111.335(1)(c)
(c) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ or license, or to bar or terminate from employment or licensing, any individual who:
111.335(1)(c)1.
1. Has been convicted of any felony, misdemeanor or other offense the circumstances of which substantially relate to the circumstances of the particular job or licensed activity; or
111.335(1)(c)2.
2. Is not bondable under a standard fidelity bond or an equivalent bond where such bondability is required by state or federal law, administrative regulation or established business practice of the employer.
111.335(1)(cg)1.1. Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to deny or refuse to renew a license or permit under
s. 440.26 to a person who has been convicted of a felony and has not been pardoned for that felony.
111.335(1)(cg)2.
2. Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to revoke a license or permit under
s. 440.26 (6) (b) if the person holding the license or permit has been convicted of a felony and has not been pardoned for that felony.
111.335(1)(cg)3.
3. Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ a person in a business licensed under
s. 440.26 or as an employee specified in
s. 440.26 (5) (b) if the person has been convicted of a felony and has not been pardoned for that felony.
111.335(1)(cm)
(cm) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ as an installer of burglar alarms a person who has been convicted of a felony and has not been pardoned.
111.335(1)(cs)
(cs) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to revoke, suspend or refuse to renew a license or permit under
ch. 125 if the person holding or applying for the license or permit has been convicted of one or more of the following:
111.335(1)(cs)1.
1. Manufacturing, distributing or delivering a controlled substance or controlled substance analog under
s. 961.41 (1).
111.335(1)(cs)2.
2. Possessing, with intent to manufacture, distribute or deliver, a controlled substance or controlled substance analog under
s. 961.41 (1m).
111.335(1)(cs)3.
3. Possessing, with intent to manufacture, distribute or deliver, or manufacturing, distributing or delivering a controlled substance or controlled substance analog under a federal law that is substantially similar to
s. 961.41 (1) or
(1m).
111.335(1)(cs)4.
4. Possessing, with intent to manufacture, distribute or deliver, or manufacturing, distributing or delivering a controlled substance or controlled substance analog under the law of another state that is substantially similar to
s. 961.41 (1) or
(1m).
111.335(1)(cs)5.
5. Possessing any of the materials listed in
s. 961.65 with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under that section or under a federal law or a law of another state that is substantially similar to
s. 961.65.
111.335(1)(cv)
(cv) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ in a position in the classified service or in a position described in
s. 230.08 (2) (k) a person who has been convicted under 50 USC, Appendix, section 462 for refusing to register with the selective service system and who has not been pardoned.
Effective date note
NOTE: Par. (cv) is amended eff. 7-1-13 by
2011 Wis. Act 32 to read:
Effective date text
(cv) Notwithstanding s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ in a position in the classified service a person who has been convicted under 50 USC, Appendix, section 462 for refusing to register with the selective service system and who has not been pardoned.
111.335(1)(cx)
(cx) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record to refuse to employ or license, or to bar or terminate from employment or licensure, any individual who has been convicted of any offense under
s. 38.50 (13) (c).
111.335(1)(d)1.1. In this paragraph, "educational agency" means a school district, a cooperative educational service agency, a county children with disabilities education board, a state prison under
s. 302.01, a juvenile correctional facility, as defined in
s. 938.02 (10p), a secured residential care center for children and youth, as defined in
s. 938.02 (15g), the Wisconsin Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, the Wisconsin Educational Services Program for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the Mendota Mental Health Institute, the Winnebago Mental Health Institute, a state center for the developmentally disabled, a private school, a charter school, a private, nonprofit, nonsectarian agency under contract with a school board under
s. 118.153 (3) (c), or a nonsectarian private school or agency under contract with the board of school directors in a 1st class city under
s. 119.235 (1).
111.335(1)(d)2.
2. Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of conviction record for an educational agency to refuse to employ or to terminate from employment an individual who has been convicted of a felony and who has not been pardoned for that felony.
