Court Opinion

ID: 9690304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 19:04:02.801339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:55.137583
License: Public Domain

PATIENCE D. ROGGENSACK, J.
¶ 45. (dissenting). The majority opinion concludes that because Hutchinson Technology, Inc. (HTI) refused to permit the claimant, Susan Roytek, to work 56 hours every two weeks, rather than the 84 hours every two weeks that she was hired to work, it has unreasonably failed to accommodate her disability; and therefore, HTI has discriminated against her in violation of the Wisconsin *423Fair Employment Act (WFEA). However, I conclude no WFEA violation occurred because Roytek's offer to continue working only two-thirds of her shift is insufficient to be an "accommodation," as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) (2001-02).1 Additionally, Roytek's offer results in negating § 111.34(2)(a), which provides that it is not discrimination to refuse to employ an individual when the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment are not met. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
I. BACKGROUND
¶ 46. Roytek was hired by HTI in June of 1998 in the photoetch department as a photoetch operator. When she was hired, she was told that HTI operated 24 hours per day, seven days a week. HTI explained that it had determined that operating in 12-hour shifts, four shifts one week and three shifts on the next, met the needs of HTI to increase production by fully utilizing its equipment and it also met the preference of HTI's employees who were asked whether they preferred to work eight-hour shifts five days each week or 12-hour shifts, three or four days per week. She accepted the position, which involved rotating through four types of work throughout each shift: inspection, shearing, bookwork and work in the bay.2 Prior to being hired by *424HTI, Roytek had suffered from low back pain. She stated that she has had problems with her back since March of 1990 or 1991.
¶ 47. Roytek worked the 12-hour shifts for approximately three months, until mid-September of 1998, when she took a medical leave of absence, not returning until November of that year. When she returned, she had a note from her treating physician stating that she could work only six-hour shifts so at that time, she worked 42 hours every two weeks. In January of 1999, her treating physician increased her work time to an eight-hour shift and then she worked no more than 56 hours every two weeks.3 Full-time employees in the photoetch department worked 84 hours every two weeks. HTI employs no part-time employees. However, HTI permitted Roytek to continue her employment with the expectation that she would resume the required 12-hour shifts, when her back condition improved.
¶ 48. In the early summer of 1999, one of the physicians who had examined Roytek gave his professional opinion that she could work no more than eight hours per shift on a permanent basis. When HTI learned that Roytek would never be able to work full-time, it terminated her.
*425¶ 49. Roytek sued HTI, claiming the back condition that caused her to be unable to work the full shift for which she had been hired was a disability within the meaning of WFEA, and that HTI violated WFEA when it terminated her based on the effects of that disability. LIRC agreed with her contention, concluding that because HTI had accommodated her 56-hour per two weeks work schedule in the past, HTI should be required to continue that schedule on a permanent basis, thereby leaving HTI's equipment unused for 28 hours every two weeks, or 728 hours per year.4 HTI appealed and the circuit court affirmed, as did the court of appeals. We accepted review, and are now presented with the question of whether an employer, who makes a business decision to utilize its facilities 24-hours per day, will be permitted to do so when confronted with employees and prospective employees who provide medical statements that they cannot work the full shift necessary to accomplish that valid management decision.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Standard of Review
¶ 50. Questions of statutory interpretation and application, which when decided by an administrative agency, such as LIRC, may be given deference at one of three levels: great weight deference, due weight deference, or no deference in a de novo review. UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274, 284, 548 N.W.2d 57 (1996). As will be explained below, LIRC did not interpret the dispositive Wis. Stat. § 111.34 issue, i.e., whether work*426ing eight-hour shifts on a permanent basis was an "accommodation," as that term is used in § 111.34(l)(b). LIRC went directly to assessing whether HTI had shown a hardship under subsection (l)(b). Accordingly, there is nothing to which to defer. Additionally, the definition of "accommodation" and its effect on the legal sufficiency of a WFEA claim is one of first impression for LIRC that we would review de novo. See Keup v. DHFS, 2004 WI 16, ¶ 16, 269 Wis. 2d 59, 675 N.W.2d 755; see also Bunker v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 216, ¶ 16, 257 Wis. 2d 255, 650 N.W.2d 864 (taking up and deciding a legal issue that LIRC did not address).
¶ 51. In order to state a claim for a WFEA violation based on a disability, Roytek must state an accommodation that satisfies Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a). We do not determine whether an accommodation is reasonable or whether it causes a hardship until we assess whether the employee or prospective employee's suggestion permits the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment to be met. This is so because it is only then that a statutorily sufficient accommodation has been stated.
¶ 52. Whether an employee has stated an accommodation presents a question of law on which courts have extensive experience; therefore, we owe no deference to LIRC. See Anderson v. LIRC, 111 Wis. 2d 245, 253, 330 N.W.2d 594 (1983) (applying a de novo standard of review to LIRC's decision interpreting a WFEA provision); Harrison v. LIRC, 211 Wis. 2d 681, 685, 565 N.W.2d 572 (Ct. App. 1997) (applying a de novo standard of review to the question of whether Harrison's complaint stated a claim under WFEA).
