774 Orders

Where a specific act of discrimination against a specific individual was alleged in the complaint and specified in the notice of hearing, the agency could not order the employer to cease from discriminating against other individuals. Haynes v. Nat'l Sch. Bus Serv. (LIRC, 01/31/92).

Where the complaint and notice concerned alleged discrimination in compensation, the Department could not make findings or orders concerning discrimination in hiring. Hiegel v. LIRC, 121 Wis. 2d 205, 359 N.W.2d 405 (Ct. App. 1984).

The scope of DILHR findings, conclusions and orders is not limited by the initial determination, but by the notice of hearing. Where the notice of hearing pertained to issues affecting only a single employee and a single act of discrimination, DILHR's application of its order to “like situated employees or applicants for employment” and “ongoing acts of discrimination” was overly broad. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.R. v. DILHR (Goodwin), 62 Wis. 2d 392, 215 N.W.2d 443 (1974).

It would be a presumptive denial of due process to extend a DILHR order to a hearing witness not named as a party. Anfang v. Whitcomb (DILHR, 11/26/74)

A DILHR order was invalid because it was based on agency pregnancy guidelines which were not adopted in conformity with the procedural requirements of Chapter 227. Dep’t of Employe Trust Funds v. DILHR (Riedel) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 08/30/74).

Where the complaint and notice concerned an allegedly unlawful discharge and transfers, the Department could not make findings or orders concerning independent compensation issues. Wis. Tel. Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wis. Employment Relations Bd., 3 Wis. 2d 227, 88 N.W.2d 691 (1958).