111.335 Annotation
A rule adopted under s. 165.85 properly barred a nonpardoned felon from holding a police job. Law Enforcement Standards Board v. Lyndon Station,
101 Wis. 2d 472,
305 N.W.2d 89 (1981).
111.335 Annotation
A conviction for armed robbery in and of itself constituted circumstances substantially related to a school bus driver's licensure. Gibson v. Transportation Commission,
106 Wis. 2d 22,
315 N.W.2d 346 (1982).
111.335 Annotation
An employer's inquiry is limited to general facts in determining whether the "circumstances of the offense" relate to the job. It is not the details of the criminal activity that are important, but rather the circumstances that foster criminal activity, such as opportunity for criminal behavior, reaction to responsibility, and character traits of the person. County of Milwaukee v. LIRC,
139 Wis. 2d 805,
407 N.W.2d 908 (1987).
111.335 Annotation
There is no requirement that an employer take affirmative steps to accommodate individuals convicted of felonies. Knight v. LIRC,
220 Wis. 2d 137,
582 N.W.2d 448 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-1606.
111.335 Annotation
When evaluating an individual for the position of reserve officer, a sheriff's department may consider information in its possession concerning the individual's juvenile record, subject to prohibitions against arrest record and conviction record discrimination contained in the WFEA.
79 Atty. Gen. 89.
111.335 Annotation
Race, Crime, and Getting a Job. Pager. 2005 WLR 617.
111.335 Annotation
Discrimination in employment on the basis of arrest or conviction record. Mukamel. WBB Sept. 1983.
111.337
111.337
Creed; exceptions and special cases. 111.337(1)(1) Employment discrimination because of creed includes, but is not limited to, refusing to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer's program, enterprise or business.
111.337(2)
(2) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of creed:
111.337(2)(a)
(a) For a religious association not organized for private profit or an organization or corporation which is primarily owned or controlled by such a religious association to give preference to an applicant or employee who is a member of the same or a similar religious denomination.
111.337(2)(am)
(am) For a religious association not organized for private profit or an organization or corporation which is primarily owned or controlled by such a religious association to give preference to an applicant or employee who adheres to the religious association's creed, if the job description demonstrates that the position is clearly related to the religious teachings and beliefs of the religious association.
111.337(2)(b)
(b) For a fraternal as defined in
s. 614.01 (1) (a) to give preference to an employee or applicant who is a member or is eligible for membership in the fraternal, with respect to hiring to or promotion to the position of officer, administrator or salesperson.
111.337(3)
(3) No county, city, village or town may adopt any provision concerning employment discrimination because of creed that prohibits activity allowed under this section.
111.337 Annotation
Sub. (2) does not allow religious organizations to engage in prohibited forms of discrimination. Sacred Heart School Board v. LIRC,
157 Wis. 2d 638,
460 N.W.2d 430 (Ct. App. 1990).
111.337 Annotation
A union violated Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act by causing an employer to fire an employee because of the employee's refusal, on religious grounds, to pay union dues. Nottelson v. Smith Steel Workers D.A.L.U. 19806,
643 F. 2d 445 (1981).
111.337 Annotation
The supreme court redefines employer's role in religious accommodation. Soeka. WBB July 1987.
111.34
111.34
Disability; exceptions and special cases. 111.34(1)(1) Employment discrimination because of disability includes, but is not limited to:
111.34(1)(a)
(a) Contributing a lesser amount to the fringe benefits, including life or disability insurance coverage, of any employee because of the employee's disability; or
111.34(1)(b)
(b) Refusing to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's disability unless the employer can demonstrate that the accommodation would pose a hardship on the employer's program, enterprise or business.
111.34(2)(a)(a) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of disability to refuse to hire, employ, admit or license any individual, to bar or terminate from employment, membership or licensure any individual, or to discriminate against any individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment if the disability is reasonably related to the individual's ability to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, membership or licensure.
111.34(2)(b)
(b) In evaluating whether an individual with a disability can adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of a particular job, membership or licensed activity, the present and future safety of the individual, of the individual's coworkers and, if applicable, of the general public may be considered. However, this evaluation shall be made on an individual case-by-case basis and may not be made by a general rule which prohibits the employment or licensure of individuals with disabilities in general or a particular class of individuals with disabilities.
111.34(2)(c)
(c) If the employment, membership or licensure involves a special duty of care for the safety of the general public, including but not limited to employment with a common carrier, this special duty of care may be considered in evaluating whether the employee or applicant can adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of a particular job, membership or licensed activity. However, this evaluation shall be made on an individual case-by-case basis and may not be made by a general rule which prohibits the employment or licensure of individuals with disabilities in general or a particular class of individuals with disabilities.
111.34 History
History: 1981 c. 334;
1997 a. 112.
