2023 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations › Chapter 111 - Employment relations. › 111.31 - Declaration of policy.

111.31
Declaration of policy.
(1)
The legislature finds that the practice of unfair discrimination in employment against properly qualified individuals by reason of their age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, substantially and adversely affects the general welfare of the state. Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing agencies that deny employment opportunities and discriminate in employment against properly qualified individuals solely because of their age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, deprive those individuals of the earnings that are necessary to maintain a just and decent standard of living.
(2)
It is the intent of the legislature to protect by law the rights of all individuals to obtain gainful employment and to enjoy privileges free from employment discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, and to encourage the full, nondiscriminatory utilization of the productive resources of the state to the benefit of the state, the family, and all the people of the state. It is the intent of the legislature in promulgating this subchapter to encourage employers to evaluate an employee or applicant for employment based upon the individual qualifications of the employee or applicant rather than upon a particular class to which the individual may belong.
(3)
In the interpretation and application of this subchapter, and otherwise, it is declared to be the public policy of the state to encourage and foster to the fullest extent practicable the employment of all properly qualified individuals regardless of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer's premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters. Nothing in this subsection requires an affirmative action program to correct an imbalance in the work force. This subchapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.
(4)
The practice of requiring employees or prospective employees to submit to a test administered by means of a lie detector, as defined in s. 111.37 (1) (b), is unfair, the practice of requesting employees and prospective employees to submit to such a test without providing safeguards for the test subjects is unfair, and the use of improper tests and testing procedures causes injury to the employees and prospective employees.
(5)
The legislature finds that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of creed under s. 111.337 is a matter of statewide concern, requiring uniform enforcement at state, county and municipal levels.
History:  1977 c. 125; 1979 c. 319; 1981 c. 112, 334, 391; 1987 a. 63; 1991 a. 289, 310, 315; 1997 a. 112; 2007 a. 159; 2009 a. 290.
The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations is not limited to finding sex discrimination only when a 14th amendment equal protection violation can also be found. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).
The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA), this subchapter, is more direct and positive in prohibiting sex discrimination in employment than is the basic constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws; enforcement of the law is not limited by the “rational basis" or “reasonableness" tests employed in 14th amendment cases. Ray-O-Vac v. DILHR, 70 Wis. 2d 919, 236 N.W.2d 209 (1975).
Section 118.20 is not the exclusive remedy of a wronged teacher; it is supplementary to the remedy under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The general provisions of s. 893.80 are superseded by the specific authority of the act. Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979).
An employee who was not handicapped, but perceived by the employer to be so, was entitled to protection under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Dairy Equipment Co. v. DILHR, 95 Wis. 2d 319, 290 N.W.2d 330 (1980).
The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act provides the exclusive remedy for retaliatory discrimination. Bourque v. Wausau Hospital Center, 145 Wis. 2d 589, 427 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1988).
The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not apply to national guard personnel decisions; federal law prevents the state from regulating personnel criteria of the national guard. Hazelton v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 178 Wis. 2d 776, 505 N.W.2d 793 (Ct. App. 1993).
The exclusive remedy provision in s. 102.03 (2) does not bar a complainant whose claim is covered by the Workers Compensation Act from pursuing an employment discrimination claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997), 95-2490.
This act protects all employees, including prospective and de facto employees. 67 Atty. Gen. 169.
State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal Title VII civil rights actions. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 110 S. Ct. 1566, 108 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1990).
The federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt state fair employment laws prohibiting discriminatory exclusion of pregnancy benefits in disability plans. Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. DILHR, 599 F.2d 205 (1979).
No private right of action exists under this subchapter. Busse v. Gelco Express Corp., 678 F. Supp. 1398 (1988).
Wisconsin's Fair Employment Act: Coverage, Procedures, Substance, Remedies. Angle. 1975 WLR 696.
Perceived Handicap under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Rollins. 1988 WLR 639.
The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act and the 1982 amendments. Rice. WBB Aug. 1982.