Court Opinion

ID: 9582699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:30:26.181793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:38:14.961378
License: Public Domain

DEININGER, J.
¶ 36. It is not clear what difference it might make if the administrative proceedings on Wagner's allegations were to proceed with only the City and Chief *375Amesqua, but not the commission, as named respondents. Perhaps very little, given that the City is Wagner's employer, and most remedies the department might order if Wagner were to prevail would likely fall to the City to pay or implement. The department might also ultimately agree with the commission that it should be dismissed as a respondent for the reasons cited by Judge Roggensack, or for other reasons.
¶ 37. We acknowledge that the department could conceivably order relief that the commission believes adversely affects its interests separately or differently from the City's. A writ of prohibition is a "drastic and extraordinary remedy," however, and a court should not issue a writ unless "ordinary remedies, by appeal or otherwise, are inadequate." State ex rel. Lynch v. County Court, 82 Wis. 2d 454, 459-60, 262 N.W.2d 773 (1978). The panel majority concludes that (1) the commission, for the reasons discussed in ¶¶ 29-30 of the lead opinion, does not have immunity from Wagner's WFEA complaint; and (2) the availability of administrative and judicial review of the department's decisions provides adequate protection for the commission's interests.1
¶ 38. The commission concedes it would be a proper respondent in a department investigation of a firefighter's claim of WFEA violations relating to "hiring practices, terms or conditions of employment, or adverse employment actions short of' demotions, suspensions or discharge. See Wis. Stat. § 62.13(4). Given the nature of the circuit court action under review, it is not necessary for this court to decide whether the commission is or is not a "person" within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 111.321 when it performs functions under Wis. Stat. § 62.13(5). That issue is best decided, if necessary, *376after the department has had the opportunity to complete its investigation and to address the defenses the commission may raise.
¶ 39. I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Vergeront joins this concurrence.

 See Wis. Stat. §§ 111.39(5) and 111.395.