119 Wis. 2d 706, 709-10. In a handicap discrimination case arising under the WFEA . . . there are three essential elements of proof. First, there must be proof that the complainant is handicapped within the meaning of the Fair Employment Act. The element of impairment is satisfied by showing either an actual lessening, deterioration, or damage to a normal bodily function or bodily condition, or by showing that the condition perceived by the employer would constitute an actual impairment if it did in fact exist. There is therefore no way that he can be found to have been a victim of employment discrimination because of handicap.
Complainant invokes the statutory direction, in sec.
However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has made it clear that this language concerning liberal construction is not a license to engage in interpretations of the mechanisms of the Act that go beyond the Legislature's intent. A court cannot, by engaging in liberal construction, change the wording of the statute to mean something which was not intended by the legislature or by the plain language used. By liberal construction all that is meant is that terms actually used by the Legislature shall be given the fullest application within proper definition of guidelines that are consistent with the spirit of the legislation . . . The question of the extent to which such coverage should exist is one that probably could not be resolved by the Legislature without extensive debate. The legislative drafting files for various amendments to the WFEA, including the amendment that added handicap as a protected category in 1965, provide no indication that the Legislature intended to address the problem of employers discriminating against employes because they had handicapped family members.