Fox Valley Lutheran High (WELS) - Assemblies of God Training for Future Pentecostals

From 2009 - Anonymouse

Anonymouse has left a new comment on your post "Leave the False Prophets Alone During Holy Week":

It's too bad you don't take such words to heart, especially on a day like today. This isn't the first time someone's told you to repent. I pray that you do before you're called out of this world.

***

GJ -

Chief of sinners though I be,
I don't post anonymousely.

DP Engelbrecht Suffers Heart Attack - Undergoes Open Heart Surgery

At 2:00 a.m. this morning, District President Engelbrecht suffered a major heart attack. Surgeons were able to open blockages to his heart and he is resting comfortably in the ICU at Theda Clark in Neenah. 

Friday, August 23, 2013

District President Doug Engelbrecht's Email Supporting James Skorzewski's (Ski's) Return to the Ministry

Brothers,

The perpetual adolescence of WELS pastors is
captured well by the Facebook photos
of Glende and Ski with a scantily dressed Katy Perry.

          A number of weeks ago you received a set of documents from two laypeople in the district who were involved in a situation that ultimately led to the resignation of one of our pastors.   This situation was handled by the Northern Wisconsin District Presidium and the congregation(s) involved according to synod protocols, and reasonable and appropriate action was taken.  A number of you have expressed deep concerns about the content and purpose of the mailing that you received, including the fact that it came out under the aegis of two pastors in the district from whom the couple was receiving counsel.  Your Presidium decided that, since the information the pastors in the district received raised a number of questions, and since it obviously presented only the viewpoint of the couple that sent the information out, it would be good to call a meeting of our circuit pastors to give them a report of the situation from the viewpoint of the Presidium, to answer any questions they might have,  and to help them answer any questions the men in their circuit might bring to them.  That meeting was held on June 18^th at Maribel.  A good share of our circuit pastors were able to be in attendance.  Others, who were not there, already had some involvement in the situation and previously had the information that was shared at that meeting.  President Engelbrecht presented a fairly detailed account of the events that led to the eventual resignation of the pastor involved and of the protocols that were followed.   He explained the plan of discipline and restoration that was developed, which included a suspension of ministry and periodic reviews to determine whether or not a return to the public ministry would be possible at some time in the future.

 It became clear that the use of the term “suspension” in connection with that plan of discipline/restoration was a poor choice of words on the Presidium’s part, since the action that was taken was not consistent with the use of that term in our circles and may have given some the impression that what had taken place was not serious or that the action taken by the Presidium amounted to merely a slap on the wrist.  The circuit pastors came to the understanding that such was not the case, but that the Presidium considered what had taken place to be serious and something that needed serious action.  While the suspension of ministry that was called for did remove the pastor from all ministry, not only in his congregation, but throughout the WELS as well “until further notice”, (as is basically  the case with any resignation) it was misunderstood by those who did not have all the information relative to the case.   As a result, and after consultation with WELS President Mark Schroeder and President Engelbrecht, the pastor made his suspension from ministry more clear by tending a letter of resignation.  That was then reported via the weekly call report.  Although President Schroeder expressed his approval of the plan that was developed for the pastor by the District Presidium that could lead to possible return to pastoral ministry, he felt that the term “suspension” caused both confusion and questions that could be avoided by a standard “resignation”.    The pastor, who thereupon  willfully submitted his resignation, has continued to follow the original plan of discipline/restoration developed for him by the Presidium, recognizing it as a beneficial program for his physical, spiritual, and emotional well-being.   Since all too often when a called worker in our synod resigns there is no program put in place that helps him or her to be restored spiritually, emotionally, and physically, it is hoped that the program developed by the Presidium in this case might serve as a model for dealing with such situations that arise in our synod in the future.

 

The circuit pastors expressed their appreciation for the more detailed explanation of the situation and asked if, in the future, there might be better communication with them in such situations to avoid any misunderstandings or misinformation.

