748.2 Settlement agreements; enforcement

In WPAAL cases, LIRC's jurisdiction extends only to reviewing whether the WPAAL was violated. LIRC is not authorized to decide breach of contract questions or entertain actions for enforcement of a settlement agreement. Bellocchio v. Best Western Inn & Suites, New Richmond (LIRC, 02/18/21).

The Complainant contended that she entered into a settlement agreement under duress because the administrative law judge would not grant a continuance to allow her to subpoena her witnesses. However, a finding of duress contemplates threats or wrongful acts. The failure to grant a continuance did not force the Complainant into accepting a settlement. Coenen v. Plexus Corp. (LIRC, 01/08/21).

The Respondent’s failure to comply with the OWBPA might affect the Complainant’s rights under the ADEA but has no bearing on her claims under the WFEA. Coenen v. Plexus Corp. (LIRC, 01/08/21).

LIRC treats settlement agreements as final absent an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Division or an allegation that the settlement contains something that renders it invalid on its face. Allegations by the Complainant that he was "not treated fairly" and that he is "not happy with the outcome in court" are not sufficient to set aside a voluntary settlement agreement. Osman v. JBS Green Bay, Inc (LIRC, 03/30/20).

Where the Complainant returned the consideration he received for signing an agreement releasing the Respondent from certain claims pending a determination by the Equal Rights Division regarding the validity of the agreement, such consideration must be returned to the Complainant upon a conclusion that the Complainant did in fact sign a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue. The Respondent’s refusal to return the consideration to the Complainant would have the effect of rendering the agreement unenforceable. Xu v. Epic System Corporation (LIRC, 06/04/18).

The Equal Rights Division and LIRC have no authority to adjudicate a contract dispute. However, they may decide whether the Respondent’s interpretation of the agreement was a reasonable one for purposes of determining whether the Respondent presented a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Weber v. State of Wisconsin DWD (LIRC, 01/04/18).

Language in a settlement agreement indicating that the Complainant has not waived his right to file a complaint with agencies such as the EEOC that he “cannot be prohibited from or punished for filing as a matter of law” evinced an intent to preserve the Complainant’s right to file a complaint with the Equal Rights Division. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint based upon the settlement agreement was in error. Xu v. Epic Systems, Inc. (LIRC, 10/24/2017). [Ed. note: In Ionetz v. Menard, Inc. (LIRC, 03/13/18), LIRC stated that it would no longer follow this decision].

The Complainant gave the Administrative Law Judge a written, dated and signed document stating that a settlement agreement had been reached and that he would like to close his case. The Complainant’s filing of the request for withdrawal of his complaint was unconditional, voluntary, and intentional, and it was done with the knowledge that it would result in the issuance of an order dismissing his complaint. The Complainant’s complaint was appropriately dismissed and his subsequent attempt to revoke the settlement was rejected. This is not a case where there was never any intention of withdrawing the complaint or where the withdrawal of the complaint was “inadvertent.” It was the Complainant’s choice not to wait to file his request to withdraw his complaint until the settlement agreement’s revocation period had expired. The Complainant made the decision to go ahead and resign from his job, withdraw his complaint and get his complaint dismissed because he wanted to speed up his receipt of the settlement proceeds. The Department does not have authority to entertain actions for reformation, enforcement or breach of contract regarding a settlement agreement which has been signed by the parties. Burton v. United Gov’t Serv. (LIRC, 11/21/11).

The Complainant signed a paper in which she agreed to arbitration of this matter. The settlement agreement that was reached as a result of arbitration was valid and binding. The Complainant was represented by counsel throughout the settlement negotiations. Although it is unfortunate that the Complainant is dissatisfied with her attorney’s representation of her, that does not render the settlement invalid. Wennesheimer v. American Express (LIRC, 11/25/09).

Settlements will be treated as final even in cases where a party is unrepresented, provided that the party entered into the settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily. In this case, the Complainant was a college student. He had several days to review the Agreement and Release before signing it. In seeking to re-open his case, the Complainant did not allege that the document he signed contained something that made it invalid on its face. Nor did he allege that there was any misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the settlement and resulting dismissal of his complaint because he either expected to receive, or wanted to receive, more money under the settlement. However, settlements are final absent an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department or an allegation that the settlement agreement contained something to render it invalid on its face. Ocholi v. Sodexo, Inc. (LIRC, 09/04/09).

