|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED August 15, 1995 |
NOTICE |
|
A party may file with the
Supreme Court a petition to review an adverse decision by the Court of
Appeals. See § 808.10 and
Rule 809.62, Stats. |
This opinion is subject to
further editing. If published, the
official version will appear in the bound volume of the Official Reports. |
No. 94-1668
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
CHRISTINA PATTERSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
LABOR AND INDUSTRY
REVIEW COMMISSION,
Respondent-Respondent.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
LAURENCE C. GRAM, JR., Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Sullivan and Fine, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Christina Patterson appeals, pro se,
from an order affirming the decision of the Labor and Industry Review
Commission (LIRC) under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act,
§§ 111.31-111.395, Stats.,
terminating her employment because of unsatisfactory performance, attendance,
and ability to get along with others rather than because of race.
Patterson claims her
employment was illegally terminated due to her race. Because the record contains substantial evidence to support
LIRC's decision that Patterson's employment was terminated due to
unsatisfactory performance, attendance, and ability to get along with others,
we affirm.
BACKGROUND
On April 29, 1991, the
City of Milwaukee hired Patterson, a black female, as a Laboratory Helper I in
the Bureau of Laboratories, Department of Health. Her job was to wash and sterilize laboratory glassware, sort
glassware, and then reshelve the glassware.
Pursuant to the city's rules, she was placed on a six-month probationary
period. During this time, she received
a verbal reprimand for taking co-worker Linda Dix's labcoat without
permission. Dr. Gradus, the director of
the laboratory, informed her that her probationary period was being extended
for three months due to her confrontation with her co-workers. On December 1, 1990, Dr. Singh, the Chief
Microbiologist of the laboratory, in a report on Patterson's probationary
services, observed that she “constantly ignores the supervisor's instructions
concerning the necessity of improving the quality of her performance.” Dr. Singh further opined that the quality of
Patterson's work and her attendance and punctuality were below job
requirements. In addition, her ability
to get along with others was unsatisfactory.
On January 18, 1991, Dr.
Gradus terminated Patterson for “unsatisfactory ability to cooperate with
others and performance of assigned work.”
Patterson's co-worker, Dix, also was terminated for unsatisfactory
quality of work and frequent unexcused work absences.
On February 18, 1991,
Patterson filed a race discrimination complaint with DILHR against the
city. A hearing was conducted before an
administrative law judge. Patterson
testified and called two witnesses. At
the conclusion of this testimony, the judge granted the city's motion to
dismiss. In its decision, the ALJ
concluded that “Patterson's supervisors decided to terminate her ... because
they believed her performance, attendance and ability to get along with others
was unsatisfactory. Patterson's race
was not a factor in the decision to terminate her.”
Patterson petitioned for
a review of the ALJ's decision by LIRC.
The Commission affirmed the ALJ's decision. Patterson then commenced this proceeding under § 111.395 and
ch. 227, Stats., for judicial
review of the Commission's decision. On
May 10, 1994, the trial court affirmed the Commission's decision. Patterson now appeals.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the
briefs of the parties and considered the merits of the appeal at
conference. Having done so, we conclude
that the trial court's memorandum decision and order dated May 10, 1994,
includes a proper review of the evidence, applies the proper legal standards to
the relevant facts and reaches a correct decision. We therefore incorporate that decision and order into this order
and summarily affirm on that basis.[1] See 133 Wis.2d 1, 19-20 (1986) (the
appellate court's Internal Operating Procedures allow it to adopt the trial
court's decision where appropriate). It
is therefore ordered that the trial court's order is summarily affirmed.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.
AN EXHIBIT HAS BEEN ATTACHED
TO THIS OPINION. THE EXHIBIT CAN BE
OBTAINED UNDER SEPARATE COVER BY CONTACTING THE WISCONSIN COURT OF
APPEALS.
COURT OF APPEALS
OF WISCONSIN
ROOM 231, STATE CAPITOL EAST
POST OFFICE BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN
53701-1688
TELEPHONE: (608) 266-1880
FAX: (608) 267-0640
Marilyn L. Graves, Clerk
Court of Appeals