How Thurgood Represents Wisconsin Employees
In Wisconsin, Thurgood represents employees in discrimination claims before the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Department of Workforce Development. Thurgood represents medical leave claims before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division and private-sector workplace safety retaliation claims before federal OSHA; both are covered under federal representation. Thurgood also represents public employees’ workplace safety retaliation claims before ERD, along with the other whistleblower claims Wisconsin law assigns to ERD, such as retaliation against health care workers who report problems, and whistleblower claims under the other federal laws OSHA enforces, such as financial, fraud, and environmental claims, before federal OSHA. This page covers Thurgood’s practice before ERD.
Federal authority applies in every state. Each state page shows which agencies Thurgood works with there.
- USFederal
- ALAlabama
- AKAlaska
- AZArizona
- ARArkansas
- CACalifornia
- COColorado
- CTConnecticut
- DEDelaware
- DCDistrict of Columbia
- FLFlorida
- GAGeorgia
- HIHawaii
- IDIdaho
- ILIllinois
- INIndiana
- IAIowa
- KSKansas
- KYKentucky
- LALouisiana
- MEMaine
- MDMaryland
- MAMassachusetts
- MIMichigan
- MNMinnesota
- MSMississippi
- MOMissouri
- MTMontana
- NENebraska
- NVNevada
- NHNew Hampshire
- NJNew Jersey
- NMNew Mexico
- NYNew York
- NCNorth Carolina
- NDNorth Dakota
- OHOhio
- OKOklahoma
- OROregon
- PAPennsylvania
- RIRhode Island
- SCSouth Carolina
- SDSouth Dakota
- TNTennessee
- TXTexas
- UTUtah
- VTVermont
- VAVirginia
- WAWashington
- WVWest Virginia
- WIWisconsin
- WYWyoming
No state matches.
Representation before Wisconsin agencies does not require a law license
The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s rules on the practice of law exempt representation before an administrative agency, to the extent the agency permits it, whether or not that representation is the practice of law.
Agency representation is excluded
“A license to practice law and active membership in the State Bar of Wisconsin are not required for a person engaged in any of the following activities in Wisconsin, regardless of whether these activities constitute the practice of law: … (c) Appearing in a representative capacity before an administrative tribunal or agency to the extent permitted by such tribunal or agency.”
The same rule excludes activities “permitted under a regulatory system established by the Supreme Court, Wisconsin Statutes, Administrative Code or common law,” and “[a]ctivities which are preempted by federal law.”
Authorization of non-attorney representatives before the Equal Rights Division
ERD’s rules let a worker’s representative file, sign, and withdraw a complaint, for discrimination and whistleblower claims alike.
Discrimination and whistleblower claims
“A complaint may be filed by any person or by the person’s duly authorized representative. A complaint filed by a representative shall state that the representative is authorized to file the complaint.” “Each complaint shall be signed by the person filing the complaint or by the person’s duly authorized representative.”
Public-employee safety retaliation
“A complaint may be filed by any person or by the person’s authorized representative. A complaint filed by a representative shall state that the representative is authorized to file the complaint.”
Wisconsin practice of law rules and representation before ERD
Wisconsin reserves the practice of law to members of its bar, with the exclusion for agency representation set out above. Thurgood represents workers before ERD only within the authority ERD’s rules give a representative, and never as attorneys.
Practice of law
“The practice of law in Wisconsin is the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the circumstances or objectives of another entity or person(s) where there is a client relationship of trust or reliance and which require the knowledge, judgment, and skill of a person trained as a lawyer.”
Unauthorized practice of law
“No person may engage in the practice of law in Wisconsin, or attempt to do so, or make a representation that he or she is authorized to do so, unless the person is currently licensed to practice law in Wisconsin by the Wisconsin Supreme Court and is an active member of the State Bar of Wisconsin.” The criminal statute’s appearance clause names courts and judicial tribunals, not agencies.
Why Thurgood’s representation before ERD is not the unauthorized practice of law
- Authorized by agency rule. ERD’s rules let a complaint be filed and signed “by the person’s duly authorized representative,” and the Supreme Court’s rule exempts appearing for another before an agency “to the extent permitted by such tribunal or agency.” Thurgood acts only as the representative the worker authorizes.SCR 23.02(2)(c)DWD 218.03(1), (3)DWD 223.03(1)
- Never held out as attorneys. Only a licensed lawyer may use “the words attorney at law, lawyer, solicitor, counselor, attorney and counselor, proctor, law, law office, or other equivalent words” in connection with his or her name. Thurgood’s retainer states that Thurgood is not a law firm and its representatives are not attorneys, and Thurgood does not describe itself otherwise.SCR 23.02(3)
- No court practice. Thurgood does not file cases in court. A matter that must go to court is placed with a licensed attorney.