The circuit pastors in attendance at the meeting in Maribel then expressed their concern over the documents that were sent out to all of the pastors in district by the couple, as well as the involvement of the two pastors mentioned in those documents.  The consensus was that the sending out of those documents was inappropriate, since it served only to do further damage to the reputation of the pastor involved, following his resignation.   It was also the consensus of the circuit pastors present that, apart from the initial involvement of the one pastor in bringing the allegations to the attention of the proper individuals, the two pastors had overstepped their bounds in continuing to be involved, since neither of them at the time served as the pastor of the couple nor as a circuit pastor, and neither of them served in any official capacity in the district that would justify their further involvement.    The circuit pastors asked that the Presidium meet with the two pastors mentioned in the mailing to convey that message to them and to ask to what extent they knew about the mailing that was sent out.    Such a meeting was held the following day on June 19^th and the concern of the circuit pastors about their involvement was conveyed to them.   The two pastors did state that, as far as the mailing was concerned, they were not aware of it being sent out and did not encourage or OK it.   The Presidium thanked them for their willingness to meet with us and to listen to our concerns, and also thanked them for their obvious concern for the spiritual and emotional well-being of the couple who were involved.   We encouraged further meetings of the couple and the Presidium to help them in their healing process. 

          It needs to be stated at this point that at no time did the leadership and pastoral staff of St. Peter/The CORE take lightly the incidents and events that took place which led to the resignation of their pastor or try to cover them up in any way.   They stated that sin is sin and it was acknowledged as such by those involved where sin occurred, and where poor decisions and lapses in judgment occurred they were also acknowledged and addressed.    The moment these incidents were brought to the attention of the responsible officials, the proper procedures, as laid out by our synod policies for situations like this, were followed both by the District Presidium and by the leadership of St. Peter/The CORE.     While the general nature of the incidents that led to the resignation of their pastor were shared with the members of St. Peter/the CORE, specific details of the incidents (including names) were not shared in order to protect primarily the couple involved and also the pastor, as well as others mentioned in statements that were made during the investigation.    Since the couple, however, chose to disclose the specific details through the mailing they sent out, the matter of protecting the reputations of those involved from further damage became a moot point.  A special meeting was held recently with the members of St. Peter/The CORE and a summary of all that has taken place in the past 11 months, including specific details, was presented to them. 

         

 Should you wish to have a fuller explanation of what occurred, how it was handled by the district, and specific details, you are encouraged to contact President Engelbrecht.  

          We also hope and pray that all those who have been involved in this situation will soon find peace in the forgiveness of sins through our Lord Jesus Christ and strength in Word and Sacrament to live in harmony with one another and serve their Savior to the glory of God.

NOTICE OF REQUESTS FOR CRM STATUS

          One of the reasons for the special meeting with the members of St. Peter/The CORE and for this letter to you is to give everyone more specific and accurate information on what has transpired in the past 11 months, especially in the light of a formal request that has been made by the pastor who resigned from the CORE for CRM status.    Our Wisconsin Synod does have a process for re-entry into the public ministry after a resignation/suspension/termination.   It involves:

·      a period of time away from the ministry (often a year, although in some cases it may be less), for the specific purpose of addressing the things that led to the resignation/suspension/termination

·      a formal written application for CRM status submitted to the District Presidium in the district in which the resignation took place,

·      notice being sent out to the district of the request and a solicitation for responses, either positive or negative

·      letters of recommendation from individuals designated by the District Presidium who could give an evaluation of the progress made by the applicant in resolving the issues that led to resignation/suspension/termination

·      a meeting with the District Presidium to discuss the request

·      a possible period of supervised service or internship as outlined by the District Presidium

·      a decision on granting CRM status by the District Presidium, after the interview and a review of all the material that has been submitted

According to the synod constitution the District Presidium has the sole responsibility for making a determination on granting CRM status.   In order to make that decision comments from those who wish to make them are taken into consideration.   

There are two such requests before our Presidium at this time.  James Skorzewski and Paul Fanning have requested consideration for CRM status.  Paul Fanning has been out of ministry for approximately a year and resigned from his call at St. John – Kaukauna, WI  when he remarried and moved to Nebraska.     James Skorzewski has been out of ministry since January 2013, (his resignation was requested and accepted by the District President at the end of December of 2012),  but has been addressing issues that led to his resignation for almost three years through Crosstrain Ministries.   

           

Comments on the two men seeking CRM status at this time may be sent to the District Office:

          welsnwpd@aol.com  or 249 E. Franklin Ave – Neenah, WI 54956

         

Doug [Engelbrecht]

***

Doug’s email: nwdp@wels.net

 

home phone: 920-722-3218

 

cell phone: 920-841-2809

  

Oh, and the newsdesk of the local newspaper:

 

pcnews@postcrescent.com 

GJ - This email shows what a joke the Anything Goes District has become under Deputy Doug Engelbrecht.

