554.4 Cases

The Respondent’s action temporarily placing the Complainant on leave with pay while it sought clarification of her medical restrictions was not an adverse employment action, where she was not required to use any leave time and there was no demonstrable negative impact on her employment. Rentmeester v. Wis. Lottery (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 05/27/94).

The Respondent’s decision not to allow inclusion of the union steward or attorney requested by the Complainant to represent the Complainant at an investigative meeting was not retaliatory where there was nothing in the department-wide policy which indicated that the represented employee had the choice to select either a personal attorney or a local union grievance representative who was unavailable at the time of the hearing, and there was no evidence that on other occasions delays in the hearings had been permitted to allow for representation by either a personal attorney or by a union representative who was unavailable at that time. Sadlier v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/30/89).

The Respondent’s decision to suspend the Complainant for ten days for unauthorized distribution of literature on the grounds of a correctional institution was upheld where (1) management had previously indicated a strong opposition to the practice of distributing union newsletters in the institution, (2) antagonism between the Complainant and management preceded the Complainant’s protected activities, (3) those protected activities were not significant departures from the Complainant’s previous conduct, (4) the person who made the final decision to suspend the Complainant was unaware that the Complainant had engaged in any of the specific protected activities and (5) within the previous ten months, the Complainant had received a written reprimand and two three-day suspensions. The Respondent’s decision not to modify the suspension after another employee admitted to distributing some of the literature was upheld where the policy violated by the Complainant did not differentiate the degree of malfeasance based on the amount of information found to have been distributed. Sadlier v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/30/89).

The following actions by the Respondent were found not to be retaliatory: (1) The refusal to provide assistance when the Complainant called for help where testimony indicated assistance was not required, (2) the decision to investigate a report which raised serious questions about the Complainant’s conduct, (3) the decision to substitute a day of suspension for a previously scheduled day of vacation where the person who made the change was unaware that the change was not desired by the Complainant, and (4) the decision to deny the Complainant admittance to the correctional institution grounds during the period of his suspension where the Respondent’s action was consistent with existing policy. Sadlier v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/30/89).

No retaliation was found with respect to the Respondent’s decision to suspend the Complainant for ten days where (1) the Complainant had disrupted the work and morale at the work site, (2) coworkers made unsolicited complaints about the Complainant to management, and (3) the Complainant had been disciplined several times before (most recently for violent and threatening behavior towards two superiors). Morkin v. UW-Madison (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 11/23/88); aff’d sub nom. Morkin v. Wis. Pers. Comm'n (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 09/27/89).