Skip main navigation

Outdated or Unsupported Browser Detected
DWD's website uses the latest technology. This makes our site faster and easier to use across all devices. Unfortunatley, your browser is out of date and is not supported. An update is not required, but it is strongly recommended to improve your browsing experience. To update Internet Explorer to Microsoft Edge visit their website.

112.9 Miscellaneous

The Complainant was subject to an order of the Wisconsin Personnel Commission prohibiting him from filing WFEA complaints with the Equal Rights Division against specific state agencies, including the Department of Corrections, until he satisfied court judgments. The complaint was dismissed on the grounds that the Complainant failed to show that he paid all outstanding judgments. Balele v. State of Wis. Dep't of Corr. (LIRC, 06/13/18).

An Administrative Law Judge’s order that the Respondent should cease and desist from discriminating against the Complainant or any of its employees was modified to apply only to the Complainant. Neither the Equal Rights Division nor the Labor and Industry Review Commission have the authority to entertain a class action under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Metzger v. UGD Auto. (LIRC, 02/28/08).

The Complainant alleged that she had been discriminated against by the Respondent on the basis of age and sex when it failed to hire her for a position as a librarian. By offering evidence relating to the unsuccessful applications for promotion of other females over the age of forty within the Respondent’s library system, the Complainant appeared to be attempting to prosecute her charge as a class action. Neither the Equal Rights Division nor the Labor and Industry Review Commission have the authority under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act to entertain a class action. Rosneck v. UW-Madison (LIRC, 08/10/06), aff’d sub nom. Rosneck v. LIRC and UW-Madison (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 01/22/07); aff’d (Ct. App., Dist. IV, unpublished opinion, 01/10/08).

The Equal Rights Division does not have the authority to entertain a class action under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Rowser v. Upper Lakes Foods (LIRC, 10/29/04).

The class action procedure is not available in the administrative processes provided for in the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Jones v. Cent. Reg’l Dental Testing Serv. (LIRC, 02/29/96).

In a licensing discrimination case, the Complainant must initially show that he applied for the license in question. Where the Complainant never applied for a license (to practice dentistry, in this case), he cannot proceed on a complaint alleging that he would have been denied a license had he applied. Jones v. Cent. Reg’l Dental Testing Serv. (LIRC 02/29/96).

A case may be brought under sec. 111.322(2), Wis. Stats., even though no individual has suffered actual injury as a result of a printed statement which implies an intent to discriminate. This statute addresses the evil of employment discrimination on the two fronts where it obviously is practiced –against existing employees and against prospective employees. The violation is complete when the policy is in place and then printed or circulated. Racine Unified Sch. Dist. v. LIRC, 164 Wis. 2d 567, 476 N.W.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1991).

A cause of action under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act survives the death of the Complainant. The Estate of Kaluza v. Gross Common Carrier, Inc. (LIRC, 03/05/86).

A cause of action under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act survives death and may be pursued by a decedent's estate. Szamocki v. Gilbert Shoe Co. (LIRC, 07/31/78).