full and fair opportunity to present her evidence and
that the findings made by the administrative law judge are supported.
The complainant
contended that she was discharged from her employment based on her sex and
because she opposed a practice of discrimination.
There is no evidence to establish that the complainant ever opposed a
practice of discrimination prior to the termination of her employment.
Although the complainant testified that she did make a verbal complaint
of discrimination prior to being discharged, she did not explain who she
complained to, when the complaint was made, or what the nature of the complaint
might have been. The complainant's
supervisor testified that the complainant never told him she felt she was being
treated differently than Mr. Pearson, and never complained about discrimination
in the workplace. Absent any reason
to believe that the complainant engaged in protected conduct under the statute,
no prohibited retaliation could have occurred.
With respect to the
claim of sex discrimination, the complainant maintained that a male employee was
treated more favorably than she was in terms of the discipline he received for
his attendance violations.
Specifically, the complainant contended that her male co-worker received
progressive discipline for his attendance, whereas she was immediately
discharged. However, the respondent
credibly explained that the complainant was not discharged based upon her
attendance violations, and the complainant agreed that attendance was not
mentioned as a reason for her discharge.
Rather, the evidence indicates that the complainant was discharged based
upon poor work performance and a poor attitude, which culminated in her refusal
to attend a meeting called by the employer in order to discuss her work
performance. There is no reason to
believe that the complainant's sex had anything to do with the decision to
terminate her employment.
|
The
commission has modified the administrative law
judge's decision to correct typographical errors
and to more clearly set forth some of the
relevant facts.
The commission has also deleted a portion
of the administrative law judge's memorandum
opinion which erroneously implies that an
employee must make a written complaint of
discrimination, with documented allegations, in
order to be said to have engaged in protected
conduct under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.
There is, in fact, no statutory
requirement that the protected opposition take
the form of a written complaint or that it
contain any specific information.
All that
is necessary is that the employee convey to the
employer that she believes discrimination has
occurred.
See,
Matthews
v. Bassett Bedding, ERD Case No.
8902772 (LIRC Oct. 27, 1993).
|
uploaded 2017/01/23