Aldrich v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
2011 WI App 94
Wis. Ct. App.2011Background
- Aldrich challenged Best Buy demotion under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, appealing a circuit court order vacating a Commission decision that found her WFEA claim untimely.
- Aldrich initially filed discrimination with the EEOC, and the ERD cross-filed under a Worksharing Agreement; the timeliness hinges on the filing date with the deferring agency.
- Federal law requires a 300-day limit for EEOC charges; Wisconsin law aligns WFEA timeliness to the ERD filing date when cross-filed via the EEOC.
- Aldrich’s February 10, 2004 EEOC charge (transmitted to ERD February 18, 2004) was ultimately deemed timely or untimely by federal court, which found the EEOC intake questionnaire did not constitute a formal charge.
- The Commission held the August 2003 intake questionnaire could not independently constitute a timely WFEA filing because it was never filed with the ERD, and the filing date is controlled by the EEOC's receipt of the formal charge.
- On remand, the ALJ and Commission applied issue preclusion to bar relitigation of the EEOC filing date, and Aldrich challenged whether constructive discharge could be timely amended in the state proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Aldrich's WFEA claim under cross-filed deferral | Aldrich argues the August 2003 EEOC intake should satisfy the WFEA filing. | Best Buy/LIRC contend filing date is the EEOC-received formal charge, not the intake questionnaire. | Filing date is the EEOC-received formal charge; questionnaire alone is not timely. |
| Constructive discharge claim timeliness | Constructive discharge should be timely due to cross-filed process. | Constructive discharge was not included in the EEOC charge and is time-barred. | Constructive discharge claim untimely. |
| Appropriate use of issue preclusion | Federal time-limit ruling should not bar state-law timeliness analysis. | Federal ruling on filing date should preclude relitigation under state law. | Issue preclusion applies to the EEOC filing date determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274 (Wis. 1996) (deference standards and statutory interpretation guidance)
- Lindas v. Cady, 183 Wis. 2d 547 (Wis. 1994) (collateral estoppel and preclusion considerations)
- Northern States Power Co. v. Bugher, 189 Wis. 2d 541 (Wis. 1995) (definition and application of issue preclusion)
- Michelle T v. Crozier, 173 Wis. 2d 681 (Wis. 1993) (factors for collateral estoppel and fairness)
- Jackson v. Employe Trust Funds Bd., 230 Wis. 2d 677 (Ct. App. 1999) (deference standards for agency interpretations)