119.9 Miscellaneous

A Complainant’s appeal of a decision finding no discrimination was barred by a final order of the federal Bankruptcy Court in proceedings on the Respondent’s Chapter 11 petition. The complaint included allegations of discrimination and rate of pay. This was a “claim” cognizable in the bankruptcy proceedings because payment of a monetary remedy was possible. Under the Bankruptcy Code, holders of disputed and unliquidated claims who fail to file timely proofs of claim are not allowed claims against a bankrupt estate and are not entitled to receive a distribution under the reorganization plan. The exception for claims for “willful and malicious injury” was not applicable here because that exception applies only to individual debtors. The Respondent here was a corporate entity. The Complainant’s claim was, therefore, barred by the final order of the Bankruptcy Court. Vanderwulp v. USG Interiors (LIRC, 07/19/07).

A non-final decision of an Administrative Law Judge in another case where the ALJ had found discrimination, but the matter had been settled prior to an attorney’s fees determination having been made and the decision being issued in final, appealable form would not have any preclusive effect. Moncrief v. Gardner Baking (LIRC, 07/01/92).

When an employer seeks to interpose a federal consent decree against claims of reverse discrimination, the employer must prove that consideration of race was: (1) justified by the existence of a manifest imbalance that reflected under-representation of minorities in traditionally segregated jobs; and (2) the decree did not unnecessarily trammel the rights of non-minority employees or create an absolute bar to their advancement. Samolinski v. Milwaukee County (LIRC, 01/05/90).

Where two employees filed similar complaints, LIRC rejected the Respondent's argument that the finding of no discrimination by one Administrative Law Judge in one employee’s case was res judicata in the other employee’s case, since res judicata requires that the party against whom it is being asserted had an opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding. Taylor v. Hampton Shell (LIRC, 06/27/88).

Where complaints of sex discrimination were settled by a stipulation which necessitated shift changes, an affected employee who was not a party to or represented in the first complaints and who had no notice of the settlement agreement could file a separate complaint of sex discrimination. Chadwick v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 04/02/82.)