Once a settlement agreement is entered into knowingly and voluntarily, a dispute about whether its terms have been complied with does not affect the validity and finality of the agreement. Neither the Equal Rights Division nor the Labor and Industry Review Commission has the authority to decide what are in effect breach of contract questions regarding whether settlement agreements have been breached. Sullivan v. UM-Marathon County (LIRC, 09/27/07).

The Complainant failed to provide a basis for voiding the settlement agreement in his case where he argued that the Respondent had made misrepresentations regarding the tax consequences of the settlement. The Respondent correctly informed the Complainant that the settlement amount was taxable as income. Sec. 104(a)(2), of the Internal Revenue Code, provides a statutory exception for taxation of gross income for the amount of any damages (other than punitive damages) which are received (whether by suit or agreement, and whether as lump sums or as periodic payments) on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. The Complainant in this case did not receive income from the settlement on account of personal physical injuries or physical sickness. The amount which he received as the settlement amount represented a cash payment in lieu of paid leave following his resignation, a cash payment for his overtime hours and accrued vacation and personal holiday accounts, and severance pay equal to one and one-quarter times his annual salary. For this, and other reasons, the Administrative Law Judge appropriately dismissed the Complainant’s claims that the settlement agreement should be voided. Sullivan v. UW-Marathon County (LIRC, 09/27/07).

Where a settlement has been entered into knowingly and voluntarily, the settlement is final. The “totality of the circumstances” test should be used to determine whether there has been a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. There was such a knowing and voluntary waiver of rights in this case. The Complainant had a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and he had been employed at a college as an activities coordinator. The Respondent had not imposed any time limit on the Complainant’s review and consideration of the settlement agreement. The Complainant had an active role in deciding the terms of the agreement. The agreement was written in clear and unambiguous language. The Complainant did not consult an attorney during the settlement negotiations; however, the settlement agreement expressly advised the Complainant to consult legal counsel. The Complainant was given consideration in exchange for his waiver of rights against the Respondent that exceeded employee benefits to which he was already entitled by contract or law. Moreover, the Complainant failed to establish that he agreed to the settlement under intimidation or threat of termination. The Complainant suggested that a valid settlement did not exist because he was “under psychiatric care for mental health concerns.” However, there was no medical documentation to substantiate this medical condition. The Complainant’s own correspondence to the Respondent indicated that his alleged condition had no adverse impact on his ability to willingly, knowingly, and freely negotiate a settlement agreement with the Respondent. Sullivan v. UW-Marathon County (LIRC, 09/27/07).

Sec. 227.48, Stats., provides that every decision shall include notice of any right of the parties to petition for administrative review of adverse decisions. Settlement agreements may be adverse decisions. Therefore, the Equal Rights Division should attach a notice of appeal rights to all orders in which a complaint is dismissed as a result of a settlement agreement. Fettig v. County of Fond du Lac (LIRC, 07/14/06).

A party may not laterally attack the finality of a settlement agreement by claiming misrepresentation on the part of their attorney, or by claiming that their attorney exceeded the scope of his authority in agreeing to it. Fettig v. County of Fond du Lac (LIRC, 07/14/06).

Once a Complainant, personally or through counsel, makes an unconditional request for the withdrawal of a complaint, dismissal of the complaint is required and collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement will not be entertained in the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, or an allegation that a provision of the underlying settlement agreement is per se invalid. Oehldrich v. Wausaukee Rescue Squad (LIRC, 10/29/04).

Neither the Equal Rights Division nor the Labor and Industry Review Commission has the authority to decide whether settlement agreements have been breached. Oehldrich v. Wausaukee Rescue Squad (LIRC, 10/29/04).

An Administrative Law Judge issued an order dismissing the complaint based upon a settlement agreement entered into by the parties. The order of dismissal listed the EEOC case number as well as the ERD case number, and the order of dismissal described its effect by using such general terms as “this case” and “this matter.” Thus, the Administrative Law Judge’s order could be understood as purporting to dispose not only of the Complainant’s claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, but also of any claims that could have been brought under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). However, the settlement agreement was inconsistent with the provisions of the federal Older Workers Benefits Protection Act which requires that settlements of age discrimination claims under the ADEA must give claimants seven days after executing an agreement waiving such claims to revoke such agreements. The Complainant in this case indicated that he had “decided not to proceed with the settlement.” It appears that the lack of certain provisions in the settlement agreement would make it invalid as a waiver of rights under the ADEA. However, this would not make the settlement agreement invalid with respect to foreclosing the Complainant’s claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The order of dismissal was amended to make it clear that it applied only to the Complainant’s claim under the WFEA and that it was not intended to have any effect on any claims the Complainant might have under the ADEA or any other federal law. Crymes v. County of Milwaukee (LIRC, 02/24/04).