111.34 Annotation
The utilization of federal regulations as a hiring standard, although not applicable to the employing taxi company, demonstrated a rational relationship to the safety obligations imposed on the employer, and its use was not the result of an arbitrary belief lacking in objective reason or rationale. Boynton Cab Co. v. DILHR,
96 Wis. 2d 396,
291 N.W.2d 850 (1980).
111.34 Annotation
An employee handicapped by alcoholism was properly discharged under s. 111.32 (5) (f), 1973 Stats., (a predecessor to this section) for inability to efficiently perform job duties. Squires v. LIRC,
97 Wis. 2d 648,
294 N.W.2d 48 (Ct. App. 1980).
111.34 Annotation
Physical standards for school bus operators established under s. 343.12 (2) (g) are not exempt from the requirements of sub. (2) (b). Bothum v. Department of Transportation,
134 Wis. 2d 378,
396 N.W.2d 785 (Ct. App. 1986).
111.34 Annotation
The duty to reasonably accommodate under sub. (1) (b) is to be broadly interpreted and may involve the transfer of an individual from one job to another. What is reasonable will depend on the facts of the case. McMullen v. LIRC,
148 Wis. 2d 270,
434 N.W.2d 270 (Ct. App. 1986).
111.34 Annotation
To avail itself of the defense under sub. (2) that an ostensibly safety-based employment restriction is job-related, an employer bears the burden of proving to a reasonable probability that the restriction is necessary to prevent harm to the employee or others. Racine Unified School District v. LIRC,
164 Wis. 2d 567,
476 N.W.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1991).
111.34 Annotation
Temporary forbearance of work rules while determining whether an employee's medical problem is treatable may be a reasonable accommodation under sub. (1) (b). The purpose of reasonable accommodation is to enable employees to adequately undertake job-related responsibilities. Target Stores v. LIRC,
217 Wis. 2d 1,
576 N.W.2d 545 (Ct. App. 1998),
97-1253. See also Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. LIRC,
2007 WI 105,
303 Wis. 2d 514,
735 N.W.2d 477,
04-1550.
111.34 Annotation
Whether an employee's mental illness caused him to react angrily and commit the act of insubordination that led to the termination of his employment was sufficiently complex and technical that expert testimony was required. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. LIRC,
2000 WI App 272,
240 Wis. 2d 209,
621 N.W.2d 633,
99-2632.
111.34 Annotation
A complainant must show that he or she is handicapped and that the employer took one of the prohibited actions based on that handicap. The employer then has a burden of proving a defense. Sub. (1) (b) does not require an employer to make a reasonable accommodation if the accommodation will impose a hardship on the employer, but if the employer is not able to demonstrate that the accommodation would pose a hardship there is a violation. Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. LIRC,
2003 WI 106,
264 Wis. 2d 200,
664 N.W.2d 651,
02-0815.
111.34 Annotation
A reasonable accommodation is not limited to that which would allow the employee to perform adequately all of his or her job duties. A change in job duties may be a reasonable accommodation in a given circumstance. Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. LIRC,
2003 WI 106,
264 Wis. 2d 200,
664 N.W.2d 651,
02-0815.
111.34 Annotation
An interstate commercial driver need not seek a determination of medical qualification from the federal department of transportation (DOT) prior to filing a disability discrimination claim under this chapter. When medical and physical qualifications to be an interstate driver are material to a claim, and a dispute arises concerning those qualifications that cannot be resolved by facial application of DOT regulations, the dispute should be resolved by the DOT under its dispute resolution procedure. The employer must seek a determination of medical and physical qualification from the DOT if the employer intends to offer a defense that the driver was not qualified for medical reasons. Szleszinski v. Labor & Industry Review Commission,
2007 WI 106,
304 Wis. 2d 258,
736 N.W.2d 111,
04-3033.
111.34 Annotation
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).
111.34 Annotation
Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. Labor and Industry Review Commission: A reasonable Turn Under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Haas. 2004 WLR 1535.
111.34 Annotation
Hidden handicaps: Protection of alcoholics, drug addicts, and the mentally ill against employment discrimination under the rehabilitation act of 1973 and the Wisconsin fair employment act. 1983 WLR 725.
111.34 Annotation
Disability Law in Wisconsin Workplaces. Vergeront & Cochrane. Wis. Law. Oct. 2004.
