Court Opinion

ID: 9709808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:55:14.873564+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:51.659324
License: Public Domain

*112FINE, J.
(dissenting). Richard Sielaff claims that he was denied a promotion because of illegal age discrimination. The action was brought within the 300-day statute of limitations established by § 111.39(1), Stats. Se Milwaukee County v. LIRC, 113 Wis. 2d 199, 204-205, 335 N.W.2d 412, 415-416 (Ct. App. 1983) (provision a statute of limitations). The trial court invoked § 111.39(1) to prevent Sielaff from introducing evidence that he had also been denied promotions before and after the 300-day period. Although Sielaff could not seek age-discrimination redress in connection with those denied promotions, the evidence is clearly relevant to show both a pattern of discrimination and an intent to discriminate. See Stewart v. CPC Int'l, Inc., 679 F.2d 117, 121 (7th Cir. 1982). I would reverse.