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.

556 Cases

No probable cause was found as to the Complainant’s WFEA retaliation, occupational and safety whistleblower claims arising from the decision not to reclassify his position where the Respondent contended that the request was denied because the Complainant’s position did not meet the requirements of the higher classification and the Complainant did not show that the Respondent’s decision was unreasonable, or that the Respondent applied the specification requirements more stringently for him than for employees who had not engaged in protected activities. Holubowicz v. DOC (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 04/24/97).

No probable cause was found as to the Complainant’s occupational and safety whistleblower claims arising from the decision to require him to undergo an interview for a vacant position along with the other names on the certification list, rather than to transfer into the position without an interview, where (1) the record did not indicate that the alleged retaliator knew the position’s classification had been lowered prior to the date the certification list was generated, (2) the Respondent had posted the position for transfer prior to accepting applications for competition, and the record did not indicate that the Respondent would have had an obligation to post the position for transfer a second time, and (3) the Complainant waited until minutes before his interview started before requesting an opportunity to transfer without an interview. Holubowicz v. DOC (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 04/24/97).

The following allegedly retaliatory acts did not rise to the level of “verbal or physical harassment” within the meaning of sec. 230.80(2), Stats.: (1) The Complainant was forced off the road when a coworker with whom he had a personality conflict cut him off sharply in traffic and (2) this same coworker would not allow the Complainant to park in the garage with other trucks. Seay v. DER & UW-Madison (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/31/94); aff’d sub nom. Seay v. Wis. Pers. Comm'n, (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 03/03/95).

In deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, it was not possible to determine on the limited record before the Personnel Commission whether a conversation with a co-employee concerning a statement made by the agency head would be considered a verbal disclosure to “any other person” that was not preceded by a disclosure under either sec. 230.81(1)(a), Stats. (in writing to the supervisor) or sec. 230.81(1)(b), Stats. (in writing to a governmental unit designated by the Personnel Commission), and hence not a disclosure covered by the Whistleblower Law, or whether the conversation with the co-employee was part of assisting “in any action or proceeding relating to the lawful disclosure of information under sec. 230.81 by another employee” within the meaning of sec. 230.80(8)(b), Stats. Pierce v. Wis. Lottery & DER (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 09/17/93).

No probable cause was found with respect to a decision to reorganize the Complainant’s work unit where the reorganization did not result in any change in the Complainant’s classification or his position description and there was no evidence that the reorganization plan was promulgated so as to retaliate against the Complainant. Holubowicz v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 09/05/91).

No probable cause was found with respect to the Respondent’s decision to bar entry of the Complainant into a correctional institution where such action was standard procedure when there was an investigation pending which directly affected institution security. In addition, the Respondent’s action was taken by persons who were unaware that the Complainant had engaged in a protected activity. Holubowicz v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 09/05/91).

No probable cause was found with respect to the Respondent’s scheduling the Complainant for a pre-disciplinary hearing where the Respondent’s practice was to schedule such hearings whenever an investigation had identified a work rule violation and the person who had conducted the investigation was unaware that the Complainant had engaged in a protected activity. Holubowicz v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 09/05/91).