Ski resigned last December? Strange, it did not really happen until the April following -

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2013/04/ski-has-resigned-effective-4-12-2013.html

Ski has been working on his problems through Crosstrain Ministries? That is another cancerous tumor from Church and Change, the WELS Fuller Seminary lobby that pretends to disappear when convenient, only to emerge again: larger, worser, meaner. 

These are the Jelly-Tele-Tubbies, apparently waving bye-bye,
but really smirking over their capture of WELS.

DP Patterson is one their coaches and charges a fee to coach people. I want to know how to organize parish spiritual retreats where the ladies bet on who is going to puke her guts out from alcohol first. Could I hire one of them coaches? Kudu Don Patterson is probably booked until the Second Coming, given his skills.

Ski was on the board of Church and Change until I published the names and photos of everyone on the board. It just happened that three Mark Jeske staffers were on the board - a co-inky-dink.

The letter identifies only one sin committed - the sin of dealing with the issues of pastoral alcoholism and repeated sexual harassment. Some have expressed wonder that I knew the facts involved in Ski's situation. DP Jon Buchholz knew all about it and laughed it off, back in 2009, when I brought it up to him.

Many realize this is a safe outlet to deal with matters, while the Mark Schroeder prescription of writing a letter is just another step toward being kicked out for the sin of writing a letter or trying to meet with the furtive Deputy Doug Engelbrecht. Therefore, I often receive information about the false doctrine and disgusting behavior of WELS pastors and teachers.

Those new to the situation should recall that Glende and Ski excommunicated a member, Rich Techlin, for correctly identifying both pastors as dishonest plagiarists. Naturally, Deputy Doug supported Glende and Ski 100%.

WELS endorsement of plagiarism:

http://vdma.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/dp-engelbrecht-on-plagiarism/ 

---

WELS Bethany in Appleton caught plagiarizing Swindoll:

http://ichabodthegloryhasdeparted.blogspot.com/2010/08/bethany-appleton-wels-caught.html

Ski and Glende are disciples of Babtist Andy Stanley,
but if anyone is identified as reading this blog - Anathema sit!

Hitler Just Found Out about Tim Glende's Lawsuit Failure.

Team Glende's Lawsuits - Restraining Orders - Question and Answer

Ski admitted his sexual harassment of this man's wife to DP Doug,
but Engelbrecht has moved heaven and earth to protect
Ski and Glende, to punish any truth-tellers.

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDERS

Q:   Is a restraining order for me?

As a member of society you and/or your family have the right to feel safe at home, work, and in the community. If someone is violating these rights, you need to take appropriate actions to protect yourself and/or your family. Depending upon your personal situation there are three types of restraining orders that can help protect you: Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse, and Harassment.

Q:  Where do I start?

• First, you will need to contact an Advocate at the District Attorney's Office in the St. Croix County Government Center located in Hudson, Wisconsin. You may also contact a victim advocate by phone at 715.386.4666. By speaking with an advocate, you will be able to decide the type of petition that fits your situation.
• Second, you will need to come to the Government center to file your petition. At this time the advocate will help answer any questions you may have and help you in completing the petition. The victim advocate's office is located on the main level, Room 1259, of the Government Center.
• Third, after completing the petition, the advocate will bring the petition to the Judge for review. During this time, the Judge will decide whether to grant a Temporary Restraining Order.

Basic Definitions

Petitioner - person filing for a Temporary Restraining Order/Injunction

Respondent - the person against whom the petition is being filed

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) - a restraining order that is in effect for seven days or until the injunction hearing.

Injunction Hearing - a hearing before the Court where it is decided if there has been Domestic Abuse, Child Abuse and/or Harassment. If the court finds that any of these have occurred the court may issue an injunction up to, but not more then, two years.

Domestic Abuse Order - the petitioner and respondent must be family members or household members (people who in the past or now live in the same place), or have a child in common. A domestic abuse restraining order prohibits any contact by the respondent to the petitioner and the respondent must leave the home. Facts needed on the petition for a domestic abuse order include a showing of an intentional infliction or threat to inflict physical pain, physical injury, or illness; intentional impairment of physical condition; or sexual contact or intercourse without consent. There is no filing fee for this order.

