Opinion ID: 6321818
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Convictions for crimes of domestic violence

Text: ¶23 The seesawing appellate history in this case reveals the need for clarifying how employers, LIRC, and reviewing courts are to apply the substantial relationship test to domestic violence convictions. Here LIRC, following a pattern of prior administrative cases, determined that acts of domestic violence are practically immaterial to recidivism in the workplace because of their domestic nature. LIRC's assumption appears to be based on a common, but unsupported, belief that domestic batterers have 16 No. 2019AP1671 a tendency to be violent only towards intimate partners.12 LIRC reasoned that domestic abusers recidivate in the workplace only when engaging in significant personal interactions with female employees or clients. Palmer, No. 201502651, at 12. And when that particular scenario takes a high degree of speculation and conjecture to envision, the risk for recidivism remains low. Id. at 11. Said differently, LIRC's analysis hinged on a domestic batter's chances of finding a new domestic partner at work to then victimize at home. That analysis differs from how LIRC analyzes non-domestic crimes of violence, thus yielding inconsistent results: a substantial relationship may exist when a violent offense is committed outside the home but is barred when the same violent offense is committed against an intimate partner behind closed doors. ¶24 In short, LIRC has created an exception for domestic violence crimes. And this exception disregards other circumstances material to fostering criminal activity when crimes of domestic violence are at issue. True, both the domestic setting of the offense and the intimate relationship with the victim are 12 LIRC cited its prior decisions for the idea that when dealing with domestic assault or battery convictions it cannot necessarily be assumed that the individual is likely to engage in the same conduct with co-workers or customers at the work place. Palmer v. Cree, Inc., ERD Case No. CR201502651, at 13 (LIRC, Dec. 3, 2018) (citing Murphy v. Autozone, ERD Case No. 200003059 (LIRC, May 7, 2004)); see also Robertson v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., ERD Case No. CR200300021 (LIRC, Oct. 14, 2005); Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, ERD Case No. CR200600021 (LIRC, Oct. 11, 2012); and Johnson v. Rohr Kenosha Motors, ERD Case No. CR201602571 (LIRC, Apr. 29, 2020). 17 No. 2019AP1671 circumstances that are not identical to the setting and relationships Palmer would encounter at Cree. Yet the substantial relationship test does not require an exact identity between these circumstances. For example, the armed robbery conviction in Gibson was deemed to substantially relate to employment as a school bus driver despite the robbery not being committed in an employment setting nor involving children as the victims. 106 Wis. 2d 22. As we later explained in Milwaukee County, that result was correct because the relevant circumstances of the offense are those material to the likelihood of recidivism in the workplace, such as the opportunity for criminal behavior, the reaction to responsibility, or the character traits of the person. 139 Wis. 2d at 824. Thus, similar to the armed robbery conviction in Gibson and the several counts of patient neglect in Milwaukee County, crimes of domestic violence are to be assessed to determine whether the tendencies and inclinations to behave a certain way in a particular context are likely to reappear later in a related context. Id. ¶25 To summarize, we apply the substantial relationship test to a domestic violence conviction the same way we would to any other conviction. According to our precedent, which no party asks 18 No. 2019AP1671 use to revisit,13 we must look beyond any immaterial identity between circumstances——such as the domestic context of the offense or an intimate relationship with the victim——and instead examine the circumstances material to fostering criminal activity. The material circumstances are those that exist in the workplace that present opportunities for recidivism given the character traits revealed by the circumstances of a domestic violence conviction. ¶26 In applying this framework, we first ask whether there are opportunities in a workplace that would allow a domestic violence perpetrator to recidivate. One such opportunity would be the ability to isolate victims. Perpetrators of domestic violence often commit their crimes under a veil of secrecy inside the home. Indeed, this aspect of domestic violence explains the inclination to treat crimes of domestic violence differently from other violent crimes. And it leads to the misconception that unlike other violent offenders, domestic violence perpetrators are sufficiently 13 The dissent's umbrage with this opinion is misplaced. Really the dissent's contention is aimed at this court interpretation of circumstances in Milwaukee County v. LIRC, 139 Wis. 2d 805, 824, 407 N.W.2d 908 (1987). Yet the dissent offers no grounds for overturning this precedent, and for good reason—— to do so would be to develop the parties' arguments for them. See, e.g., Christus Lutheran Church of Appleton v. DOT, 2021 WI 30, ¶21 n.12, 396 Wis. 2d 302, 956 N.W.2d 837. Moreover, for over three decades LIRC has been applying Milwaukee County's interpretation to crimes where domestic violence is not at issue. See, e.g. Weston v. ADM Milling Co., ERD Case no. CR200300025 (LIRC Jan. 18, 2006); McCain v. Favorite Nurses, ERD Case No. 200302482 (LIRC Apr. 27, 2005); Santos v. Whitehead Specialties, Inc., ERD Case No. 8802471 (LIRC, Feb. 26, 1992). This opinion simply ensures that same standard applies consistently to all crimes, including those of domestic violence. 19 No. 2019AP1671 deterred from engaging in violence when in public. However, this pubic versus private, work versus home dichotomy misses the mark. The specific setting of the crime is immaterial; what matters is that the abusers engage in violence under circumstances where their victims are isolated away from those who might intervene.14 That isolation occurs not just in the home——under the right circumstances, it can be achieved in a car, in a private room, in a storage closet, or in a parking lot. Thus, when considering crimes of domestic violence, we look for the opportunities that may exist within the circumstances of the job that would allow a perpetrator to isolate a victim. ¶27 Next we must identify the character traits revealed by the elements of a crime of domestic violence. Here, we refer to the testimony of Cree's domestic violence expert, Dr. Hanusa, on 14See Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 380 (2008) (Souter, J. concurring in part) (confirming that the inference drawn from the classic abusive relationship is that the abuser means to isolate the victim from outside help, including the aid of law enforcement and the judicial process). 20 No. 2019AP1671 general principles informing domestic violence offenses.15 Dr. Hanusa testified that there is a direct relationship between a willingness to use violence in your intimate relationship and your willingness to use violence in other settings. He also pointed out that the best predictor for future violent behavior was past violent behavior. Put simply, Dr. Hanusa's testimony shows that crimes of domestic violence, like other violent crimes, indicate a character trait of willingness to use violence against others. ¶28 Dr. Hanusa also explained the power principle, that acts of domestic violence are rooted in power and control. He further testified that those who have issues with power and control resort to violence when they believe their power or authority is threatened, regardless of who the victim is. This indicates a character trait of willingness to use violence when one's power and authority is threatened. Thus, when reviewing the circumstances of the job, we consider whether a domestic violence We reference Dr. Hanusa's testimony not for his opinion on 15 Palmer's particular recidivism risk but instead for his exposition on general principles regarding domestic violence offenders. See State v. Dobbs, 2020 WI 64, ¶42, 392 Wis. 2d 505, 945 N.W.2d 609 (distinguishing expert opinions about a particular individual from expert expositions on general principles). This limited reference to his testimony presents no conflict with LIRC finding Dr. Hanusa's testimony unhelpful; that determination was not based on credibility——the ALJ had no specific demeanor impressions to impart——and faulted only Dr. Hanusa's opinion of Palmer's particular recidivism risk because he had not personally interviewed or treated Palmer. See Palmer, ERD Case No. CR201502651, at 19. No fault was found with respect to his exposition on domestic-violence general principles. 21 No. 2019AP1671 perpetrator's power and authority will be threatened in ways that may trigger a violent response.