Democratic lawmakers held a press conference last week to announce legislation they plan to propose in the 2014-15 legislative session that would repeal portions of Wisconsin’s recently enacted asbestos transparency law (2013 Wisconsin Act 154). Joining the Democrats at the press conference was asbestos plaintiff attorney lobbyist, Jason Johns. The law was one of WCJC’s top priorities and major wins for 2013-14 and was opposed heavily by out-of-state asbestos plaintiffs’ attorneys.

The Democratic lawmakers continue to claim that veterans oppose the bill, when the much of the opposite is true. The AMVETs Department of Wisconsin supported the transparency law. Also, a recent op-ed published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel by former VFW State Commander Larry Kutschma and American Legion member Steven Stefonik explains how the law benefits veterans and all victims, while also protecting businesses from unscrupulous trial attorneys.

Earlier this summer, Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke announced that she would repeal the law if she were elected governor.

Click here to learn more about Wisconsin’s asbestos transparency law.

The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council recently filed an amicus curiae brief with the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Dist. II in an important case involving the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA). The issue is whether the employer (Chrysler) violated the WFEA by placing an employee on paid leave who admitted to drinking excessively prior to coming to work. The case is Chrysler Group LLC v. Labor and Industry Review Commission (Case No. 2014AP0083).

Facts

Chrysler Group LLC (Chrysler) placed an employee on “layoff/no work available status” due to the employee’s excessive drinking.

Chrysler’s physicians examined the employee and determined it was not prudent to approve the employee’s return to work based on her admissions of excessively drinking prior to coming to work.

By placing the employee on layoff/no work available status, the employee was still eligible for Supplemental Unemployment Benefit pay, which meant she could collect 95 percent of her net pay (or about 65 percent of her gross pay).

Despite this, the employee filed an employment discrimination complaint under the WFEA against Chrysler, claiming discrimination on the basis of disability. The employee sought the difference between the Supplemental Unemployment Benefit pay and the amount she would have earned had she been returned to active duty.

Labor and Industry Review Commission and Circuit Court Decision

The Labor and Industry Review Commission ruled in favor of the employee. The Commission ruled that Chrysler had discriminated against the employee and had failed to show that the employee’s pre-work drinking posed a safety risk.  The circuit court affirmed.

WCJC Amicus Curiae Brief

WCJC argues in its brief that if the decisions by LIRC and the circuit court are upheld, it would have broad and sweeping implications for employers throughout the state. The brief also explains that it would prevent employers from being able to protect the safety of their employees.

Legal Arguments by Chrysler

Chrysler’s legal briefs contained the following arguments:

• Chrysler argues that the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) states that it is “not employment discrimination because of disability…if the [employee’s] disability is reasonably related to the individual’s ability to adequately undertake the job-related responsibilities of that individual’s employment.” Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2)(a).

• Chrysler explains that the legislature has expressly provided that employers may take into account the “present and future safety of the individual, of the individual’s co-workers and, if applicable, of the general public” when determining whether the employee is capable of adequately performing a job. Wis. Stat. § 111.34(2)(b).

• The Wisconsin Supreme Court has held that the WFEA must be construed to permit employers to address safety risks in the workplace. Chi. & N.W. R.R. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm’n, 98 Wis. 2d 592, 297, N.W. 819 (Wis. 1980).

• To be entitled to the workplace safety defense, the employer doesn’t need to show an absolute certainty that an employee poses a safety threat; rather, the employer need only to show a reasonable probability of such a risk. Dairy Equip. Co. v. Dep’t of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 95 Wis. 2d 319, 290 N.W. 2d 330 (Wis. 1980).

• Its decision to continue the employee on leave was justified on safety grounds given her history of drinking before work.

• It was justified on the alternative basis that the employee was incapable of performing the physically demanding job of a picker/packer.

• Chrysler accommodated her disability by placing her on paid leave and ensuring she obtained generous Supplemental Unemployment Benefit payments while she sought medical help and treatment.