Harassment Order - the facts in the petition must show that the respondent struck, shoved, kicked, or otherwise subjected the petitioner to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do so, or that the respondent engages in a course of conduct, or repeatedly commits acts which serve no legitimate purpose. A harassment restraining order prohibits any harassment by the respondent, but cannot force the respondent out of the home nor can it automatically order no contact. There is a filing fee for this order, unless it qualifies under the state statute including a domestic relationship or stalking.

Child Abuse Order - the facts must show that a person under 18 years of age has had physical injury inflicted by other than accidental means or there has been sexual intercourse or sexual contact under Wisconsin Statute 940.225 or 948.02 or there is a violation of sexual exploitation of a child, Wisconsin Statute 948.05, or the abuser has permitted or required a child to violate prostitution statute, § 944.30, or there has been emotional damage as defined in Wisconsin Statute 813.122(1)(e) or there has been a threat to engage in any of the above conduct. The court can order the respondent to avoid the child's residence and to have no contact with the child. There is no filing fee for this order.

Q:  After the TRO, Then What?

• If a TRO is ordered by the court, a court date will be set for an injunction hearing. The petitioner should then contact law enforcement to have them serve the papers on the respondent. Never give the respondent the legal papers yourself.
• At the Injunction hearing, as the petitioner, you must appear in court and may bring others/advocates for moral support. Both the petitioner and the respondent have the opportunity to be heard at the injunction hearing. If the facts show domestic abuse, harassment, or child abuse has occurred, the court may issue an injunction for a period of not more than two years. The respondent may or may not be present at the hearing but must be served notification of the hearing.

Q:  Do I Need An Attorney?

No. But, you may wish to hire an attorney or speak to an attorney prior to the hearing.

Q:  Does The Respondent Need An Attorney?

No, however, the respondent may hire an attorney to represent him/her. If so, you may wish to reconsider obtaining legal counsel. A free attorney will not be appointed for the respondent. This is not a criminal proceeding.

Q:  Are There Penalties For Respondents Who Break TRO or Injunction?

A:  Yes.  If the respondent violates the order, once it is in effect, report it to law enforcement immediately and every time. Then the respondent may be arrested for breaking the order and may face criminal charges.

• The penalties for the violation of domestic abuse and child abuse are imprisonment not to exceed nine months, a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both.
• The penalties for the violation of harassment orders are imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, a fine not to exceed $1,000, or both.

Practical Points to Remember

• Respondents may be angry when they receive the temporary restraining order.  Anger most likely will be directed towards you.  Take all the steps necessary to insure your safety.  Have a safety plan for yourself and your child(ren).
• Petitioners need to be in a position where they can call for help. Law Enforcement will not know when petitioners are in trouble. 911 should be called in an emergency.  Remember to keep the petition with you at all times.
• The court takes these cases seriously and expects everyone else to take them seriously. The orders are to be enforced by any or all law enforcement officers in and out of the State of Wisconsin.

Conclusion

• We are concerned for your safety and the safety of your child(ren). These are serious situations and people's lives may be in danger. We recognize this is a difficult step to take, but it is an important step for your safety and for taking control of your life. You should not have to live in fear.
• Violence should not be accepted as normal behavior. You are not responsible for the behavior of the person who is hurting you. Statistics show that in an abusive relationship, the pattern of behavior tends to get worse and become more violent.
• Domestic violence is everyone's problem. Many lives are affected and children learn violence from abusers. No one deserves to be abused. Sometimes it is necessary to take action to protect yourself-the restraining order can be one of those steps.

Q:  If I file a restraining order petition, will my abuser know what I said in the petition?
A:  Yes. Before a hearing can be held, at which time the temporary restraining order can be replaced with an injunction which can be in effect for up to two years, the abuser must be served with a copy of the TRO/injunction petition. The respondent has the right to attend the hearing.

Q:  When I get a restraining order, does that mean I have custody of the kids?
A:  No. If you are seeking a domestic abuse restraining order, the court is prohibited from ordering any custody, physical placement or child support orders. A separate action may need to be filed in Family Court. You may need an attorney to assist with issues about custody/physical placement.

Q:  When I get a TRO/injunction, does it mean my abuser has to stay away from the kids also?
A:  The TRO/injunction only restricts the respondent for making contact with you and does not include the children, unless a separate child abuse TRO/injunction order has been filed on behalf of the child(ren). At the injunction heating, custody or physical placement issues may come up. By law, when issuing a domestic abuse TRO or injunction, the court may not address these issues. It is possible for a court to address issues regarding the children at a harassment injunction hearing because the law does not say the court is prohibited from doing so.

