111.321 Prohibited bases of discrimination. Subject to ss. 111.33 to 111.365, no employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency, or other person may engage in any act of employment discrimination as specified in s. 111.322 against any individual on the basis of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, 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.

History: 1981 c. 334; 1987 a. 63; 1991 a. 310; 1997 a. 112; 2007 a. 159; 2009 a. 290.

The denial of a homosexual employee's request for family coverage for herself and her companion did not violate equal protection or the s. 111.321 prohibition of discrimination on the basis of marital status, sexual orientation, or gender. Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 167 Wis. 2d 205, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1992).

A bargaining agreement requiring married employees with spouses covered by comparable employer-provided health insurance to elect coverage under one policy or the other violated this section. Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis. 2d 286, 496 N.W.2d 597 (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 fair employment act, subch. II, ch.111. Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997), 95-2490.

A prima facie case of discrimination triggers a burden of production against an employer, but unless the employer remains silent in the face of the prima facie case, the complainant continues to bear the burden of proof on the ultimate issue of discrimination. Currie v. DILHR, 210 Wis. 2d 380, 565 N.W.2d 253 (Ct. App. 1997), 96-1720.

Unwelcome physical contact of a sexual nature and unwelcome verbal conduct or physical conduct of a sexual nature may constitute sexual harassment, even when they do not create a hostile work environment. Jim Walter Color Separations v. LIRC, 226 Wis. 2d 334, 595 N.W.2d 68 (Ct. App. 1999), 98-2360.

It was reasonable for LIRC to interpret the prohibition against marital status discrimination as protecting the status of being married in general rather than the status of being married to a particular person. Bammert v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 28, 232 Wis. 2d 365, 606 N.W.2d 620, 99-1271.

The department of workforce development has statutory authority to receive and investigate a firefighter's employment discrimination claim that is tied directly to the charges sustained and disciplinary sanctions imposed by a police and fire commission under s. 62.13 (5), to which claim preclusion is no bar. City of Madison v. DWD, 2002 WI App 199, 257 Wis. 2d 348, 651 N.W.2d 292, 01-1910.

The police and fire commission has exclusive statutory authority under s. 62.13 (5) to review disciplinary actions against firefighters. Any claim that a disciplinary termination is discriminatory under ch.111 must be raised before the PFC. DWD may not take jurisdiction over a ch. 111 complaint arising out of a decision of a PFC to terminate a firefighter. City of Madison v. DWD, 2003 WI 76, 262 Wis. 2d 652, 664 N.W.2d 584, 01-1910.

A person other than an employer, labor organization, or licensing agency can violate subch. II of ch. 111, if it engages in discriminatory conduct that has a sufficient nexus with the denial or restriction of some individual's employment opportunity. A trucking company who leased its trucks and drivers from another company that hired the drivers and had the power to reject drivers approved by the leasing company, was an “other person" subject to this section. Szleszinski v. Labor & Industry Review Commission, 2005 WI App 229, 287 Wis. 2d 775, 706 N.W.2d 345, 04-3033.

Affirmed on other grounds. 2007 WI 106, 304 Wis. 2d 258, 736 N.W.2d 111, 04-3033.

Licensing boards do not have authority to enact general regulations that would allow them to suspend, deny, or revoke the license of a person who has a communicable disease. Licensing boards do have authority on a case-by-case basis to suspend, deny, or revoke the license of a person who poses a direct threat to the health and safety of other persons or who is unable to perform duties of the licensed activity. 77 Atty. Gen. 223.

A person suffering from a contagious disease may be handicapped under the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987).

The Unwisdom of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act's Ban of Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Conviction Records. Hruz. 85 MLR 779 (2002).

Some “Hardship": Defending a Disability Discrimination Suit Under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Hansch. 89 MLR 821 (2005).

Expanding Employer Liability for Sexual Harassment Under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act: Jim Walter Color Separations v. Labor & Industry Review Commission. Edgar. 2000 WLR 885.

Expanding the Notion of “Equal Coverage": The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act Requires Contraceptive Coverage for All Employer-Sponsored Prescription Drug Plans. Mason. 2005 WLR 913.

Race, Crime, and Getting a Job. Pager. 2005 WLR 617.

Family Responsibility Discrimination: Making Room at Work for Family Demands. Finerty. Wis. Law. Nov. 2007.