*427B. Roytek's WFEA Discrimination Claim
1. Introduction
¶ 53. Roytek must establish that she has a disability and that a reasonable accommodation for that disability is available. Majority op., ¶ 35.1 agree that in Wisconsin, Roytek has a disability under long-established case law. City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. LIRC, 139 Wis. 2d 740, 752, 407 N.W.2d 510 (1987). However, where I part company with the majority is in its implicit conclusion5 that Roytek has shown an accommodation by working eight hours per day, three days one week and four days the next, because her suggestion is not an accommodation, under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b). Therefore, her termination is not a violation of WFEA according to § 111.34(2)(a).
¶ 54. In my view, the majority opinion misinterprets the statute in two fundamental ways. First, it does not recognize the connection between Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a), both of which bear on the meaning of accommodation in subsection (l)(b). The first clause of subsection (l)(b) focuses on the claimant's obligation to show an "accommodation." Subsection (2) (a) requires that the plan selected permits the employer to have the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment met. The majority opinion, however, implicitly assumes by its statement, "HTI failed to provide a reasonable accommodation that would have allowed [Roytek] to continue her employment," that Roytek provided a statutorily sufficient *428accommodation in the first instance. Majority op., ¶ 1. The majority opinion then concludes that HTI violated WFEA because it did not show hardship under § 111.34(l)(b). Majority op., ¶ 36. In so doing, it conflates three distinct statutory provisions: (1) whether the claimant has stated an accommodation; (2) if so, whether the accommodation is reasonable; and (3) if so, whether the employer has shown that the reasonable accommodation would pose a hardship to its business operation.
¶ 55. Second, the majority opinion ignores the valid business decision of HTI to increase production by using its equipment 24 hours per day, and in so doing, it negates the protections afforded an employer to make such a decision under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2)(a). Because there is no dispute that Roytek's disability will not permit her to work the required 12-hour shifts to meet HTI's production decision, the ultimate question is whether Roytek's failure to state an accommodation that is sufficient under § 111.34 causes her assertions to fail to state a claim for employment discrimination under § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a). To address these concerns more fully, I begin with the interpretation of WFEA's relevant provisions.
2. WFEA
¶ 56. I interpret Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) and (2) (a) in order to determine what is an "accommodation." When we interpret or apply a statute, we attempt to ascertain its meaning in order to give the statute its full intended effect. State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI58, ¶ 44, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110. We begin with the words chosen by the legislature, giving them their plain and ordinary meanings. Id., ¶ 45. This is our initial focus, because as we *429have explained, "[w]e assume that the legislature's intent is expressed in the statutory language." Id., ¶ 44. We are aided in ascertaining the meaning of a statute by the context in which words are placed. Id., ¶ 46. If the statute's meaning is clear on its face, we need go no further; we simply apply it. Id., ¶ 45. However, if the statutory language is capable of being understood by reasonably well-informed persons in two or more ways, then it is ambiguous. Bruno v. Milwaukee County, 2003 WI 28, ¶ 19, 260 Wis. 2d 633, 660 N.W.2d 656. A statute may also be ambiguous due to its interactions with other statutes. State v. White, 97 Wis. 2d 193, 198, 295 N.W.2d 346 (1980). If the statutory language is ambiguous, we may consult extrinsic sources to ascertain legislative intent. Stockbridge Sch. Dist. v. Department of Pub. Instruction Sch. Dist. Boundary Appeal Bd., 202 Wis. 2d 214, 223, 550 N.W.2d 96 (1996). I conclude that the term "accommodation" is ambiguous because it reasonably could be understood in two ways: (1) as the majority does, by looking solely to § 111.34(l)(b) and concluding it is a plan that "would have allowed [Roytek] to continue her employment with HTI," majority op., ¶ 1; or (2) as I have, by reading § 111.34(l)(b) and (2) (a) together and concluding it is a plan that will permit Roytek to assist HTI in implementing its valid business decision to utilize its equipment 24 hours per day.
¶ 57. In order to accurately assess whether Roytek has stated a claim for a WFEA violation based on a disability, it is necessary to understand the interaction between two provisions of WFEA, § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a). Subsection (l)(b) provides that an employer must "reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's disability unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose a *430hardship" to its business. Subsection (2) (a) affects the meaning of "accommodation" in subsection (l)(b) when it provides that "it is not employment discrimination because of disability to refuse to hire [or] employ" if the "disability is reasonably related to the individual's ability to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment[.]" These two provisions are related in that an accommodation under subsection (l)(b) must be such that it also satisfies (2)(a), by permitting the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment to be met. Our understanding of the interaction between these two provisions is facilitated by a review of when and why the legislature created them.
¶ 58. WFEA did not protect disabled persons from discrimination until 1965. Ch. 230, Laws of 1965. A provision substantially similar to Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2)(a), explaining that it is not discrimination contrary to WFEA to refuse to provide the employee or prospective employee with work if the disability of that person is related to the individual's inability to do the job, was a part of those initial provisions. Id. at § 3.