• It is preferable to arrange any exchange of the child(ren) through the party so that there is no direct contact between the two of you. Many abusers use child exchange contacts as an opportunity to abuse the victim. Third party exchanges in public places help to eliminate this.

Q:  Can I get a restraining order for psychological/emotional abuse?
A:  The laws are extremely specific about the types of abuse a person must have been subjected to in order to obtain an injunction. For a person living with someone who is psychologically or emotionally abusive, the mental abuse can be equally, if not more painful, then physical abuse. The domestic abuse restraining order law says the respondent must have engaged in certain physical abuse or the threat of any behavior. If the emotional abuse includes threats, you may be able to get a domestic abuse restraining order. In addition, the domestic abuse restraining order law says if the person may engage in domestic abuse, you can obtain a restraining order.

• If your abuser engages in a course of action, which harasses and intimidates and serves no legitimate purpose, you may be able to get a harassment restraining order.

Q:  Will I be able to return to my home immediately after I file a TRO?
A:  Sometimes. You will want to make sure the respondent has been served and you would not be in any danger in going home. You can ask for police assistance in doing this, but often the police cannot immediately get to the task of serving the respondent with the restraining order and placing you in possession of your home. You may need to stay someplace else until the police can help you.

Q:  How can I make sure that the TRO/injunction will be enforced?
A:  You are the best enforcer of this order. Every time the abuser makes contact with you, the police (911) should be called immediately. Not calling the police or only occasionally, gives the abuser confusing messages about the validity of the TRO/injunction. The abuser will begin to believe it is all right to have contact sometimes. Also, sometimes officers do not know about or ignore the provisions of the domestic abuse law, which says the order is not void if the petitioner allows contact.

Q:  If we live or work in the same place, how can I be assured of no contact with my abuser?
A:  At the injunction hearing when you are giving testimony, you will want to include any special requests, such as him/her staying away from you at your place of residence or work. If you happen to see each other at either of these places and your abuser does make contact with you, call the police immediately because it would be a violation of the TRO/injunction.

Q:  How do I determine which county I should file in?
A:  A petitioner can file a domestic abuse TRO or injunction in the county she or he is temporarily residing in OR in the county where the respondent lives OR in the county in the county where the incident occurred. A petitioner can file a harassment TRO or injunction in the county where the petitioner lives OR in the county where the respondent lives OR in the county in which the incident occurred.

Q:  Will I void or violate my restraining order by having contact with the respondent?
A:  The law says the respondent is prohibited from initiating direct contact with the petitioner. If the petitioner of a domestic abuse restraining order allows the respondent admittance into her or his home, the restraining order does not become null and void. The police are to enforce any violations of that order. However, if the petitioner continues to initiate contact, the police may believe that she or he is not serious about the injunction. The police can then arrest the petitioner and the prosecutor can charge the petitioner with aiding and abetting the violation of the restraining order.

Q:  Is it possible to get my restraining order extended?
A:  If the injunction is for less than 4 years, the petitioner can get it extended for up to two years from the date it is first entered. The respondent must be notified once the extension is granted.

Tim Glende's First Church Will Close Soon - Due To Lack of Members, Lack of Funds, Lack of Mission Support

Bethlehem Lutheran is now Eastern Orthodox.

Pastor Tim had to "redevelop" the congregation,
so he could dump the building for a new one with a coffee bar.
I am not kidding.

Very nice church - right on a university campus,
but Bully Tim and his wife did not like it.

Essential Links about the Continuing Fox Valley WELS Scandal.

Star of Bethlehem, Tim's redo of Bethlehem Lutheran Church, is ready to close. The mission board tossed oodles of money at Tim so he could play Emergent Church in Illinois and show those rubes what he learned from Floyd Stolzenburg and Roger Zehms in Columbus, Ohio.

By the way, Tim's home church is also shriveling up under the guidance of various adherent of the Church Shrinkage Movement.

Star of Bethlehem cannot make the mortgage payments, let along the other expenses. The members who joined with Pastor Tim after taking one Bible Information Class are leaving.

Not to worry. The synod will sell the property and get a bunch of cash for it.

