762 Evidence

The primary problem with a hearsay report is not its admissibility; it is the fact that it is uncorroborated by any non-hearsay evidence. Hearsay cannot be the entire support for a crucial finding of fact. Germaine v. Sussek Machine Corp., (LIRC. 02/13/14).

Comparative evidence is relevant in a disparate treatment case. The appropriate question is not whether such evidence is admissible, but how much weight it should be given. Arvin v. C&D Technologies (LIRC, 10/31/08).

Wis. Stat. Section 227.45(1) establishes that an ALJ is not bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence, and is directed to admit evidence of reasonable probative value. Rutherford v. LIRC 2008 WI App 66, 309 Wis. 2d 498, 792 N.W. 2d 897

The Rules of Evidence are not applicable in hearings before the Equal Rights Division. The "Best Evidence Rule," being a statutory rule of evidence, is thus not binding. Borum v. Allstate Insurance Company (LIRC, 10/19/01).

Admissibility of evidence under the WFEA depends on statutory and code provisions. Wis. Admin. Code Ch. DWD 218.18(1) provides that "[hearings shall be conducted in conformity with the act and the provisions of ch. 227, Stats." The WFEA is silent on the issue of what evidence is admissible, but Wis. Stat. 227.45(1) provides that: "An agency or hearing examiner shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence. The agency or hearing examiner shall admit all testimony having reasonable probative value, but shall exclude immaterial, irrelevant or unduly repetitious testimony . . . " The risk that irrelevant evidence will have an improper effect on the decision maker is not particularly significant in an administrative hearing held under the WFEA. The only really significant reason for excluding evidence on relevancy grounds in administrative hearings is to avoid unnecessary lengthening of the hearing. Fauteck v. Sinai Samaritan Medical Center and Allen (LIRC, 11/09/00).