611 Complainant’s ultimate burden of proof

The Complainant’s prima facie case of discrimination because of conviction record went unrebutted where the employer’s only witness could offer no details about the hiring decision and provided no explanation for it. In addition, the Respondent’s concession that it would not have considered the Complainant for certain jobs because of conviction record was direct evidence of discrimination. Zunker v. RTS Distributors (LIRC, 06/16/14).

A prima facie case will trigger a burden of production for the employer, but, unless the employer remains silent in the face of that prima facie case, the Complainant continues to bear the burden of proof on the ultimate issue of discrimination. Currie v. LIRC, 210 Wis. 2d 381, 565 N.W.2d 253 (Ct. App. 1997).

In a discrimination case, the Complainant bears the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that a factor such as pregnancy was a motivating factor in the employment decision. There must be enough evidence to supply the necessary inference of discriminatory intent. Hoell v. Narada Productions (LIRC, 12/18/92), aff’d sub nom. Hoell v. LIRC, 186 Wis. 2d 603, 522 N.W.2d 234 (Ct. App. 1994).

The Complainant bears the ultimate burden of proving that her protected status was a motivating factor in the Respondent's decision. The question of an employer’s motivation presents a question of a fact. Kemmerer v. City of Madison Police Dep’t (LIRC, 06/30/93).

The ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that age was a determining factor in a hiring decision remains at all times with the Complainant. Kurtz v. Sch. Dist. of St. Croix Falls (LIRC, 06/10/93).