A Complainant’s claims of misrepresentation on the part of his attorney in the entering into of a settlement agreement will not be entertained in the absence of: (1) an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, or (2) a settlement agreement that contains something that makes it invalid on its face. This rule reflects the important policy of making parties accountable for actions of their attorneys, as well as the equally important policy that settlement should be encouraged. There would be no incentive to enter into a settlement if, once entered into, it could be repudiated by the other party simply because they thought better of it later. If settlement is to be encouraged, settlements must be treated as final when made. Scott v. Oconomowoc Area Sch. Dist. (LIRC, 01/30/04).

The Complainant sought to repudiate a settlement agreement based upon alleged shortcomings and improprieties by his union representative. The Complainant should not be any less accountable for the actions of his union representative than if an attorney had represented him. To permit the Complainant to get out of his settlement agreement under the circumstances in this case would only serve to discourage settlements where union representation was involved. Scott v. Oconomowoc Area Sch. Dist. (LIRC, 01/30/04).

Parties who have entered into settlement agreements providing for the dismissal of their complaints, or who have executed and filed requests to withdraw their complaints based on settlements, cannot have their cases reopened by alleging that they were poorly represented, misled by, or otherwise ill-served by their attorneys. In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, and where there is nothing in the terms of the settlement agreement itself which renders it invalid on its face, the Department will not entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement based on a party’s claim that his attorney misrepresented the agreement to him or exceeded the scope of his authority in agreeing to it. Kellar v. Copps Gas Station (LIRC, 01/28/04).

Where a settlement agreement was signed by the Complainant, and where the agreement clearly provides that the Complainant agrees to the dismissal of her complaint, it was not necessary for the Administrative Law Judge to also obtain a separate withdrawal form from the Complainant. King v. Kmart (LIRC, 08/28/03).

Once a settlement agreement is entered into, a dispute about whether its terms have been complied with does not affect the validity and finality of an agreement made as part of that settlement that proceedings before the Equal Rights Division will be dismissed. King v. Kmart (LIRC, 08/28/03).

There are two ways in which a settlement can result in the dismissal of a complaint. The first method is for the parties to put the terms of the settlement (one of which will presumably be the withdrawal of the complaint) into the record. The Administrative Law Judge can then dismiss the complaint based upon the settlement agreement. The second method is for the parties to arrive at a confidential settlement that they do not want embodied in an order, after which the Complainant submits a request to withdraw the complaint based upon having arrived at a confidential settlement. Where the parties seek dismissal of a complaint based upon a confidential settlement, the signed withdrawal obviates the need for any discussion on the record of the terms of the settlement. Walsh v. Tom A. Rothe, S.C. (LIRC, 11/29/02).

Settlements will be treated as final, absent an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, or an allegation that the settlement agreement contains something to render it invalid on its face. A party alleging that he has entered into a settlement agreement under duress is required to specifically allege conduct constituting duress which would, if true, justify voiding the agreement. Gribbons v. Chart Indus. (LIRC, 03/26/02).

The Complainant’s claim that a settlement agreement was void and unenforceable because his attorney engaged in unethical conduct during settlement negotiations lacked merit. In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, and where there is nothing in the terms of the settlement agreement itself which renders it invalid on its face, LIRC will not entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement based on a party’s claim that his attorney misrepresented the agreement to him or exceeded the scope of his authority in agreeing to it. Summers v. Northwest Airlines (LIRC, 05/26/00).

Settlements will be treated as final even in cases where a party is unrepresented, provided that the party entered into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. Summers v. Northwest Airlines (LIRC, 05/26/00).