¶ 59. In the 1981-82 legislative session, WFEA was revised, in part due to our decision in American Motors Corp. v. DILHR, 101 Wis. 2d 337, 305 N.W.2d 62 (1981), which addressed a religious discrimination claim. Those revisions included what is now Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b), requiring an employer to make a reasonable accommodation for the individual's disability, unless to do so would pose a hardship on the employer. § 17, ch. 334, Laws of 1981; Wis. Legis. Council, Information Memorandum 82-17, at 7 (1982)6 Subsection *431111.34(l)(b) did not remove the protection for the employer found in § 111.34(2)(a). Subsection (2)(a) remained unchanged during the amendments. Giving each section an independent, yet related, function permits an employer lawfully to refuse to employ an individual who does not have an accommodation to the disability that will permit the adequate undertaking of the job-related responsibilities of the individual's employment.
3. Application of WFEA to Roytek's claim
¶ 60. As I have noted above, analysis of a WFEA claim involves three steps: (1) The employee must *432prove he or she has a disability. City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n, 139 Wis. 2d at 760. (2) The employee must prove an accommodation exists, that the accommodation is reasonable, but notwithstanding that reasonable accommodation, the employer refused employment. See US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 401-02 (2002).7 (3) If the employee succeeds on these first two elements, the employer must then prove that the suggested accommodation is a hardship, in order to avoid a violation of WFEA. Geen v. LIRC, 2002 WI App 269, ¶ 15, 258 Wis. 2d 498, 654 N.W.2d 1. However, if the employee does not prove an accommodation that permits the employee to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, the employer may refuse to employ that individual without violating WFEA. Wis. Stat. § 111.34 (l)(b) and (2)(a); see also Geen, 258 Wis. 2d 498, ¶ 15. This makes sense because otherwise an employer would be required to hire all individuals without regard for the job-related responsibilities the employer sought to accomplish by making the job available in the first instance.
*433¶ 61. Courts must keep the provisions of Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2) (a) in mind when considering whether what has been offered is an "accommodation" under § 111.34(l)(b) because subsection (l)(b) requires an employer to employ the individual when the accommodation satisfies subsection (2)(a), unless the employer proves a hardship.8 If the analysis shifts too quickly to whether the employee's suggestion creates, or does not create, a hardship for the employer, the initial analysis of whether what is offered is actually a statutory "accommodation" will be lost, as will the employer's right to make valid business decisions'without violating the law. Therefore, an accommodation that is sufficient under the statutes permits the employee to work and at the same time, it permits the employer to have the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment met. Target Stores v. LIRC, 217 Wis. 2d 1, 17, 576 N.W.2d 545 (Ct. App. 1998).
¶ 62. Here, Roytek proved she has a disability under WFEA. However, she did not prove an "accommodation" under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b). Her suggestion of permanent eight-hour shifts did not permit HTI to implement its valid management decision of increasing production by using its equipment 24 hours per day. Stated another way, her suggestion was not an "accommodation" because it did not permit the employer to have the job-related responsibilities of Roytek's employment met, i.e., working for 12-hour shifts. Section 111.34(2)(a) requires this condition in order to make a prima facie showing of an accommodation. See US Airways, 535 U.S. at 402. The majority opinion ignores *434this obligation of a WFEA claimant by repeatedly stating that HTI has not shown hardship. See, e.g., majority op., ¶ 34 n.15, ¶ 35.
¶ 63. The majority opinion relies extensively on our decision in Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. LIRC, 2003 WI 106, 264 Wis. 200, 664 N.W.2d 651, where we held that it was a reasonable accommodation without hardship to the employer to require the employer to retain an employee who could not do all the tasks that she had been hired to perform. Id., ¶ 51. We concluded that the employer was required to partially reassign the employee's duties to two of the three other employees in the disabled worker's department because those employees said they would complete the tasks that the disabled worker could not perform. Id., ¶ 78. Additionally, the employer had not shown that the requested physical modification necessary to accommodate a wheelchair was a hardship. Id., ¶ 80.
¶ 64. It is important to note that the majority decision here goes far beyond our conclusions in Crystal Lake because Crystal Lake focused on the tasks that comprised the job that the disabled worker was hired to perform. Id., ¶ 70. In Crystal Lake, we concluded that because the tasks the job required would continue to be fully accomplished, albeit not all by the disabled employee, what the employee offered was a reasonable accommodation. Id., ¶ 78. In other words, the valid management decision the employer made about what tasks it needed done, got done.
¶ 65. Here, by contrast, HTI made a valid management decision to increase production by implementing 12-hour shifts, two per day. Roytek suggested an eight-hour work schedule, which may seem to be an accommodation from her perspective because she could do it. However, it is not a statutory accommodation, *435because HTI is not being permitted to use its equipment 24 hours a day for a full team of workers on each shift. And contrary to the accommodation in Crystal Lake where other workers offered to do the tasks that the disabled worker could not do, no other worker has offered to do Roytek's missing four hours per shift. That no such offer was made is understandable because the other workers were already working 12 hours per shift, four hours of which were the same four hours that Roytek was not working.
