644 Cases

The Complainant made out a prima facie case by evidence that he was qualified for a promotion and was told he would be promoted, but the position was given to an employee not in the protected class while the Complainant never got a chance to apply. The Respondent failed to articulate a non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Because the Complainant’s evidence raised a suspicion that discrimination occurred, the Complainant was entitled to a hearing on the merits. Alexander v. Hous. Auth. of the City of Milwaukee (LIRC, 01/30/2020).

Proof that other individuals in the protected class were paid less than the complainant is not evidence that the Complainant was discriminated against in pay. Instead, the Complainant must show that an employee or employees outside of the protected class earned more than he did for similar work. Lofton v. The Jor-Mac Company, Inc. (LIRC, 04/19/18).

Considering the totality of the evidence presented, the Complainant did not show probable cause to believe that sex or race was a motivating factor in assignment of work. The Complainant failed to show that employees who were given the assignment that she wanted were similarly situated to her. Evidence also showed that someone within the Complainant’s protected category was treated favorably with respect to her assignment. While not conclusive, an employer’s favorable treatment of other members of a protected class can show lack of discriminatory intent on the part of the employer. Liddell v. Kleen Test Products, Inc. (LIRC, 04/11/14).

The standard of proof at a probable cause hearing has been described as “low.” Where an employer has become aware that the Complainant’s deafness is causing problems, and subsequently terminates the Complainant based on a claim that there is not enough work, while seeking other employees, there is reasonable ground for belief that discrimination has occurred. Buska v. Central Bldg. Maint. (LIRC, 09/28/95).

The Complainant’s failure to provide medical certification from a health care provider explaining the extent to which he was unable to perform his employment duties, when requested by the employer, establishes that there is no probable cause to believe that the employer violated the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating the employee following his absence from work without medical documentation that he was unable to perform his duties. Randolph v. DILHR (Ct. App., Dist. II, unpublished opinion, 05/13/92).

Probable cause exists to believe discrimination occurred where an employer failed to establish that the requested accommodation for a physical handicap was unreasonable or posed a hardship when the employer's testimony was based on mere speculation that creating a part-time job for a former full-time employee would increase payroll costs and would cause inefficiencies as the result of job sharing. Gartner v. Hilldale, Inc. (LIRC, 05/12/92).

The mere fact that the duties that the Complainant performed remained after his discharge and that the remaining employees were younger than the Complainant does not suffice to establish probable cause to believe that the Respondent discharged the Complainant because of age. Gentilli v. Badger Coaches (LIRC, 03/21/89), aff’d (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 03/30/90).

There was no probable cause to believe that the Respondent discriminated against the Complainant by terminating his employment because of sex where the Complainant had acted in a fashion that led female employees to believe that he was exposing himself to them and where female employees had reported that he made obscene phone calls to them. Hammer v. G.E. Medical Sys. (LIRC, 08/29/89).

There was probable cause to believe that the Respondent violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act by terminating the employment of the Complainant because of handicap where the Complainant established that she was handicapped, the Complainant was not inherently incredible when she testified, and where it could be inferred that the Respondent’s claim was pre-textual. Johnson v. Simpson Elec. (LIRC, 04/12/89).

There was no probable cause to believe that the termination of the Complainant’s employment was because of age where the Respondent, due to poor financial conditions, laid off several employees based on seniority and employment status. Schneider v. Northwestern Mutual Ins. of Milwaukee (LIRC, 01/26/89).

In a hearing on the issue of probable cause, Respondent failed to establish that Complainant’s handicap was reasonably related to the Complainant’s ability to undertake the duties of a new position where there was little evidence supporting a doctor’s establishment of lifting, bending, stooping and twisting restrictions; where the doctor’s conclusion was based on Complainant’s notations of his medical history and an examination limited to five minutes which did not include questions regarding the meaning of those notations; and where the doctor was not shown to be aware of how the duties of the Complainant’s current position compared to the duties of the position the Complainant desires. Lauri v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 11/03/88).

Where the Respondent was informed by a physician's assistant that the Complainant was suffering from an inflammatory arthritic condition, and the Respondent thus was aware of the Complainant's handicap, and where the Respondent thereafter terminated the Complainant for failing to comply with a call in requirement without first providing him a written warning, as it was its practice to do, the evidence was adequate to raise an inference of discrimination sufficient to justify a finding of probable cause. Herling v. Dealers Office Equip. (LIRC, 02/18/87).

The facts that a terminated Complainant was in the protected age group and that her replacement was not are not sufficient, standing alone, to support a finding of probable cause that age discrimination occurred. Sanrope v. Hillsboro Pub. Sch. (LIRC, 08/22/86).

Complainant's testimony in an age discrimination case that her immediate supervisor told her that she should take early retirement was incredible because the Complainant had failed to make this allegation any time prior to the probable cause hearing. Further, even if the remark was made, Complainant's own testimony indicates that the context in which the remark was allegedly made indicated that the remark was not an indication of discrimination. Thus, Complainant presented no credible evidence sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to believe that her age was a determining factor in Respondent's decision to discharge her. Sanrope v. Hillsboro Pub. Sch. (LIRC, 08/22/86).

Where the Complainant offered testimony sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and the Respondent offered no evidence at the hearing to rebut the prima facie case, a finding of probable cause resulted. Gunderson v. Bonded Spirits Corp. (LIRC, 07/17/86).