Although the parties had agreed “in principle” to settle a case, no signed settlement agreement was ever effectuated and no cash payment was ever tendered to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to notify the Division that a settlement had been reached, and a hearing was conducted. It was only after the hearing, and after a preliminary decision had been issued by the Administrative Law Judge, that the Respondent contended that the Complainant had agreed to a settlement and that her damages should be limited to the amount agreed upon at that time, rather than those ordered by the Administrative Law Judge. The Commission determined that, because no final settlement was ever reached, the Respondent was bound by the order issued by the Administrative Law Judge. Roach-Davis v. Rave (LIRC, 03/26/99).

A settlement agreement is a contract which, among other things, requires a definitive offer and acceptance by the parties. Once the parties settle a disputed claim, neither party will be permitted to repudiate it in the absence of any element of fraud or bad faith. Geen v. DHFS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 01/13/99).

The Complainant contended that her complaint should not have been dismissed on the grounds that the parties had settled. However, there was no evidence in the record to support her contention that the settlement document she signed was merely a “draft” agreement. Furthermore, there was no basis for the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent’s attorney did not have authority to agree to non-monetary terms of settlement. An express authorization of the delegation of authority to settle is necessary in financial matters involving the county because the county board is ultimately the sole source of the power to spend the county’s money. However, agents of the county are not limited in making decisions that do not commit unbudgeted county funds. Gronowski v. Milwaukee County (LIRC, 04/13/98).

A settlement agreement in an employment discrimination case is in essence a contract. The Equal Rights Division may ask to have a written withdrawal form filed, or to have a copy of the final settlement agreement filed, but these are not legal requirements which affect the validity of the settlement. Rather, they are simply ways in which the Division may assure itself that an agreement has, as a matter of fact, been reached. Gronowski v. Milwaukee County (LIRC, 04/13/98).

The Equal Rights Division does not have authority to decide what are in effect breach of contract questions regarding whether settlement agreements have been breached. Gronowski v. Milwaukee County (LIRC, 04/13/98).

The Complainant’s claim that the Respondent released the terms of a confidential settlement agreement does not constitute a valid claim of retaliation under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The Respondent’s release of confidential settlement information had no relationship whatsoever to the Complainant's employment. Peck v. Walworth County (LIRC, 09/27/96).

Once entered into by all parties, either in writing or verbally on the record, a settlement is final. The Labor and Industry Review Commission is disinclined to entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement based on a party’s claim that their attorney misrepresented the agreement to them, exceeded the scope of their authority in agreeing to it, or otherwise engaged in some sort of improper conduct. Such issues relating to attorneys’ professional responsibility should be addressed to other tribunals with the specific duty of addressing such issues. Gahan v. The Milwaukee & S.E. Wis. Dist. Council of Carpenters (LIRC, 03/29/96).

The Labor and Industry Review Commission will not entertain collateral attacks on settlement agreements resolving discrimination complaints even where allegations are made that the attorney who represented the Complainant acted improperly in some respect, including entering into settlement terms not authorized by the client. Where the attorney acted within their authority in agreeing to certain terms of settlement, the Commission has held that an oral settlement agreement entered into on a party’s behalf by their attorney will be upheld against subsequent collateral attack. Stillwell v. City of Kenosha (LIRC, 09/29/95).

While the Respondent may have subjectively believed in good faith that a settlement agreement arrived at between itself and counsel for the Complainant precluded the Complainant from bringing claims against the Respondent in connection with its commencement of a civil action against her, this belief was not reasonable because the terms of that settlement had been expressly limited to three specific undertakings and could not be construed to extend to the question of whether the Respondent’s commencement of a civil action against the Complainant had violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Therefore, the Complainant's subsequent fair employment complaint was not barred by the doctrine of equitable estoppel. Stillwell v. City of Kenosha (LIRC, 09/29/95).

In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, and where there is no issue presented about whether a settlement agreement contains something which makes it invalid on its face, but only a question of whether it was in fact agreed to, the Labor and Industry Review Commission will not entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement based on a party’s claim that their attorney misrepresented the agreement to them or exceeded the scope of their authority in agreeing to it. If a Complainant did not authorize his attorney to enter into a settlement on his behalf, the Complainant’s remedy for such action by the attorney is to attempt to prove malpractice by that attorney or to go to the Attorneys’ Board of Professional Responsibility. Nealy v. Miller Compressing Co. (LIRC, 09/19/95).

