|
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND RELEASED March 5, 1996 |
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. 95-0644
STATE
OF WISCONSIN IN COURT OF
APPEALS
DISTRICT I
MARY FERTEL-RUST,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF
INDUSTRY, LABOR
AND HUMAN RELATIONS,
BELMONT HOTEL and
BLANKSTEIN
CORPORATION,
Respondents-Respondents.
APPEAL from an order of
the circuit court for Milwaukee County:
MICHAEL D. GUOLEE, Judge. Affirmed.
Before Wedemeyer, P.J.,
Sullivan and Fine, JJ.
PER
CURIAM. Mary Fertel-Rust, pro se, appeals from an order of
the trial court that dismissed her petition to review a decision of the
Department of Industry, Labor, and Human Relations. Fertel-Rust had filed a sex and age discrimination complaint
against the Belmont Hotel and Blankstein Enterprises, Inc., under the Wisconsin
Open Housing Law. See
§ 101.22, Stats. The Department dismissed her complaint
because she failed to appear at her deposition and because she failed to
respond to an order of an administrative law judge requesting an explanation
for her failure to appear at the deposition.
She petitioned to the circuit court pursuant to Chapter 227, Stats., which dismissed her petition,
concluding that she failed to sustain her burden under § 227.57(2), Stats., for setting aside or modifying
the Department's order. She now appeals
to this court, raising essentially five disparate issues for our review. We address each of these issues seriatim
and conclude that she presents this court with no basis to reverse the trial
court order.[1]
Fertel-Rust appeals the
trial court's order pursuant to § 227.58, Stats.[2] In reviewing a trial court's ruling on an
administrative decision, however, we review the agency's decision, not the
trial court's reasoning. Barakat
v. DHSS, 191 Wis.2d 769, 778, 530 N.W.2d 392, 395 (Ct. App. 1995). Nonetheless, we apply the same standard and
scope of review as that which the trial court employed when it reviewed the
agency's decision. Id.
Fertel-Rust first argues
that her constitutional right “not to be evicted without cause shown in court”
was violated. Fertel-Rust filed her
complaint with the Department, alleging sex and age discrimination. The trial court dismissed this complaint
after she failed to appear at her deposition, and failed to respond to a
Department order to explain her failure to appear. Fertel-Rust has presented this court with nothing from which we
can conclude that the Department's actions either deprived her of a fair
proceeding, see § 227.57(5), Stats.,
or erroneously exercised the discretion delegated to the Department, see
§ 227.57(8), Stats.
She next argues she was
deprived of access to the court system and oral argument. Her argument on this issue is insufficiently
developed; hence, we will not address it.
Barakat v. DHSS, 191 Wis.2d at 786, 530 N.W.2d at 398.
Fertel-Rust next argues
that she was deprived the right to a jury trial. This argument has no merit.
Statutory judicial review of an administrative decisions does not
entitle a party to a jury trial. See
227.57(1), Stats. (“The review
shall be conducted by the court without a jury and shall be confined to the
record.”).
She also argues that the
State of Wisconsin improperly represented the Belmont Hotel in court
proceedings. She misunderstands the
nature of the proceeding in the circuit court.
The State of Wisconsin is not representing the Belmont Hotel, but
defending the Department, whose decision she challenged in the circuit court
and now before this court.
Finally, Fertel-Rust
makes a general challenge to the fairness of her treatment by the Belmont
Hotel, the administrative law judge, and the circuit court. Her exegesis on this challenge does not
provide this court with any basis to reverse the trial court order. The trial court properly concluded that
Fertel-Rust had failed to meet her burden on any ground listed in
§ 227.57, Stats., to set
aside the Department's decision.
Accordingly, we affirm.
By the Court.—Order
affirmed.
This opinion will not be
published. See Rule 809.23(1)(b)5, Stats.
[1] We acknowledge that Fertel-Rust's appeal is pro se. Nonetheless, in civil cases such as this, she is not entitled to any leniency. She is bound by the same rules that apply to attorneys on appeal. Waushara County v. Graf, 166 Wis.2d 442, 452, 480 N.W.2d 16, 20, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 894 (1992).