STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)
SHARON A KOLL, Complainant
HAIR DESIGN, c/o LARRY CLARKE Respondent A
NANCY KORTH, Respondent B
FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 9301978
An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations 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 April 27, 1995
kollsha . rsd : 110 : 9
/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Chairman
/s/ Richard T. Kreul, Commissioner
/s/ James R. Meier, Commissioner
The credible evidence offered by the Complainant establishes to the commission's satisfaction that Korth discriminated against and discharged Complainant because Korth believed that the Complainant might file a complaint with the state concerning her entitlement to minimum wage. The employer failed to offer any testimony from Korth, or any other competent evidence, to rebut Complainant's testimony about Korth's statements and actions. Clarke's testimony was not persuasive, because he had no first-hand personal knowledge about those events.
It is not relevant that Clarke, the owner of the employer, did not know of the letters which Complainant and her co-workers posted on the bulletin board in their workplace. there is no question but that Korth was an agent of Clarke, and Clarke is therefore responsible -- and, in this case, liable -- for Korth's conduct. (1) See, sec. 111.39 (4)(c), Stats.; Nelson v. Waybridge Manor (LIRC, 4/6/90), Drecktrah v. LIRC (Jackson Co. Cir. Ct., 4/6/82).
cc: John M. Cirilli
[ Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]
(1)( Back ) Korth should probably not even have been named as a separate Respondent. See, Sinclair v. Mike's Towne and Country, Tim Arfstrom and Myron & Gay Tassoul (LIRC, 10/15/93). There was no allegation in the complaint that Korth was acting outside the scope of her apparent authority, and the evidence in fact shows that she had the authority to discharge. She was simply a manager and supervisor. The appropriate respondent in such cases is the employer, and the employer has the liability.