STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)
GUENTHER W FESTER, Complainant
CURT G JOA INC, Respondent
FAIR EMPLOYMENT DECISION
ERD Case No. 199902570, EEOC Case No. 26G991972
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.
The decision of the administrative law judge (copy attached) is affirmed.
Dated and mailed August 25, 2000
festegu . rsd : 164 : 9
/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman
/s/ Pamela I. Anderson, Commissioner
/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner
In his petition for commission review the complainant argues that he is entitled to know whether the administrative law judge was biased and prejudiced against him because he is an immigrant and thinks only in his German language. The complainant, however, has failed to explain why he believes the administrative law judge may have harbored bias or prejudice against him, and the commission finds no reason to believe that any such bias existed. Moreover, the commission has independently reviewed this matter and has considered the same information that was before the administrative law judge. Based upon that review, the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the complaint, which was filed more than seven years after the last day the alleged discrimination occurred, must be dismissed as untimely under Wis. Stat. § 111.39(1).
In his petition the complainant also makes an argument that the timeliness factor is voided under theories of due process, because he is a layman without influence and capability to access the system. The complainant has not elaborated on this argument, and the commission is not entirely certain why he believes that his status as a "layman" rendered him unable to file a timely complaint. The commission notes, however, that most equal rights complainants are laypersons, and that layperson status is not a matter which would justify extending a statute of limitations.
The commission has considered the remaining arguments raised by the complainant in his petition and supporting submissions, but finds them similarly unpersuasive. Because the commission agrees with the administrative law judge that the complaint was untimely and that the statute of limitations warrants its dismissal, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed.
cc: Patricia A. Chucka
[ Search ER Decisions ] - [ ER Decision Digest ] - [ ER Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]