¶ 66. Furthermore, if the accommodation to work less than a full shift is held to be sufficient to meet the employee's burden under Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b), then that interpretation cancels the employer's right under § 111.34(2)(a) to make a valid management decision to run its manufacturing business 24 hours per day. This was never the intent of the legislature in enacting WFEA. Rather, the purpose of WFEA was to encourage employers to evaluate an employee or applicant for employment based upon the employee's or applicant's individual qualifications. Section 111.31(2).
¶ 67. The majority also relies on HTI's permitting Roytek to work partial shifts while her back condition was improving to support its conclusion that HTI should be required to continue with shortened shifts on a permanent basis. Majority op., ¶ 35. This conclusion appears to be based in part on the court of appeals decision in Target, which in my view, the majority misinterprets.
¶ 68. In Target, the employee was cited by Target for repeatedly sleeping on the job. Management suggested that she see a physician to determine why she kept dosing off at work. She did so and learned she had a type of sleep apnea. The physician suggested treatments, which the employee began. However, shortly *436thereafter, she was again cited for sleeping on the job, and even though management knew that she was undergoing treatment for a sleep disorder, it terminated her, rather than waiting a reasonable amount of time to see if the treatment would be effective. The employee sued under WFEA, claiming discrimination due to disability, and LIRC concluded that Target violated WFEA by not continuing her employment. LIRC said because she was actively treating her disability and it would in "all likelihood be [resolved on] a short-term basis," Target should have given the treatment a chance to succeed. Target, 217 Wis. 2d at 8-9.
¶ 69. The court of appeals agreed with LIRC. However, it did not require a permanent change in expectations in regard to the employee's not sleeping on the job, but rather a "temporary accommodation to permit medical treatment which, if successful, will remove the difficulty in performing the job-related responsibility." Id. at 19. Here, the majority permits a permanent disregard of the employer's business decision about how to increase production. In so doing, the majority uses HTI's forbearance from termination while Roytek was attempting to resolve her back condition against HTI. This puts employers between the proverbial rock and a hard place: Target requires an employer to wait a reasonable time when an employee is being treated to resolve a medical condition and the majority opinion herein concludes that an employer who waits to see if a medical condition will resolve, will have that used against it, if the condition becomes permanent and the employee is fired.
¶ 70. Also of importance to the case at hand is the court of appeals explanation in Target of the interrelationship between Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a):
*437When read together, the only reasonable construction of these two provisions is that the purpose of reasonable accommodation is to enable employees to adequately undertake job-related responsibilities.
Id. at 17 (emphasis added). The relationship between these two statutes is the issue here too, but the majority's interpretation ignores it. In so doing it cancels § 111.34(2)(a), which protects an employer from having to employ individuals when the job-related responsibilities of the individual's employment will not be met.
¶ 71. It is interesting to note that the majority says:
We begin by recognizing the important role that management prerogatives play in the success of a business. This court has stated that "it is necessary to preserve the freedom of private enterprise to manage its business as it sees fit." Libby, McNeill & Libby v. WERC, 48 Wis. 2d 272, 280, 179 N.W.2d 805 (1970) [additional citations omitted]. We are mindful that a business must have the right to set its own employment rules to encourage maximum productivity.
Majority op., ¶ 29. However, these are hollow assurances because after the release of the decision in this case, no employer will be able to say that a certain number of hours must be worked in a shift or that it will use its equipment 24 hours per day and seven days a week, if employees and potential employees have notes from their doctors that say that those individuals have disabilities that prevent them from working more than a stated number of hours in a shift.
¶ 72. This is a sea change in Wisconsin employment law because heretofore employers were not required to forego valid business decisions, such as using *438equipment 24 hours per day, to suit employees and prospective employees who were not able to undertake those job-related responsibilities. It is important to note that although Roytek wanted to work eight-hour shifts, the majority opinion applies equally to other employees and prospective employees who can work only six hours of an eight-hour shift. For example, when the General Motors plant in Janesville works three eight-hour shifts per day and one or more employees or prospective employees have statements from a physician that the individual can work only six-hour shifts, General Motors will be required to let its equipment stand idle for two hours each shift for each employee who has such a disability. This cannot be what the legislature had in mind when it amended WFEA in 1981.
III. CONCLUSION
¶ 73. I conclude no WFEA violation occurred because Roytek's offer to continue working only two-thirds of her shift is insufficient to be an "accommodation," as that term is used in Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b). Additionally, Roytek's offer results in negating § 111.34 (2)(a), which provides that it is not discrimination to refuse to employ an individual when the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment are not met. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
¶ 74. I am authorized to state that Justice DAVID T. PROSSER joins this dissent.

