219 Miscellaneous

Dismissal was appropriate where the Complainant had been provided repeated opportunities to respond to discovery and the ALJ's order to compel discovery but did not do so. Rodriguez v. DWD & La Casa Esperanza (Waukesha Co. Cir. Ct., 12/07/16) (unavailable online).

Sec. 106. 50(f)6., Stats., provides that if there is a finding that a Respondent has not engaged in housing discrimination as alleged in the complaint, costs in an amount not to exceed $100.00 plus actual disbursements for the attendance of witnesses may be assessed against the Department of Workforce Development in the discretion of the Department. While there may be special circumstances which may, in exceptional cases, warrant exercising the discretion to award costs and actual disbursements for attendance of witnesses against the Department of Workforce Development, such an award generally would not be imposed where the administrative agency is carrying out its statutorily-authorized, quasi-judicial duty to fairly and impartially hold hearings on complaints of housing discrimination. Simone v. Lloyd (ALJ decision, 01/07/03).

The prohibition against coercion, intimidation, threatening or interfering with the exercise or enjoyment of rights contained in sec. 101.22(4m), Stats., is in the nature of an anti-retaliation provision. Where there has been a direct violation of the anti-discrimination provision of the Open Housing Act, there is no need to invoke sec. 101.22(4m), Stats., to explain why a violation has been found. Dude v. Thompson (LIRC, 11/16/90), aff’d., sub nom. Dude v. LIRC (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 08/08/91). [Ed. note: sec. 101.22(4m), Stats., has been renumbered sec. 106.50(2)(j), Stats.]