It works like this - the members have to pay all the bills and hefty interest payments to the synod. The synod gets the equity when their incompetence is overwhelming.

Pastor Keith Free and SP Schroeder had over $500,000 to give away to buy St. Peter's in Freedom a bankrupt bar. They have nothing for the wreckage he left behind in Illinois. He did not even stay for the ground-breaking of his precious coffee bar church in the cornfields.

"Follow Me, brethren,
and nothing can go wrong."

WELS Pastor Tim Glende's Lawsuit against Member - Denied!

Wisconsin Circuit Court Access (WCCA)
Timothy P Glende vs. Jonathan V Donnan
Outagamie County Case Number 2013CV000976

The court did not issue an injunction against the respondent in this case. The reasons were stated on the record and may be explained in the final order. 

No adverse inference should be drawn against the respondent when an injunction is denied or a case dismissed. The fact that a petition was originally filed means nothing.

Tomorrow Is St. Peter in Freedom's Big Chance To Bully Another Person into Silence. Why Not Just Another Secret Excommunication?Passivity of District Pastors and Members

Friday, August 30th marks the day when four restraining orders in a row will be acted on - all from St. Peter (WELS) in Freedom, Wisconsin.

The previous pastor, Ron Ash, was chairman of Church and Change, the false doctrine lobby in WELS. Ski, who was booted for sexual harassment and drinking on the job, was on the board of Church and Change - until I published the list of board members.

The four restraining orders are against one man - the husband of the woman Ski targeted for his uncouth, boozy, and obscene comments - not to mention the famous Brett Favre nude photo he had her view as a prank.

Glende and Ski are bullies who need to have a dozen people on their side so they can silence one person. They arranged with DP Engelbrecht and the parish buddies to silence Rick Techlin for correctly identifying both pastors as lying plagiarists.

Write a letter? Meet with them? I know from many contacts that many people wrote and contacted Glende/Ski about their ministry of Groeschel copying and Stanley aping. All comments were brushed aside and emails were blocked, unanswered.

They cowardly staff of St. Peter in Freedom are afraid of the legal consequences of their failure to supervise Ski, a subordinate of Glende - so St. Peter, the Anything Goes District, and WELS are all liable for his behavior.

Here are some guidelines:

Harassment in the Work Place

Equal Rights Publication ERD-7334-PWEB

PDF versions of this publication. Follow this link to obtain the Free PDF Reader.

• In English
• In Spanish

Note:
The links (bookmarks) in the Table of Contents take you to that section in this Publication.
The links in the Text take you to either a page in our website, a section in the Wisconsin Statutes or a section in the Wisconsin Administrative Code.

Table of contents

• 1. What is the Legal Definition?
• 2. When is conduct unwelcome?
• 3. What forms does sexual harassment take?
• 4. Important Facts about Harassment
• 5. How can management respond to harassment concerns?
• 6. Who is liable for harassment?
• 7. What are the Consequences?
• 8. When in doubt about Sexual Harassment!!
• Questions about employment discrimination.

1. What is the Legal Definition?

Under the Fair Employment Law harassment in the workplace may be illegal under two circumstances. The first is when an employer, supervisor or co-worker singles a person out for harassment because of that person’s race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, age (40 and up), disability, sex, arrest or conviction record, marital status, sexual orientation or military services. The second situation is when thecontent of the harassment itself relates directly to any of these protected characteristics (i.e. sexual harassment, use of derogatory ethnic or religious terms, age or disability related comments, etc.)

It is important to note that the Fair Employment Law only prohibits harassment in the circumstances described above. There is no general prohibition against harassment. An employer who harasses an employee because of a personal dislike, for example, or who harasses employees in general is not violating the Fair Employment Law, no matter how abusive or hostile the environment might be.

Harassment may include verbal abuse, epithets, sexually explicit or derogatory language, display of offensive cartoons or materials, mimicry, lewd or offensive gestures and telling of jokes offensive to the above protected class members. The behavior must be more than a few isolated incidents or casual comments. It involves a pattern of abusive and degrading conduct directed against a person because of his or her protected class that is sufficient to interfere with work or creates an offensive and hostile work environment.

