Skip main navigation

Outdated or Unsupported Browser Detected
DWD's website uses the latest technology. This makes our site faster and easier to use across all devices. Unfortunatley, your browser is out of date and is not supported. An update is not required, but it is strongly recommended to improve your browsing experience. To update Internet Explorer to Microsoft Edge visit their website.

113.3 Licensing and employment agencies

A police department which suspended a Complainant’s taxicab permit fits the definition of a licensing agency under sec. 111.32(11), Stats. (which specifically includes a department within a political subdivision such as a city). However, the police department and the city of which it is a subdivision are the same legal entity for purposes of the employment discrimination laws, and only the city should be named as a Respondent. Rathbun v. City of Madison (LIRC, 12/19/96).

A third-party organization (the Central Regional Dental Testing Service) that made determinations concerning what it believed to be the fitness of certain persons to engage in certain remunerative activities, but which did not make those determinations under the control of or as an agent for the licensing agency, was properly dismissed as a Respondent. The licensing agency used the determinations of the third-party organization in making licensing decisions. But the third-party organization did not actually control the legal right of individuals to engage in the remunerative activity in question (in this case, licensure as a dentist). Thus, the proper Respondent was the licensing agency itself. Johnson v. Cent. Reg’l Dental Testing Serv. (LIRC, 02/29/96).

Refusing to license an individual is not the only prohibited act of employment discrimination related to licensing. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act also prohibits discrimination by licensing agencies with respect to other actions, such as applying different standards and procedures, even if in a particular case they do not happen to result in the denial of licensure to a particular person. Johnson v. Dental Examining Bd. (LIRC, 02/29/96).

In a licensing discrimination case, the Complainant must initially show that he applied for the license in question. Where the Complainant never applied for a license (to practice dentistry, in this case), he cannot proceed on a complaint alleging that he would have been denied a license had he applied. Jones v. Cent. Reg’l Dental Testing Serv. (LIRC, 02/29/96).