Intake, consultation, and use of AI
Agencies enforce specific statutes, and a good deal of workplace harm falls outside them. Attorneys have further reach — contract and tort claims, wage actions, state common-law claims, and statutes that proceed directly to court. Thurgood’s intake and consultation exist to sort a worker’s account into one or the other: a claim an agency will take, or a matter that belongs with an attorney.
Intake asks questions related to the statutory requirements of the claims Thurgood handles, to answer whether Thurgood can take the matter. Use of artificial intelligence (AI) is optional: the integration allows workers to describe what happened in their own words, with AI inferring and auto-populating answers for their convenience. It decides nothing, and all AI-selected answers can be changed manually. The consultation then goes through the account in conversation, against what each agency requires. The worker leaves knowing whether or not they have a claim that Thurgood is authorized to or interested in taking.
Retainer & fees
The retainer is a limited-scope agreement. It states that Thurgood is not a law firm and its representatives are not attorneys, confines the representation to the agency proceeding Thurgood is permitted to appear in, and sets the terms of payment: a flat retainer fee paid at signing and a contingency percentage on the gross amount recovered, with no contingency fee where there is no recovery. The retainer also permits Thurgood to consult third-party attorneys where a question warrants an attorney’s opinion.
Wisconsin law on paying a representative
ERD’s rules say nothing about how a representative is paid. The Department of Workforce Development, which ERD is part of, licenses non-attorney agents to represent parties in worker’s compensation, and regulates their fees rather than forbidding them.
- Worker’s compensation agents — “Any party shall have the right to be present at any hearing, in person or by attorney or any other agent,” and a person other than a Wisconsin-licensed attorney may appear on a party’s behalf once that person “has obtained from the department a license with authorization to appear in matters or proceedings before the department.”Wis. Stat. § 102.17(1)(c)1.
- Fees regulated, not barred — “Unless previously authorized by the department, no fee may be charged or received for the enforcement or collection of any claim for compensation … when that fee, inclusive of all taxable attorney fees paid or agreed to be paid for that enforcement or collection, exceeds 20 percent of the amount at which the claim is compromised or of the amount awarded, adjudged, or collected ….”Wis. Stat. § 102.26(2)
- Wisconsin Supreme Court — agency representation is excluded “regardless of whether these activities constitute the practice of law,” and the exclusion places no condition on payment.Wis. SCR 23.02(2)(c)
Referral Partnerships
Thurgood offers referral partners a flat service fee, per settled case, for work related to procuring and managing referrals; the amount is the same for each referral and is not contingent on the size of the recovery. Thurgood does not offer percentage splits on fees it earns. Thurgood pays the referring firm for administrative services regarding referrals, and the worker retains Thurgood directly, under Thurgood’s own limited-scope agreement. All referral transactions are in accordance with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and applicable state rules.
Model Rules of Professional Conduct
- Rule 5.4(a) — “A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer.” A worker referred to Thurgood becomes Thurgood’s client. Thurgood pays the referring firm a flat fee that does not vary with the recovery, and no part of any legal fee the firm earns comes back to Thurgood.Model Rule 5.4(a)
- Rule 5.4(c) — “A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such legal services.” A matter referred to Thurgood is Thurgood’s to carry. The referring firm renders no legal services on it, and Thurgood directs no lawyer’s judgment.Model Rule 5.4(c)
- Rule 1.5(e) — “A division of a fee between lawyers who are not in the same firm may be made only if: (1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; (2) the client agrees to the arrangement, including the share each lawyer will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) the total fee is reasonable.” The division here runs between Thurgood and the referring firm rather than between two lawyers, and Thurgood holds it to the same three conditions: the referring firm’s share reflects the cost to acquire the potential client, the retainer sets out the arrangement and each share in writing with the worker’s agreement, and the total is reasonable.Model Rule 1.5(e)
Drafting & filing
Thurgood prepares the complaint with the worker and files and signs it with ERD as the worker’s authorized representative, within the deadline for the claim.
Filing and authorization
- Authorization procedure. “A complaint filed by a representative shall state that the representative is authorized to file the complaint,” and the representative’s signature “constitutes an acknowledgment that the party or the representative has read the complaint; that to the best of that person’s knowledge, information and belief the complaint is true and correct ….”Wis. Admin. Code DWD 218.03(1), (3)
- Discrimination and most whistleblower claims: 300 days. ERD may take a complaint “if the complaint is filed with the department no more than 300 days after the alleged discrimination” occurred. Health care worker whistleblower complaints are handled the same way: the department “may take such action under s. 111.39 as will effectuate the purpose of this section.”Wis. Stat. § 111.39(1)Wis. Stat. § 146.997(4)(a)
- Public-employee safety retaliation: 30 days. A public employee may “file a complaint with the division of equal rights alleging discrimination or discharge, within 30 days after the employee received knowledge of the discrimination or discharge.”Wis. Stat. § 101.055(8)(b)
Representation before the agency
As the worker’s authorized representative, Thurgood carries the complaint through ERD’s investigation, up to the initial determination.
