772 Findings of Fact

Where the parties have chosen to submit their case entirely on a fact stipulation without offering any testimony, the stipulated facts will be accepted as true. Strayhorn v. Social Dev. Comm’n (LIRC, 11/21/13).

The fact that evidence material to issues which were not contained in the complaint became a part of the hearing record did not justify the Administrative Law Judge making findings in regard to these issues. The concept of conforming the pleadings to the proof is not applicable in administrative proceedings under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Smith v. The Terrace at St. Francis (LIRC, 12/08/06).

Findings of fact need be only as to the ultimate facts where the evidence is sufficient to establish the ultimate facts found and such facts are inherent and necessary to the determination of the questions involved in arriving at the decision. Ultimate or general findings imply all facts necessary to support them, and a finding not explicitly made may be inferred from other properly made findings and from findings which, even though not made, would be supported by evidence in the record or inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. Polesky v. United Brake Parts (LIRC, 08/30/96).

The question of an employer’s motivation presents a question of ultimate fact. Hoell v. LIRC, 186 Wis. 2d 608, 522 N.W.2d 234 (Ct. App. 1994).

There is no requirement that the Administrative Law Judge’s decision provide a detailed account as to the resolution of all the evidence offered at the hearing. Sec. 227.47, Stats. requires only that “(t)he findings of fact shall consist of a concise and separate statement of the ultimate conclusions upon each material issue of fact without recital of evidence.” All that is required under this section is that the ALJ’s decision adequately explains the basis for the decision. Patterson v. City of Milwaukee Dep’t of Health (LIRC, 04/20/93).

When a witness offers testimony at hearing on a material issue, a finding of fact that “the witness testified . . .” is unsatisfactory, since it merely describes what happened at the hearing and does not resolve the question of whether what the witness testified to is considered by the trier of fact to be true. Where a witness has testified as to a matter and the Administrative Law Judge accepts the testimony as true, it is preferable for the findings of fact to simply recite the substance of the witness’ testimony as a fact found by the Administrative Law Judge. Green v. Woodman’s Food Mkts. (LIRC, 01/30/91).

The case was remanded for further hearing where the Administrative Law Judge failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to an issue raised in the amended complaint. Krenz v. Lauer’s Food Mkt. (LIRC, 09/27/90).

Neither findings nor an order should be made on allegations of discrimination not identified as issues for hearing in the notice of hearing. Yarie (Schroeder) v. The Pumphouse (LIRC, 9/14/90).

It was improper for the Administrative Law Judge to make a finding regarding the Complainant’s difficulties in communicating when the Respondent had not raised those matters. Blohm v. Holiday Inn (LIRC, 01/31/90).

Where documents which were given to the investigator are not presented and received into the record, the Administrative Law Judge has no authority to reach into the file to consider those matters. Beach v. Best Buy (LIRC, 10/26/89).

The contents of an initial determination may not be considered by the examiner or the Commission in making factual determinations about a case when it has not been received as evidence or officially noticed. Schwantes v. Orbit Resort (LIRC, 05/22/86).

To the extent that the examiner’s assessment of the demeanor of the witnesses is helpful in resolving the issue of whether a Respondent’s articulated reasons for a challenged action are pre-textual, the examiner’s assessment of that demeanor is entitled to deference. Footit v. Oshkosh Door Corp. (LIRC, 02/03/86).

Where the complaint, initial determination, notice of hearing, and hearing dealt only with the question of whether the Complainant was constructively discharged by virtue of sexual harassment, it was not appropriate to make findings on a claim that the Complainant was discharged in retaliation for complaining of discrimination. Winter v. Madison Home Juice Co. (LIRC, 07/19/85).

A finding of fact may not be based on a record contained in the investigative file but not introduced at hearing. Injazoulian v. J.I. Case (LIRC, 07/16/82).

The court is bound by a joint stipulation of fact entered into by the parties and incorporated by the examiner into the decision. Milwaukee Area Tech. College v. LIRC (Gilbert) (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 02/14/80).

While the hearing examiner's ruling that the discrimination did not fall within a statutory exception should have been labeled a finding of fact, the court may supply a missing finding where the evidence is clear and convincing. A mislabeled finding will be treated as what it is rather than what it is called. DHSS v. LIRC (Johns) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 11/28/79).

The hearing examiner may not reject testimony as to the existence of a fact without other evidence which renders that fact unlikely. The hearing examiner's skepticism did not justify rejecting the employer's testimony that the male applicant possessed superior job qualifications where there was no evidence to render that explanation unlikely. Waukesha Pub. Sch. v. DILHR (Coulson) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 07/06/78).

In concluding as a matter of law that there is no evidence to support probable cause, a hearing examiner must set forth the findings of fact upon which that conclusion is based. McMillan v. DILHR (Greyhound Lines) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 05/12/77).

The Equal Rights Division cannot base crucial or essential findings upon hearsay alone. Hunt v. City of Madison (DILHR, 02/11/75).