Aldrich v. Labor & Industry Review Commission
814 N.W.2d 433
Wis.2012Background
- This is an employment discrimination case involving Wisconsin’s Fair Employment Act and federal antidiscrimination statutes (remedial purposes).
- Aldrich seeks review after LIRC dismissed her state discrimination claims against Best Buy for timeliness under WFEA and related rules.
- Deferral arrangement exists between the Wisconsin ERD and the federal EEOC under a worksharing agreement, with the first agency processing and the other deferring.
- Wisconsin Admin. Code § DWD 218.03(5) governs timeliness in deferral cases, deeming filing when the other agency receives the charge (or compliant document) under federal law.
- Aldrich filed intake questionnaires with the EEOC in 2003; the EEOC drafted a charge later, and the ERD eventually received the charge in 2004; the federal district court had held the intake did not constitute a timely federal charge.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court will address whether issue preclusion bars Aldrich from relitigating timeliness before the ERD and whether Holowecki altered the applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deferral filing date for timeliness under WFEA | Aldrich’s intake questionnaire could satisfy state filing if timely under federal law. | Best Buy/LIRC contend filing occurs when the EEOC receives a timely federal charge; the ERD receipt date controls. | Part 1 not definitively decided; focus on issue preclusion in this decision. |
| Whether issue preclusion bars Aldrich from relitigating timeliness before the ERD | No preclusion due to contextual legal shift and inequitable circumstances. | Federal district court decision precluded her federal claim; preclusion should apply. | Aldrich not barred by issue preclusion; context and fairness require reconsideration before ERD. |
Key Cases Cited
- Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (U.S. 2008) (defines when an intake questionnaire constitutes a charge under federal law (Holowecki standard))
- Steffen v. Meridian Life Ins. Co., 859 F.2d 534 (7th Cir. 1988) (early Seventh Circuit standard for intake questionnaires as charges (pre-Holowecki))
- Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463 (7th Cir. 1991) (Perkins applied a Perkins rule resisting intake as a charge (later displaced by Holowecki))
- Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1948) (absent intervening law changes, generally supports finality in collateral estoppel)
- Estate of Rille v. Physicians Ins. Co., 2007 WI 36, 300 Wis. 2d 1 (Wis. 2007) (Wisconsin high court on issue preclusion and fairness considerations)
- Paige K.B. v. Steven G.B., 226 Wis. 2d 210 (Wis. 1999) (Wisconsin preclusion and merits principles in administrative context)