01-1910 City of Madison v. State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (57581)

Listen to this article

Accordingly, the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) has no statutory authority to investigate plaintiff’s claims against the PFC – that he was unlawfully terminated based on his arrest and conviction record in violation of the WFEA.

However, as to plaintiff’s WFEA complaint against the city and the fire chief, we unanimously conclude that that DWD has authority to receive and investigate plaintiff’s complaint because the city was plaintiff’s employer and DWD has authority to investigate whether terminating plaintiff was an act of employment discrimination.

Order granting the city a writ of prohibition is reversed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

CONCURRING OPINION: Deininger, J., with whom Vergeront, P.J. joins, concurring in part. “The question before us is whether the circuit court erred in granting the extraordinary remedy of judicially terminating the Department of Workforce Development’s investigation of Wagner’s complaint of a WFEA violation. All members of the panel conclude that the court erred in terminating the investigation insofar as the City of Madison and Chief Amesqua were named as respondents. Two members of the panel also conclude that the department should not be prohibited from considering whether the Madison Police and Fire Commission was also properly named as a respondent in Wagner’s complaint. This concurrence is the opinion of the court majority with respect to the latter issue.”

Dist IV, Dane County, Callaway, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: David C. Rice, Madison

For Respondent: Steven C. Zach, Madison