Opinion ID: 1900382
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Fair Employment Act

Text: The plaintiff alleges that the denial of sick pay for the period of her pregnancy-related disability and subsequent discharge creates a cause of action under the Fair Employment Act. The Fair Employment Act, secs. 111.31-111.37, Stats., prohibits, among other things, employment discrimination on the basis of sex. Secs. 111.32(5) (g), 111.325. In Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. ILHR Dept., 68 Wis.2d 345, 366-68, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975), the court held that the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations (DILHR), charged with administering the Act by sec. 111.33, could, under the terms of the statute, find sex discrimination if the employer treated temporary disability due to pregnancy differently from other temporary disabilities without a satisfactory business justification. In Ray-O-Vac v. ILHR Dept., 70 Wis.2d 919, 927-35, 236 N.W.2d 209 (1975), the court held violative of secs. 111.32 (5) (g) and 111.325, Ray-O-Vac's group insurance plan providing different maximum periods of benefits and different conditions of eligibility for benefits for pregnancy-related disabilities than for other temporary disabilities. In Yanta v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 66 Wis.2d 53, 224 N.W.2d 389 (1974), the court recognized that violation of the Act gives rise to a civil cause of action for damages for lost wages resulting from the discrimination. The defendants argue that (1) the Fair Employment Act does not apply because sec. 118.20, Stats., provides the sole remedy for teachers suffering discrimination, and that section did not proscribe sex discrimination until 1975; and (2) even if the Fair Employment Act applies to teachers, the Act as applied is unconstitutional because (a) it constitutes an impermissible delegation of control of education to the Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations, (b) the terms of the Act are impermissibly vague, and (c) a 1975 amendment extending the Act's coverage retroactively to government employees deprives the defendants of due process of law. (1) Sec. 118.20, Stats. Sec. 118.20 (1), Stats., prohibits discrimination against teachers on the basis of sex and other factors. The state superintendent or his designee may receive and investigate complaints, hold hearings, subpoena witnesses, and take testimony to effectuate the purposes of this section. Sec. 118.20(2). If conciliation fails and the superintendent finds that discrimination has occurred, he is to make findings and recommend such action by the respondent as shall satisfy the purposes of this section. The superintendent is authorized to order compliance with his recommendations. The statute permits a person aggrieved by noncompliance with the order to have it enforced by suit in equity. Sec. 118.20(4). Sec. 118.20, Stats., was, until 1969, simply a prohibition on discrimination in the employment of teachers in public schools because of race, nationality, or political or religious affiliations. It provided for a fine, imprisonment, and the removal from office of anyone violating the section. Sec. 40.435, Stats. 1965. By Chapter 264, secs. 1-3, Laws of 1969, the legislature vested in the state superintendent responsibility for enforcing the statute's prohibition. By Chapter 94, sec. 63, Laws of 1975, the statute was amended to add a prohibition on sex discrimination, except where sex may be a bona fide occupational qualification as defined in sec. 111.32(5) (g)4. The Fair Employment Act is premised on the following declaration of purpose: 111.31 Declaration of policy. (1) The practice of denying employment and other opportunities to, and discriminating against, properly qualified persons by reason of their age, race, creed, color, handicap, sex, national origin or ancestry, is likely to foment domestic strife and unrest, and substantially and adversely affect the general welfare of a state by depriving it of the fullest utilization of its capacities for production. The denial by some employers, licensing agencies and labor unions of employment opportunities to such persons solely because of their age, race, creed, color, handicap, sex, national origin or ancestry, and discrimination against them in employment, tends to deprive the victims of the earnings which are necessary to maintain a just and decent standard of living, thereby committing grave injury to them. (2) It is believed by many students of the problem that protection by law of the rights of all people to obtain gainful employment, and other privileges free from discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, handicap, sex, national origin or ancestry, would remove certain recognized sources of strife and unrest, and encourage the full utilization of the productive resources of the state to the benefit of the state, the family and to all the people of the state. (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 persons regardless of their age, race, creed, color, handicap, sex, national origin or ancestry. This subchapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose. The Act addresses two evils of employment discrimination: its harmful effect on the aggrieved party and its detrimental effect on the state as a whole. The Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations is specifically authorized to award back pay to a person who has suffered discrimination in employment. Sec. 111.36(3) (b), Stats. [10] We are called upon to determine the dual implications of Chapters 111 and 118, Stats. Sec. 118.20, is part of a chapter dealing with general school operations. The penalty provision, sec. 118.20(5), part of the statute from its inception in 1933, reinforces the inference that the purpose of sec. 118.20 is primarily to regulate an aspect of school administration and only secondarily to provide individual redress for discrimination. In view of the sensible rule that [c]onstruction of statutes should be done in a way which harmonizes the whole system of law of which they are a part, and [that] any conflict should be reconciled if possible, Muskego-Norway C.S.J.S.D. No. 9 v. W.E.R.B., 35 Wis.2d 540, 556, 151 N.W.2d 617 (1967), sec. 118.20 cannot be construed as an exclusive remedy. The legislature's 1975 amendment extending the Act's coverage to employees of school districts is persuasive of this construction. The amendment included, within the definition of employer, this state and any employer as defined in sec. 41.02(4), and was to apply to then-existing causes of action arising under the Act. Sec. 41.02(4), Stats., defines employer to include school districts or any other unit of government. Having chosen to include school districts in the class of covered employers, the absence of an exclusion for teachers as covered employees is indicative that the provisions of secs. 111.32-111.325 and 118.20, are not to be considered exclusive of each other. We conclude sec. 118.20, is not an exclusive remedy but is supplementary to the remedial provisions of the Fair Employment Act. (2) Constitutionality [11] This appeal presents the question of the constitutionality of the Fair Employment Act. The declared policy of this state regarding constitutional challenge is set forth in sec. 806.04(11), Stats. [4] Though this appeal does not involve an action for declaratory judgment, a pronouncement by this court on the constitutionality of an act is percedent no matter how the issue is presented. We conclude that cogent reasons exist for the application of the service requirement in all cases involving constitutional challenges. While we recognize constitutional challenges may be raised by a general demurrer, State v. Texaco, 14 Wis.2d 625, 111 N.W.2d 918 (1961), the trial court properly refused to reach the constitutional issue because the parties did not give the state an opportunity to be heard. A challenge to a statute is recognized even when the constitutional issue is collateral to or a preliminary step in the determination of the rights sought to be determined, O'Connell v. Board of Education, Joint District #10, 82 Wis.2d 728, 264 N.W.2d 561 (1978). Because we hold that the service requirement is applicable to this case and the record is devoid of evidence of service on the attorney general, it follows that the trial court could not properly consider the constitutional issue raised by the demurrer. We therefore cannot review that issue.