“Sexual” harassment includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when:

• Engaging in such conduct is made an implicit or explicit term or condition of employment. Example: A newly hired machine operator is told sexual jokes, touching and display of nude posters are just part of factory life and she should try to ignore it.
• Acceptance or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for an employment decision affecting an employee. Example: A manager tells a worker applying for a promotion that the job would be his if he just “treated her right.”
• The conduct interferes with an employee's work or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Example: One worker experiences repeated advances from another asking her for dates or “just to go out for drinks after work.” The worker says she isn’t interested, but the co-worker won’t take ‘no’ for an answer.

2. When is conduct unwelcome?

Conduct is unwelcome when an employee does not solicit or invite it and when the employee regards the conduct as undesirable or offensive. Since sexual attraction is a normal factor in employee interactions, the distinction between advances that are invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive-but-tolerated and flatly rejected may be difficult to discern. This distinction is important because conduct is unlawful when it is unwelcome.

It is important to note that harassment is in the eye of the beholder”. What might be acceptable to one worker might be offensive and unwelcome to another. The U.S. Supreme Court has adopted the “reasonable person” standard in determining if conduct is harassing.

3. What forms does sexual harassment take?

In practical terms, there are two forms of sexual harassment.

Quid Pro Quo (‘this for that’): When employment decisions or expectations (e.g. hiring, promotions, salary increases, shift or work assignments, and performance standards) are based on an employee's willingness to grant or deny sexual favors. Examples of quid pro quo harassment include:

• Demanding sexual favors for a promotion or raise.
• Disciplining or firing a subordinate who ends a romance.
• Changing work standards after a subordinate refuses repeated requests for a date.

Hostile Environment: A work environment is “hostile” when unwelcome verbal, non-verbal or physical behavior focusing on sexuality is severe and pervasive enough to interfere with the victim’s work performance or be intimidating or offensive to a reasonable person.

Examples of behaviors that can create a hostile environment:

Verbal

• Sexual jokes or insults
• Comments about a person’s body or sex life
• Sexually demeaning comments

Non-Verbal

• Making gestures or staring
• Display of sexually suggestive or degrading materials
• Giving sexually suggestive “gifts”.

Physical

• Touching, hugging, kissing or patting
• Brushing against a person’s body
• Blocking a person’s movement

4. Important Facts about Harassment

• Sexual harassment often occurs when there is a disparity of power, not just when men and women women together.
• A person who consents to a supervisor’s sexual advances might still be a victim of sexual harassment.
• A member of one sex can sexually harass a member of the same sex even if there is no romantic motive for the harassment.
• “Horseplay” can constitute sexual harassment if the actions are explicitly sexual in nature.
• Offenders can be supervisors, co-workers, or non-employees such as vendors, customers, or suppliers.
• The victim does not have to be directly involved. A third person can be offended by harassing behavior among willing participants.
• Harassment does not have to be reported or complained about by the victim to be defined as harassment.
• An employer can set stricter limits on harassment in the workplace (such as prohibiting all harassment) than may be specified under fair employment laws.
• Unless severe, a single incident or a few isolated incidents of offensive behavior will not likely rise to the level of harassment.
• A single incident of unwanted touching of a person’s intimate body areas is sufficiently offensive to be defined as sexual harassment.  It may also constitute a criminal offense under state “sexual assault” laws.
• Abusive, hostile, or rude treatment of one sex (as opposed to mistreatment of all employees) may still constitute harassment, despite the absence of overt sexual behavior.

5. How can management respond to harassment concerns?

• Implement a strong policy explicitly prohibiting harassment, including a description of disciplinary consequences that will be applied.
• Provide training to educate employees on the issue of harassment and periodically remind them of your strong desire to maintain a harassment free workplace.
• Have multiple avenues in place for making an internal complaint and regularly inform employees about the complaint process.   A “victim-friendly” complaint procedure encourages employees to come forward, is sensitive to their situation, stresses the need for confidentiality and ensures that retaliation will not occur, whatever the investigation outcome is.
• Ensure that every complaint is taken seriously. It is essential that the employer act in a timely manner. Commence an investigation immediately and take appropriate corrective action as soon as possible.
• Avoid making credibility judgments or reaching conclusions before you have gathered the facts, even if you think you “know” the parties involved and have an “idea” about what happened.
• Keep in mind that there is a wide range of sensitivity toward harassing behavior. Remember, the “eye of the beholder” is what important, not is what you or other co-workers might find personally offensive. And be aware that it is not just young, “attractive” females who are sexually harassed.
• Keep lines of communication open.  Make sure the complaining employee is informed of your efforts to correct any harassing behavior (including information about the consequences to the harasser) and of your desire to be promptly notified if problems persist or if retaliation occurs.
• Realize that as a supervisor or owner you are “at risk” anytime you have an intimate relationship with a subordinate, even though you present relationship is not harassing and may not affect employment decisions. Policies that regulate social contact between supervisors and subordinates, including requirements that such contact be divulged by supervisors, are within an employer’s rights under the Fair Employment Law.

