Wisconsin Statutes 230.87 – Judicial review
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
Terms Used In Wisconsin Statutes 230.87
- Appeal: A request made after a trial, asking another court (usually the court of appeals) to decide whether the trial was conducted properly. To make such a request is "to appeal" or "to take an appeal." One who appeals is called the appellant.
- Division: means the division of personnel management in the department of administration. See Wisconsin Statutes 230.03
- Division of equal rights: means the division of equal rights in the department of workforce development. See Wisconsin Statutes 230.03
- Following: when used by way of reference to any statute section, means the section next following that in which the reference is made. See Wisconsin Statutes 990.01
- Person: includes all partnerships, associations and bodies politic or corporate. See Wisconsin Statutes 990.01
(1) Findings and orders of the division of equal rights under this subchapter are subject to judicial review under ch. 227. Upon that review, or in any enforcement action, the department of justice shall represent the division of equal rights unless a conflict of interest results from that representation. A court may order payment of a prevailing appellant employee’s reasonable attorney fees by a governmental unit respondent, or by a governmental unit employing a respondent who is a natural person if that governmental unit received notice and an opportunity to appear before the court.
(2) If the court finds that the appeal is frivolous, it shall award to the respondent reasonable attorney fees and costs. Payment may be assessed fully against the appellant, including a governmental unit, or the appellant’s attorney or assessed so that the appellant and the appellant’s attorney each pay a portion. To find an appeal frivolous, the court must find one or more of the following:
(a) The appeal was filed, used or continued in bad faith, solely for purposes of harassing or maliciously injuring another.
(b) The appellant or appellant’s attorney knew, or should have known, that the appeal was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law.