It is not within the authority of the Labor and Industry Review Commission to set aside a settlement agreement where the Complainant seeks to be relieved of the agreement on the ground that his attorney had a conflict of interest. The Commission would have to address issues concerning attorney’s professional responsibility and the effects of unethical conduct on contractual obligations, which are issues that are not within its statutory authority. Brunswick v. Emergency Serv. of Door County (LIRC, 12/08/94), aff’d on other grounds, Door Co. Cir. Ct., 06/14/95.

When parties enter into settlements, they are free to structure them as they wish, and if they choose to structure them in a way which waives some claim arising out of a transaction while preserving others, that is their right. In this case, the Complainant did not waive her right to complain of sex discrimination when she settled an OSHA complaint relating to her discharge. The settlement agreement did not provide that it settled all claims arising out of the discharge. The terms of the agreement provided that the Complainant “agrees to accept this agreement in full and complete settlement of any and all claims arising out of filing of this complaint against Respondent.” The claims settled were only the claims of a violation of OSHA, not the claims of a violation of any other law. The complaint with OSHA could not encompass a claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act because OSHA has no authority to act on such a claim. Pampuch v. Bally’s Vic Tanny Health & Racquetball Club (LIRC, 03/07/94).

Parties should be discouraged from drafting private settlement agreements which purport to have a binding effect upon the manner in which the Department conducts its business. In this case the parties had reached a settlement agreement that was contingent upon the actions of a third party. Due to the nature of the agreement, the parties were unable to proceed to a hearing until the third party had acted. The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Equal Rights Division should not be bound by the terms of the settlement agreement and denied the Complainant’s request to hold the hearing in abeyance or to postpone the hearing for a six month period. LIRC reversed the order of dismissal because in this case the settlement agreement was drafted with the assistance of one of the Department’s Administrative Law Judges and the parties could, therefore, reasonably assume that the terms of the agreement would be acceptable to the Department. Biernacki v. Vrakas (LIRC, 02/24/94).

Without specific allegations of conduct constituting alleged duress which would (if the allegations were true) justify voiding a settlement agreement, the Department will not consider requests to be relieved of the effect of settlement agreements. Kaufer v. Miller Brewing Co. (LIRC, 11/19/93).

In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, and where there is no issue presented about whether a settlement agreement contains something which makes it invalid on its face, but only a question of whether it was in fact agreed to, the Department will not entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement based on a party's claim that their attorney misrepresented the agreement to them or exceeded the scope of their authority in agreeing to it. This rule reflects not only the important policy of making parties accountable for actions of their attorneys, but also the equally important policy that settlement should be encouraged. If settlement is to be encouraged, settlements must be treated as final when made. Johannes v. County of Waushara Exec. Comm. (LIRC, 11/01/93).

If a Complainant had not authorized his attorney to enter into a settlement on his behalf, or to dismiss his complaint with prejudice on his behalf, then the Complainant's remedy was to attempt to prove malpractice by that attorney. The Labor and Review Commission is not the appropriate tribunal to determine whether the obligations of attorney to client were properly complied with. Johannes v. County of Waushara Exec. Comm. (LIRC, 11/01/93).

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the parties entered into a verbal settlement agreement on the record. The Complainant subsequently indicated that she felt she had not exercised good judgment in agreeing to the settlement without legal counsel and that she could not agree to the settlement. However, the transcript of the hearing indicated that the parties had entered into a full and final settlement on the record. A settlement thus memorialized is as conclusive as one which is reduced to writing and is signed by the parties. Once entered into by all parties, either in writing or on the record, such a settlement is final. In the absence of an allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by a representative of the Department, and where there is nothing in the terms of the settlement agreement itself which makes it invalid, the Department will not entertain collateral attacks on the finality of a settlement. Pustina v. Fox & Fox, SC (LIRC, 04/27/93).

The Complainant stated a claim for relief under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act when she alleged that she was retaliated against by the Respondent when it filed a civil action in circuit court seeking to enforce a settlement agreement which the Complainant had previously refused to sign. Stillwell v. DILHR (Ct. App, Dist. II, unpublished opinion, 03/17/93).