6. Who is liable for harassment?

How an employer addresses harassment with its employees is likely to be the single most critical issue in determining liability in legal actions.

An employer is responsible for its own acts and those of its agents regardless of whether the acts were authorized or even forbidden by the employer and regardless of whether the employer knew or should have known of those acts.

An employer is responsible for harassment between co-workers, if the employer or its agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.

An employer is responsible when non-employees such as customers or suppliers harass its employee's) during the workday, where the employer or its agents knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate action.

7. What are the Consequences?

Lost Work Time:Harassment is very disruptive of production.
It can seriously affect victim/employee morale.
It may increase absenteeism and turnover.

Reputation:An owner’s or company’s community reputation may suffer.

Damages:A victim’s back pay; attorney fees and costs may be substantial.
Compensatory and punitive damages under federal law may dramatically increase dollar damages.
Other laws, such as state sexual assault statutes, may result in criminal charges.

8. When in doubt about Sexual Harassment!!

Often, an employee or supervisor may not be sure if a particular behavior or interaction is appropriate. The following “not sure” tests might be helpful.

Ask yourself:

• Would you say or do it in front of your boss, grandparent or a stranger?
• How would you feel if your family or close friends were subjected to the same words or behavior?
• Would you say or do it to a colleague who is the same sex as you?

This is one of a series of fact sheets highlighting programs of the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. It is intended to provide only a general description, not a legal interpretation.

The Equal Rights Division has additional informational materials explaining various aspects of the fair employment law.

PAMPHLET SERIES

1. FAIR HIRING & AVOIDING LOADED INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.
2. HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE.
3. PREGNANCY EMPLOYMENT & THE LAW.
4. PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ON THE JOB.
5. FAIR EMPLOYMENT LAW & COMPLAINT PROCESS.
6. AGE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE.
7. SETTLEMENT.
8. RACE, COLOR, NATIONAL ORIGIN & ANCESTRY.
9. SEXUAL ORIENTATION PROTECTION.

The Department of Workforce Development is an equal opportunity service provider. If you need assistance to access services or need material in an alternate format, please contact us. Deaf, hearing or speech-impaired callers may reach us in Madison at (608) 264-8752 or in Milwaukee at (414) 227-4081.

Questions about employment discrimination should be directed to:

EQUAL RIGHTS DIVISION

201 E WASHINGTON AVE ROOM A300
PO BOX 8928
MADISON WI 53708

(608) 266-6860
TTY (608)264-8752

Or

819 N 6th St
Room 723
MILWAUKEE WI 53203

(414) 227-4384
TTY (414) 227-4081

Four from St. Peter in Freedom are suing the husband of Ski's victim, hauling him to court to silence him.

Ski will return to The CORE as the pastor, as DP Engelbrecht promised and SP Schroeder agreed.

Ski's Scrotum Sermon - Which They Were Proud To Post.

All St. Peter Freedom (which includes The CORE) posts labeled on Ichabod.

DP Engelbrecht's email supports Ski's CRM status, implying a return to The CORE.

August 13th meeting - this was held to get Ski's CRM status going.

Budget for St. Peter is $1.4 million, so why did they get a $500,000 plus grant to buy a bar?

Remove the 12 WELS Apostates - Starting with Deputy Doug Engelbrecht

DP Engelbrecht Approved Plagiarism of False Doctrine

All posts labeled The CORE

Ski - so bad, he was canned twice. This is the second, official canning, April of 2013.

Bishop Katie cannot spell either, not even on her own web page.

DP Engelbrecht had two different stories about Ski leaving.

Church and Change.

All posts labeled Church and Change.

All posts labeled Tim Glende.

All posts labeled Fox Valley WELS.

Intrepids on Time of Grace.

Glende, Ski, and Engelbrecht kicked out Rick Techlin - for being correct about plagiarism of  false doctrine, and Glende lied about his plagiarism.

Meeting with the DP's sock puppets.