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.
Sec. 230.88(2), Stats., provided that upon an employee’s commencement of an action in a court of record alleging matters prohibited under sec. 230.83(1), Stats., the Personnel Commission had no jurisdiction to process a complaint filed under sec. 230.85, Stats., except to dismiss the complaint. The Personnel Commission lost subject matter jurisdiction over the Complainant’s whistleblower complaint once he filed an action in federal district court that included allegations of state whistleblower violations. The Personnel Commission had no authority to place the case in abeyance. Albrechtsen v. DWD, 2005 WI App 241, 288 Wis. 2d 144, 708 N.W.2d 1.
Allegations of the complaint which related to decisions made prior to the 60-day actionable period were dismissed as untimely. Ochrymowycz v. UW-Eau Claire (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 06/07/00).
The filing of a sec. 1983 action in a court of record deprives the Personnel Commission of jurisdiction over a complaint of whistleblower retaliation based on the same allegedly retaliatory conduct, by operation of sec. 230.88(2)(c), Stats. Dahm v. Wis. Lottery (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 08/26/92).
DWD Contact Information
201 E. Washington Ave
P.O. Box 7946
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-3131
Sign up for DWD news and updates
A proud partner of the 
network