Where allegations of discriminatory conduct are resolved by a settlement agreement, those allegations will not thereafter be considered if offered as evidence in a proceeding between the parties on a subsequent claim of discrimination. Where an individual claimed that the employer offered him money to give up his employment in an effort to settle an earlier discrimination claim, and such offer had been made prior to the parties having signed a settlement agreement releasing the employer from any and all claims arising out of conduct by the employer prior to the date the agreement was signed, the settlement agreement precluded the Complainant from using the offer as evidence of discriminatory motive in a subsequent discrimination claim alleging, among other things, retaliation in regard to discharge. Moncrief v. Gardner Baking (LIRC, 07/01/92).

LIRC may take jurisdiction of a case for the limited purpose of dismissing the complaint based upon the parties' settlement. In this case, it was clearly the parties’ intent that their obligations should be defined not by the Administrative Law Judge’s order but by their settlement agreement. Carey v. DeBoer, Inc. (LIRC, 06/11/92).

Where allegations of discriminatory conduct were made the subject of a charge of discrimination which were then settled, the same allegations could not thereafter be considered relevant in a subsequent proceeding to prove that subsequent acts by the employer were also motivated by bias. Helton v. Wesbar Corp. (LIRC, 03/19/92).

The Equal Rights Division does not have the authority to enforce the terms of an agreement between the parties which they entered into in order to resolve a claim of housing discrimination short of a finding of discrimination. Winfrey v. Paramount Concepts, Inc. (LIRC, 07/24/91); rev’d in part and remanded (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 01/06/92).

The Complainant stated that he wished to withdraw his complaint, and the Personnel Commission dismissed the charge. Several months later, the Complainant requested that his original charge of discrimination be reinstated, on the grounds that he had withdrawn the charge as part of a settlement agreement but that the settlement agreement had been breached. The Commission lacked authority to reopen the matter. It only has jurisdiction to re-open a case if the request is filed within 20 days of the date of the order. The Commission does not have express or implied authority to enforce settlement agreements. Haule v. UW-Milwaukee (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 8/26/87).

Complaints by an employee against her employer were settled, and the Commission issued orders of dismissal with prejudice, stating that it retained jurisdiction for the limited purpose of dealing with any allegations of failure to comply with the provisions of the settlement agreement. Some years later, the Complainant filed a motion to reopen those earlier matters on the grounds that the settlement agreement had not been complied with, and she also filed a new complaint alleging that the employer had violated the settlement agreement by providing her with negative job references. The Commission had no jurisdiction to reopen the previously dismissed cases. However, the Complainant's new complaint could be entertained as a complaint of discriminatory provision of negative job references. Rogers v. DOA (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 06/11/87).

Where an earlier incident which resulted in the filing of a complaint of retaliation was thereafter resolved by a settlement agreement which provided that the Respondent did not admit any violation, that the Complainant would not sue the Respondent on the matters raised in the complaint, and that the agreement was to operate as the complete and final disposition of the complaint, the Commission would not consider evidence of the incident in a subsequent proceeding on another retaliation claim. McKiernan v. Madison Metro Bus Co. (LIRC, 02/12/87).

In a case involving a complaint by individual fire fighters against a city fire department, alleging race discrimination in promotion, the examiner initially allowed the fire fighters union to intervene in the case for the limited purpose of participating in the litigation in the event liability was determined and a remedy had to be determined. Thereafter, the fire fighters and the city entered into a settlement agreement resolving the dispute between them, calling upon the city to take certain actions, and this settlement agreement was approved by the examiner and entered as a stipulated order of dismissal. The acceptance of the settlement agreement was not improper where the union had the opportunity to state its objections to certain portions of it, and where those objections were discounted by the examiner. El-Amin v. City of Beloit (LIRC, 04/16/86).

Where there is no allegation of misrepresentation or intimidation by the examiner or any other representative of the department and nothing in the provisions of a settlement agreement itself which makes it invalid, a Complainant's claims of misrepresentation on the part of his attorney in the entering into the settlement agreement are beyond the scope of the Commission's review authority. In such a case, the Complainant has clearly waived his right to continue with his action under the Act by entering into the settlement agreement, and the Commission will not set the settlement agreement aside. Clussman v. Ellis Stone Constr. (LIRC, 03/25/86).

A voluntary withdrawal by a Complainant of her discrimination charge in exchange for an offer of hire does not constitute a settlement or waiver of her charge unless she fully understood that such would be the result. Krawczyk v. Greenfield Sch. Dist. No. 6 (LIRC, 04/15/82); Anderson v. LIRC, 111 Wis. 2d 245, 330 N.W.2d 594 (1983).