Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City Service Commission finds appellant filed timely appeal in Antoine Young separation dispute
Summary
The commission determined on Jan. 14 that Antoine Young effectively filed a timely appeal of his separation despite paperwork confusion; the decision concerns timeliness only and does not address the merits of his separation.
MILWAUKEE — The Board of City Service Commissioners on Jan. 14 found that Antoine Young, a former business systems coordinator in the city attorney’s office, complied with the time requirement to file an appeal of his separation and granted him the right to a hearing on the merits.
The commission’s action addressed only the timeliness of Young’s appeal, not the underlying reasons for his separation. Commissioners heard testimony from Department of Employee Relations staff, the city attorney’s office and Young before concluding that his intent to appeal and related actions were sufficient to satisfy the filing deadline.
Mary Shannon, deputy city attorney, described the department’s pre-separation and separation procedures, saying the city sent a separation notice by certified mail and by email on Dec. 5, 2024, and that pre-separation meetings occurred in early December. Shannon advised the commission of the department’s timeline and paperwork submitted for the record.
Assistant City Attorney Patrick McClain provided legal context to commissioners, saying the statutory requirement that an appeal be in writing is general but is supplemented by commission rules that require use of the form prescribed by DER and a three-day filing timeline. McClain explained that courts tend to afford administrative agencies deference when they interpret their own rules, and he said the commission’s reading of its rules in unique circumstances could establish precedent.
Young testified that he attended department meetings on Dec. 2 and Dec. 10, 2024, signed a waiver form at the Dec. 10 meeting and attempted to complete the prescribed appeal form while in the office. He said he left with the partially completed form to ensure accuracy and intended to submit it; he later emailed the form to DER on Dec. 16. Young told commissioners he had signed the waiver and believed he had invoked his right to appeal. "I filled out the whole front part ... I asked if I could fill it out and take it with me. She said yes," Young said, describing the interaction in the DER office. (First reference: Antoine Young, Appellant.)
Commissioners asked DER Executive Secretary Donahue, who attended the Dec. 10 meeting, whether Young had returned a signed appeal form at that time; Donahue and DER staff said Young had returned the waiver but not the appeal form. DER staff confirmed Young later sent an email on Dec. 16 that included the appeal form.
After discussion, the commission voted to accept Young’s appeal as timely. The motion’s language determined that, given the totality of the circumstances — Young’s presence at the office, his signed waiver and his subsequent submission — the commission would treat the filing as timely and allow a hearing to proceed. The vote was recorded in favor by Commissioners Miller, Smith and Cleary.
President Bach instructed DER to meet with the city attorney’s office and Young for a prehearing conference to agree on witness lists and exhibits and to schedule the hearing. The commission noted that because this timeliness matter was handled informally (no court reporter and no sworn witnesses), the procedural decision was limited to whether an initial filing deadline had been met, not whether the separation was substantively justified.
