 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merta v. Labor and Industry Review Commission2/8/2005
. Mary A. Merta appeals a judgment affirming a Labor and Industry Review Commission's decision under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The commission decided there was no probable cause to believe Johnson Controls, Inc., unlawfully discriminated against Merta on the basis of her gender regarding the terms, conditions, or termination of her employment.
. Merta argues: (1) the commission erroneously disregarded her prima facie case of gender discrimination and substantial evidence showing that Johnson Controls treated similarly situated male maintenance technicians more favorably than her; (2) the commission erroneously concluded that the human resources manager was the decision maker; and (3) the commission erroneously disregarded Merta's claim that Johnson Controls' proffered reason for terminating her employment was baseless and pretextual. Because credible and substantial evidence supports the commission's decision, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
. Merta filed a complaint with the Equal Rights Division of the Department of Workforce Development alleging that her employer, Johnson Controls, violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) when it subjected her to less favorable terms and conditions of employment and terminated her employment because of her gender. An investigator for the division concluded that there was no probable cause to believe the WFEA was violated as alleged. Merta appealed and following a hearing, the administrative law judge agreed with the investigator's initial decision and dismissed her complaint. Merta filed a petition for review and, with some modifications, the commission agreed with the administrative law judge's decision. It concluded that Merta failed to sustain her burden to prove that she was discriminated against on the basis of gender as alleged in her complaint.
. The commission reached its conclusion upon the following factual findings. Johnson Controls, a manufacturing facility, employed Merta as a maintenance technician from January 1997 to August 12, 1999. Her immediate supervisor was Pat Grutter. Merta was a well-qualified technician and always did a good job, but "tended ... to be confrontational and refused a directive with a resolute `no' rather than explain the reason for her position."
. In January 1999, Johnson Controls directed Merta, Grutter and others to attend a training meeting required as part of a certification program. Because Merta and Grutter believed they had previously attended the requisite training, they met with the human resources manager, Marge Young, who explained that this particular training was required and, if their training records did not indicate its completion, they must attend.
. Merta argued with Young to the extent that Young informed Merta that a refusal to attend the mandatory training was a category 2 violation that would ultimately result in the termination of Merta's employment. Thereafter, Merta sent an e-mail with a derisive tone to the human resources department but ultimately attended the meeting. Grutter also attended.
. In April and May, two additional meetings were scheduled. Merta attended the April meeting, and practice dictated that Merta attend, if possible, the follow-up May meeting. On May 5, Merta advised Grutter by telephone that she would not attend the May meeting. Grutter responded that she was required to attend and if she continued to refuse, he "would have to write her up." Merta responded "well, bring your pencil and paper" and hung up on Grutter.
. Grutter contacted Young, who arranged a meeting with the three of them. Merta continued to voice her objection to attending the meeting, sayin
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wisconsin Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|