 All further references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-02 version unless otherwise noted.

 The record reflects that during the hours she works, Roytek is not able to perform all of the tasks due to her inability to stand or sit for the length of time required. However, this aspect of Roytek's inability to perform her job has not been addressed by the majority opinion, although it was briefed by *424HTI. Because it is not necessary to my analysis of Roytek's claim, I do not discuss it further.

 The majority opinion implies that Roytek worked eight-hour shifts, five days per week. Majority op., ¶ 36. However, the record, which contains Roytek's time-sheets, shows she never worked more than eight-hour shifts three days one week and four days the next. There were many two-week periods where she did not even work those hours. Accordingly, although she was hired as a full-time employee, she never returned to full-time work.

 If Roytek were to work eight-hour shifts five days per week, HTI's equipment would be unused 40 hours every two weeks or 1,040 hours per year.

 The majority opinion does not recognize the issue upon which I conclude this case turns, whether permitting Roytek to permanently work two-thirds of the shifts she was hired to fill is an accommodation within the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) and (2)(a).

 The modifier, "undue," for the term, "hardship," was included in the religious accommodation revisions made during *431the same legislative session as that in which the disabilities section was revised. However, the word, "undue," was intentionally deleted from the disability discrimination provisions. Wis. Legis. Council, Information Memorandum 82-17, at 7 (1982). This gave an employer a lower burden in regard to when it must make a reasonable accommodation for a disability as compared with a religious-based accommodation. Wisconsin Stat. § 111.337(1), the WFEA provision that addresses religious discrimination, continues to place a heavier burden on the employer to accommodate religious practices as it requires a reasonable accommodation unless the "employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship ...."
The majority opinion erroneously imports the "undue hardship" test from federal law, asserting that "it appears quite clear that there is no real difference in the terms 'hardship1 and 'undue hardship,' since the 'hardship' referred to in Wis. Stat. § 111.34(l)(b) must be substantial in nature ...." Majority op., ¶ 36 n.17.1 disagree, as the legislative history cited above from the 1981-82 amendments, as well as the "undue hardship" standard that was chosen for accommodations to religious choices in § 111.337(1), show. In my view, the disposition of Roytek's claim does not require us to proceed as far as a hardship assessment. However, if it did, I would conclude that the majority opinion uses an incorrect standard in this regard.

 The decision in US Airways is instructive in regard to the foundational issue of an accommodation because it begins with a statement showing that a reasonable accommodation is one that permits the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 393 (2002). It then explains that an accommodation must be shown to be reasonable only on its face, in that with this change the employee can do the essential functions of the job. Id. at 401. The burden will then shift to the employer to show hardship. Id. at 402. Here, as we explain throughout, the plan offered by Roytek was not sufficient on its face.

 This is very similar to the reasoning in US Airways, where the accommodation must permit the employer's job to be done or no accommodation was provided. See US Airways, 535 U.S. at 402.