FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS RELEASE MEMORANDUM—DWD Disability-Employment Promotion of Marcus Palace Cinema Raises Questions While DVR-Related Discrimination Case Awaits ALJ Decision

SUN PRAIRIE, Wis. — September 1, 2026 — A Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development social-media publication recognizing Marcus Palace Cinema for its work with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation is drawing renewed attention to an unresolved administrative dispute involving a former Marcus employee who participated in DVR-supported employment.

Bradley J. Burt, a self-represented complainant in ERD Case No. CR202303238, is calling for legislative and administrative examination of how DWD separates its employer-partnership activities through DVR from the Equal Rights Division’s responsibility to neutrally process discrimination complaints involving those same employers.

The DWD social-media publication identifies Marcus Palace Cinema in Sun Prairie as an employer recognized during National Disability Employment Awareness Month and describes Marcus as having worked with DVR to hire workers with disabilities.

The publication has particular significance to Burt because the relationship between Marcus and DVR was already an issue in his ERD record years before the social-media post came to his attention.

DVR Was Already in the Administrative Record

In a February 1, 2024 submission to ERD Investigator Ann K. Hanson Lininger, Burt alleged that Marcus neglected his DVR-supported employment requirements and failed to establish the expected connection with his DVR counselor. His submission stated that his exhibits documented his efforts to address DVR and accommodation matters with Marcus management.

In a subsequent May 22, 2025 response to Investigator Lininger, Burt again identified DVR as an integral part of his employment circumstances, including his reporting obligations, employment plan, disability certification, and attempts to have Marcus communicate with his DVR counselor.

Those submissions preceded the current controversy over DWD’s public recognition of Marcus Palace Cinema.

Case Remains an Adjudicative Matter

Burt’s discrimination case proceeded to an administrative hearing on March 12, 2026. He is presently awaiting the Administrative Law Judge’s decision.

Burt emphasizes that neither DWD’s promotional publication nor the existence of a relationship between DVR and Marcus establishes discrimination, administrative bias, or wrongdoing.

The pending case must be decided on its evidentiary record.

The public communication nevertheless presents a separate governmental-accountability question:

How does DWD maintain appropriate separation between its role cultivating and publicly promoting DVR employer relationships and its responsibility through ERD to neutrally investigate and adjudicate discrimination complaints involving those same employers?

“Reward the Wolf” — A Complainant’s Perspective

Burt describes the contradiction through a journalistic metaphor:

“From where I stand, the message feels like: reward the wolf, publicly praise the wolf, and send more sheep through the same gate.”

The statement represents Burt’s commentary and perspective—not an adjudicated finding concerning Marcus Palace Cinema or DWD.

Burt contends that his underlying administrative record documents repeated attempts to obtain recognition of DVR-related employment and accommodation issues. The central oversight question therefore does not depend upon whether his discrimination claim ultimately succeeds.

Instead, it concerns what safeguards Wisconsin maintains when one division of a state agency develops relationships with employers of people with disabilities while another division handles civil-rights complaints brought by those workers.

Legislative Oversight Requested

Burt recently presented a Legislative Oversight Brief to the Office of Wisconsin State Representative Andrew Hysell seeking constituent assistance concerning DWD/ERD and DVR administrative processes.

The request expressly does not ask a legislator to direct an investigator, Administrative Law Judge, or tribunal toward a particular result.

The requested examination instead concerns:

• separation between DVR employer partnerships and ERD civil-rights enforcement;
• preservation and identification of evidence submitted by ERD complainants;
• documentation showing whether investigators considered material exhibits and legal or factual theories;
• treatment and downstream use of disability information originating through DVR; and
• procedures available for correcting an allegedly incomplete investigative record.

Publicity Is Not Proof — But It Can Prompt Questions

The DWD publication should not be treated as evidence that DWD improperly influenced Burt’s pending proceeding.

It does, however, provide a concrete reason to examine how Wisconsin reconciles two governmental responsibilities: encouraging employers to hire people with disabilities and independently enforcing those workers’ civil rights when disputes arise.

For Burt, that distinction is especially important.

“My complaint isn’t that Wisconsin encourages businesses to employ people with disabilities. Wisconsin should,” Burt said. “The question is what happens after a DVR participant says the system didn’t work. The worker’s evidence deserves the same institutional attention as the employer’s success story.”

Burt intends to allow the pending ALJ decision to speak for itself concerning the merits of CR202303238 while separately pursuing legislative oversight regarding the administration of Wisconsin’s disability-employment and civil-rights systems.

###OP422

MEDIA / DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Bradley J. Burt
Outpost 422 / Bob Cobb Freelance Ink LLC
Sun Prairie, Wisconsin

Supporting public-record materials:
DWD social-media publication concerning Marcus Palace Cinema; February 1, 2024 ERD submission; May 22, 2025 response to Investigator Lininger; Legislative Oversight Brief dated August 28, 2026.

Editorial disclosure: This release discusses allegations contained in an unresolved administrative proceeding. References to alleged discrimination, evidentiary omissions, or administrative deficiencies represent the complainant’s position unless otherwise identified as an adjudicated fact.