What the representative carries
- The investigation. The department “shall investigate all complaints that satisfy the review under s. DWD 218.05 (1),” and may “take statements of persons reasonably necessary for the furtherance of the investigation.”Wis. Admin. Code DWD 218.06(1)
- The initial determination. “At the conclusion of the investigation, the department shall issue a written initial determination which shall state whether or not there is probable cause to believe that an act of employment discrimination … occurred as alleged in the complaint.” A finding of no probable cause can be appealed “[w]ithin 30 days.”Wis. Admin. Code DWD 218.07(1)DWD 218.08(1)
Mediation
ERD offers mediation and accepts a settlement at any point, and Thurgood represents the worker throughout.
Resolution by agreement at ERD
- Settlement at any time. “The parties may enter into an agreement to settle the complaint at any time during the proceedings, with or without assistance by the department. The department may assist the parties to reach a settlement agreement.”Wis. Admin. Code DWD 218.09
- ERD’s mediation program. ERD reports “a high success rate settling approximately two-thirds of mediations,” and notes that “you are not required to have an attorney to engage in mediation.”ERD, Mediation
- Public-employee safety retaliation. When ERD finds probable cause, “it shall attempt to resolve the complaint by conference, conciliation or persuasion.”Wis. Stat. § 101.055(8)(c)
Resolution
Most cases settle before the investigation closes, at mediation or in negotiation with the employer. For those that do not, the investigation closes one of two ways, and each puts the matter on a different footing.
Right to sue issued
A no-cause finding ends Thurgood’s representation. What remains is a closing consultation, the file, and the period in which suit must be filed.
- Closing consultation. What the investigation developed, what the notice means, and the period in which suit must be filed.
- The file. Delivered to the worker in full.
- End of representation. The worker proceeds alone or with an attorney.
Substantial evidence found
A cause finding does not end Thurgood’s involvement. Depending on the forum the matter moves to next, Thurgood either carries it forward or places it with a licensed attorney.
- Continuation. Where the matter moves to arbitration, Thurgood carries it forward: the American Arbitration Association’s Employment/Workplace Arbitration Rules provide that “[a]ny party may participate without representation (self-represented) or by counsel or any other representative of the party’s choosing, unless such choice is prohibited by applicable law.”American Arbitration Association, Employment/Workplace Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures, R-25(a) (eff. May 1, 2025)
Where Thurgood cannot carry the matter forward, or the parties are unable to agree on a settlement, the matter goes to a licensed attorney.
In Wisconsin, a finding of probable cause on a discrimination or whistleblower complaint is certified to a hearing on the merits, and an unresolved safety retaliation complaint goes to hearing as well. Wisconsin’s hearing rule lets parties “appear at the hearing in person and by counsel or other representative,” but Thurgood’s representation ends at the investigation, and the matter is placed with a licensed attorney.
- Placement. The finding and the developed record go to Thurgood’s attorney network. A file that has already cleared an agency investigation is straightforward to bring to a firm.
- Cooperation. Thurgood remains custodian of the case record — filings, exhibits, and correspondence — and works with counsel.
On a fee petition, Thurgood’s charge is presented as an itemized cost of the agency representation that secured the finding, and the attorney’s fee sits on top of it. Thurgood’s fee is the worker’s obligation under the worker’s own retainer and is claimed as an item of the worker’s costs. The firm does not pay Thurgood, and Thurgood takes no part of the firm’s fee, so nothing is divided under Model Rule 5.4(a): “[a] lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a nonlawyer.” Model Rule 7.2(b) bars a lawyer from compensating “a person for recommending the lawyer’s services.” The firm pays Thurgood nothing for the placement, and what Thurgood is owed comes from the worker under the retainer.
Where the Commission has found cause and taken a case to court itself, the case ends in settlement or a favorable judgment about 95 percent of the time. Data supports that a firm that retains a client with a cause finding already in hand increases its chances of success.
| Fiscal year | Merits suits resolved | Settlement or favorable judgment |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | 132 | 128 — 97%EEOC, Office of General Counsel FY2024 Annual Report |
| 2023 | 98 | 89 — 90.8%FY2023 Annual Report |
| 2022 | 96 | 94.8%FY2022 Annual Report |
| 2021 | 138 | 95.7%FY2021 Annual Report |
| 2020 | 165 | 95.7%FY2020 Annual Report |
Facing harassment, retaliation,
or wrongful termination?
Answer a few questions to get feedback on your claim & schedule a free consultation with an experienced employee advocate.
Get a Free Evaluation