111.34 Annotation
ADA and WFEA: Differing Disability Protections. Backer & Mishlove. Wis. Law. Oct. 2004.
111.345
111.345
Marital status; exceptions and special cases. Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of marital status to prohibit an individual from directly supervising or being directly supervised by his or her spouse.
111.345 History
History: 1981 c. 334.
111.345 Annotation
A work rule intended to limit extramarital affairs among coemployees was not discrimination because of marital status. Federated Rural Electric Insurance v. Kessler,
131 Wis. 2d 189,
388 N.W.2d 553 (1986).
111.35
111.35
Use or nonuse of lawful products; exceptions and special cases. 111.35(1)(a)
(a) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours for a nonprofit corporation that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, discourages the general public from using a lawful product to refuse to hire or employ an individual, to suspend or terminate the employment of an individual, or to discriminate against an individual in promotion, in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because that individual uses off the employer's premises during nonworking hours a lawful product that the nonprofit corporation discourages the general public from using.
111.35(1)(b)
(b) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of nonuse of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours for a nonprofit corporation that, as one of its primary purposes or objectives, encourages the general public to use a lawful product to refuse to hire or employ an individual, to suspend or terminate the employment of an individual, or to discriminate against an individual in promotion, in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because that individual does not use off the employer's premises during nonworking hours a lawful product that the nonprofit corporation encourages the general public to use.
111.35(2)
(2) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use or nonuse of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency or other person to refuse to hire, employ, admit, or license an individual, to bar, suspend or terminate an individual from employment, membership or licensure, or to discriminate against an individual in promotion, in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment or labor organization membership if the individual's use or nonuse of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours does any of the following:
111.35(2)(a)
(a) Impairs the individual's ability to undertake adequately the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, membership or licensure.
111.35(2)(b)
(b) Creates a conflict of interest, or the appearance of a conflict of interest, with the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, membership or licensure.
111.35(2)(c)
(c) Conflicts with a bona fide occupational qualification that is reasonably related to the job-related responsibilities of that individual's employment, membership or licensure.
111.35(2)(e)
(e) Conflicts with any federal or state statute, rule or regulation.
111.35(3)(a)(a) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency or other person to offer a policy or plan of life, health or disability insurance coverage under which the type of coverage or the price of coverage for an individual who uses a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours differs from the type of coverage or the price of coverage provided for an individual who does not use that lawful product, if all of the following conditions apply:
111.35(3)(a)1.
1. The difference between the premium rates charged to an individual who uses that lawful product and the premium rates charged to an individual who does not use that lawful product reflects the cost of providing the coverage to the individual who uses that lawful product.
111.35(3)(a)2.
2. The employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency or other person that offers the coverage provides each individual who is charged a different premium rate based on that individual's use of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours with a written statement specifying the premium rate differential used by the insurance carrier.
111.35(3)(b)
(b) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of nonuse of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency or other person to offer a policy or plan of life, health or disability insurance coverage under which the type of coverage or the price of coverage for an individual who does not use a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours differs from the type of coverage or the price of coverage provided for an individual who uses that lawful product, if all of the following conditions apply:
111.35(3)(b)1.
1. The difference between the premium rates charged to an individual who does not use that lawful product and the premium rates charged to an individual who uses that lawful product reflects the cost of providing the coverage to the individual who does not use that lawful product.
111.35(3)(b)2.
2. The employer, labor organization, employment agency, licensing agency or other person that offers the coverage provides each individual who is charged a different premium rate based on that individual's nonuse of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours with a written statement specifying the premium rate differential used by the insurance carrier.
111.35(4)
(4) Notwithstanding
s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of use of a lawful product off the employer's premises during nonworking hours to refuse to employ an applicant if the applicant's use of a lawful product consists of smoking tobacco and the employment is as a fire fighter covered under
s. 891.45 or
891.455.
111.355
111.355
Military service; exceptions and special cases. 111.355(1)(1) Employment discrimination because of military service includes an employer, labor organization, licensing agency, employment agency, or other person refusing to hire, employ, admit, or license an individual, barring or terminating an individual from employment, membership, or licensure, or discriminating against an individual in promotion, in compensation, or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the individual is or applies to be a member of the U.S. armed forces, the state defense force, the national guard of any state, or any reserve component of the U.S. armed forces or because the individual performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to perform military service.
