What the Disclosed ERD Manuals Say About Two Initial Determinations

By Bradley J. Burt | JEDVIDENCE public-record analysis

The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development recently released redacted ERD and Labor Standards investigation materials in response to my public-records request. The release does not establish that any investigator acted improperly, and the manuals themselves are dated documents rather than a statement of current law or a guarantee of a particular outcome. It does, however, provide a concrete benchmark for examining how an investigation was described in the written record.

In a June 2026 submission concerning ERD Case No. CR202602405, Burt requested reassignment or supervisory review after submitting an amendment and supplemental exhibits. The request identified additional evidence and theories arising from the same employment relationship and termination. The email records the request; it does not, by itself, establish whether ERD granted, denied, or acted upon it.

This comparison looks at two Initial Determinations: Ann K. Hanson Lininger’s June 20, 2025 determination in Burt v. Marcus Palace Cinema, ERD Case No. CR202303238, and Matthew M. Meissner’s March 5, 2026 determination in Burt v. Frank Productions LLC, ERD Case No. CR202500211. It compares the determinations with the standards described in the disclosed materials. It is not legal advice and does not ask readers to assume the underlying allegations are true. The question is narrower: what did the materials say an investigation should address, and what does each written determination show on its face?

The disclosed benchmark

The most direct document is a two-page ERD guide titled How to do an investigation. It directs an investigator, after receiving the respondent’s response, to identify the bases and discriminatory actions alleged, determine what information is needed from both parties, and “make sure to address all the bases/issues alleged.” After receiving responses, it calls for another file review, final information requests or witness contacts where appropriate, and a final check that the respondent had an opportunity to respond to all claims.

For the written determination, the guide calls for a chronological account using relevant facts. When facts are disputed, it directs the writer to state each side’s position and state whether and how the allegation or rebuttal was supported – for example, by documentation or witness information – and why one account is more reliable or believable. It says material disputes that cannot be resolved should proceed to a probable-cause hearing. It also calls for an explanation that addresses all bases and adverse actions, avoids unsupported opinions, and remains tactful.

The larger Civil Rights Investigator’s Manual likewise describes the investigator’s work as identifying issues, witness contacts, interrogatories, and documents; procuring, examining, and analyzing information; maintaining a coherent evidentiary file; and preparing a report that sets forth the issues, facts, and arguments supporting the decision. Its Fair Employment chart lists a 180-day investigation goal. A goal is not the same thing as an enforceable deadline, but it is a disclosed management benchmark.

The Lininger determination: broad issue list, concise explanation

The Lininger determination lists disability, age, military status, political or religious meeting allegations, and opposition/retaliation. Its factual section records a substantial number of competing accounts. It identifies the respondent’s safety investigation and its account of the accommodation process; it also records my accounts about DVR notice, accommodation needs, workload, hours, witness separation, age and military-status stereotyping, and a recorded meeting.

That breadth matters. On its face, the determination does not erase those topics from the narrative. It also expressly accepts the listed conditions as disabilities for purposes of the determination, while noting that competent medical evidence could be required later.

The question raised by the disclosed guide is what comes next. The explanation resolves the disability claim principally by stating that I did not provide adequate information or cooperate by submitting medical documentation. It concludes that the age, military-status, disability-harassment, political/religious, and retaliation theories were not demonstrated or lacked evidence. But the explanation does not separately identify the documentary or witness support it credited for the major factual disputes, nor does it explain why the respondent’s account was more reliable where the parties differed. It also does not visibly analyze each alleged adverse action – such as workload, hours, assignments, witness separation, or the cited accommodation requests – one by one.

That is not proof that information was never reviewed. It is a limitation in the written explanation when compared with the guide’s stated instruction to explain the support for competing accounts and to address all bases and adverse actions. The elapsed time from the November 21, 2023 acceptance date stated in the determination to the June 20, 2025 determination was about 577 days, compared with the manual’s disclosed 180-day goal.

The Meissner determination: a focused rationale, unresolved comparison questions

The Meissner determination addresses military-service harassment and termination. It records the respondent’s account that three staff members reported hearing statements that the complainant would harm a patron, that the respondent terminated employment after the November 5, 2024 event, and that another employee’s threatening-comments episode was treated differently because it was off premises and not during company work.

It also records my account that I raised a workplace concern on November 5, that the issue was quickly dismissed, that the termination followed, and that another employee made an actual death threat but was not banned from venues. The explanation concludes that the correspondence provided by the respondent did not reference military service, that concern about firearms does not automatically establish military-service discrimination, and that I had not provided sufficient information to dispute the respondent’s account of the venue incident.

Here again, the public-record question is not whether the conclusion was necessarily wrong. The guide calls for more than a finding that an account was or was not disputed: it calls for a statement of how competing accounts were supported and why one was more believable if a material dispute is resolved. The determination references three employee statements, but on its face does not describe their content, identify any assessment of their reliability, or explain how they were weighed against the complainant’s described account and comparator evidence. Nor does the short explanation visibly address whether the alleged protected opposition, timing, or comparator difference altered the causation analysis. Those are the precise categories the disclosed guide identifies for final review: all claims, relevant information, a respondent opportunity to respond, and a reasoned account of material factual disputes.

The determination states that the complaint was accepted on May 13, 2025 and was issued March 5, 2026 – about 296 days later. That also exceeds the manual’s stated 180-day investigation goal. Again, the public materials frame this as an internal goal, not an automatic remedy or a finding that the determination is invalid.

What the comparison does – and does not – show

Both determinations use the same basic Initial Determination format: identify the claims, summarize information, and state a conclusion. Both include some competing evidence. The disclosed materials do not authorize a reader to infer that either investigator acted with bias, and a public-record comparison cannot establish that every item in an agency file was ignored.

But the released materials do establish a useful record-audit standard. A complainant, respondent, advocate, editor, or reviewing tribunal can ask four disciplined questions:

1. Were every basis and every adverse action identified and answered?
2. Does the determination show what documents, witnesses, or other evidence supported each competing account?
3. When material facts conflict, does it explain why one account was credited, or acknowledge that the dispute belongs at a probable-cause hearing?
4. Does the chronology make clear how the alleged protected activity, employer knowledge, investigation, and adverse action relate in time?

Those questions do not predetermine an outcome. They make the record auditable. That is the value of a chronology-based JEDVIDENCE review: it separates allegations, attributed statements, documents, omissions in the written explanation, and legal conclusions so that an editor or tribunal can test each item against the actual file.

Source note

This article compares the face of the two Initial Determinations with materials released by DWD Open Records: How to do an investigation (pp. 1-2); Civil Rights Investigator’s Manual (Investigation of Complaints, Writing Initial Determinations, and the Fair Employment time-limit chart); and Labor Standards Manual (impartial-investigator statement and administrative-review materials). The Civil Rights manual is marked revised through 2018, and the released records contain redactions. Readers should verify the current statutes, administrative rules, and complete agency record before relying on any proposition in a case.