775 Delay in issuance of decision

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not contain mandatory time limits within which decisions must be issued. Absent a mandatory requirement, administrative delay in issuing a decision is not reversible error. Zebrowski v. Woman’s Club of Wis. (LIRC, 11/28/07).

A delay in the issuance of a decision under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not constitute a deprivation of due process. Meier v. Whispering Oaks Care Ctr. (LIRC, 06/04/97).

Administrative delay in issuing a decision is not reversible error. Although the Respondent had a continuing responsibility for back pay while awaiting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision, it could have terminated that loss and its continuing liability at any time by reinstating the Complainant. Crabtree v. Wilderness Home Supply (LIRC, 05/09/97).

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act contains no mandatory time limits for issuing decisions. LaCoy v. Wis. Farmers Union (LIRC, 02/28/96).

It is unfortunate when cases take a long time to be decided, but delays do not constitute a deprivation of due process. Jones v. Milwaukee County (LIRC, 04/06/95).

Administrative delay in the issuance of a decision under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not constitute a denial of due process. Binder v. Nercon Eng'g & Mfg. (LIRC, 12/18/90).

The Commission declined a Respondent's request that interest on the back pay award should not be imposed beyond 150 days after the date on which the Complainant's reply brief was filed with the hearing examiner, in a case in which it took the examiner more than two years from the hearing date to issue his decision, concluding that the Respondent had known since the initial determination of probable cause that the Complainant was likely to prevail and that the examiner's delay, while unfortunate, merely delayed payment of an award to the Complainant and his attorney and actually benefited the Respondent. Wetzel v. Clark County (LIRC, 06/05/87).

An Administrative Law Judge's delay of over a year in issuing an order of dismissal after orally dismissing a complaint at the hearing, while a regrettable circumstance, does not provide a basis for reversal or a new hearing. Neither do errors in the Administrative Law Judge's Summary of Proceedings justify a reversal or rehearing where the Commission reviewed the case based on listening to the actual tapes of the hearing and thus was not affected by any errors. Martin v. Indus. Combustion Div. (LIRC, 06/04/87).

The Complainant was not denied due process because of unreasonable administrative delay where DILHR’s decision was issued almost two years after the complaint was filed. Sanchez v. LIRC (Dane County Community Action Comm.) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 11/20/80).

The Act contains no mandatory time limits for scheduling hearings or issuing decisions and therefore administrative delay is not a reversible error. There was no denial of due process because of unreasonable administrative delay where the complaint was filed in 1973, a hearing was held in 1975 and the examiner's proposed order was filed in 1977, and the employer will not be heard to complain that its liability to the employee accrues during litigation. Chicago & N.W. R.R. v. LIRC, 91 Wis. 2d 462, 283 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1979).