Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Discrimination; issue preclusion
Where a discrimination claim filed with the EEOC was found untimely, the same claim filed with the ERD is also untimely.
“Here, Aldrich was represented by counsel in the federal proceedings and could have sought review of the federal court decision. The question of law in both the federal and state case were the same — whether the August 2003 EEOC intake questionnaire and supplemental information concerning her constructive discharge allegation constituted a ‘filed’ charge for purposes of the 300-day time limit — and this determination has not been subject to a shift in the law that could impact the state law analysis.
“We acknowledge Aldrich’s argument as to the flux in federal law with respect to whether an intake questionnaire could constitute and satisfy the requirements of a ‘charge.’ However, Aldrich is not seeking a reconsideration of the federal analysis but rather an independent state law analysis of the sufficiency of her intake questionnaire.
“As set forth herein, the Commission’s determination that there simply is no basis for an independent analysis is reasonable. Any lack of clarity on the federal level does nothing to change the state law analysis of the central issue presented hereóthe date that the ERD received Aldrichís charge from the EEOC, the deferring agency. See Wis. Admin. Code ß DWD 218.03(5). Any adjustment in the accuracy of the EEOC designated filing date could have and should have been addressed in the federal proceedings.”
Reversed and Remanded.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
2010AP1785 Aldrich v. LIRC
Dist. III, Eau Claire County, Gabler, J., Neubauer, J.
Attorneys: For Appellant: Jones, Amy Schmidt, Milwaukee; Baumbach, Scott C., Madison; Rice, David C., Madison; For Respondent: Reinhardt, Peter M., Menomonie