114 Geographical coverage of WFEA

For purposes of determining subject matter jurisdiction, discrimination occurs where the Complainant was employed. In Peterson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists (LIRC, 10/19/01), the commission took jurisdiction of a complaint in which the Complainant performed much of her job out-of-state but spent more than a de minimis amount of time in Wisconsin. Jurisdiction did not turn on whether the alleged acts of discrimination occurred in Wisconsin, only on whether enough of her employment occurred in Wisconsin. Danforth v. Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc. (LIRC, 06/22/20), aff’d sub nom Danforth v. LIRC, (Brown Co. Cir. Ct., 01/13/21).

The Complainant stated no connection between his employment with Goodwill and Wisconsin, other than the fact that he lives in Wisconsin. He was not employed by Goodwill in Wisconsin, did not apply to become employed by Goodwill in Wisconsin, and did not and would not have worked for Goodwill in Wisconsin. Therefore, there is no jurisdiction under the WFEA as to the Complainant's employment issues in Wisconsin. Brantner v. Goodwill Indus. (LIRC, 02/19/10).

There is “geographical jurisdiction” where the Respondent (a business engaged in conducting inventories for other retail businesses) is organized into districts which cover a number of states and where the Complainant performed services in a district that conducted inventories in several states. The extent of the Complainant’s employment occurring within the state of Wisconsin was clearly not de minimis. Therefore, the Complainant was engaged in employment occurring in part within the State of Wisconsin, and the Respondent’s decision to discharge her affected that employment because it put an end to it. It is therefore appropriate for the State of Wisconsin to assert its jurisdiction to determine whether that discharge decision was contrary to the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Discrimination is deemed to occur in the place where the employment which is affected by it occurs. Peterson v. RGIS Inventory Specialists (LIRC, 10/19/01).

Discrimination must be deemed to occur in the place where the employment which is affected by it occurs. The location of the employment is the most important factor. Jurisdiction will be found where the activities of the employee which constituted his employment appear to have taken place to some significant degree within the state of Wisconsin. Hatfield v. Aurora Bldg. Maint. (LIRC, 11/17/95).

The controlling factor in determining whether the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act applies to a particular employment action is where the action took place. Here, the Complainant was an employee in Wisconsin who was told at the time he accepted a transfer to Georgia that his wife would have to join him in Georgia by a certain date. The Complainant was discharged after working four days in Georgia because his wife failed to join him. The Complainant's W-2 forms for that year showed that his entire salary was taxable in Wisconsin. It is reasonable to conclude that the employment action occurred both in Wisconsin and Georgia. Therefore, the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does apply. Birk v. Georgia-Pacific (LIRC, 08/03/90), aff’d sub nom. Birk v. LIRC, (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 01/04/91).

Although the employer’s parent company is incorporated outside of Wisconsin, it is a wholly owned subsidiary whose operation is based in Wisconsin and it, therefore, comes within the coverage of the Act. Johnson v. Tel-Page Corp. (LIRC, 09/26/83). The Personnel Commission has jurisdiction over a complaint of discrimination with respect to filling a position in the State of Wisconsin Budget Office within the Department of Administration, located in Washington, D.C., where the appointing authority who was responsible for all appointments within the agency, wherever the work site, could be presumed to exercise his authority within the confines of the State. Leverette v. DOA (Wis. Personnel Comm’n, 09/03/82).

The controlling factor in determining whether the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act applies is the place where the discrimination took place. Gray v. Walker Mfg. (LIRC, 07/21/82).

The Equal Rights Division has jurisdiction over a complaint where the Complainant (1) was a truck driver who was a resident of Wisconsin, who worked for a division of the Respondent which was located in Wisconsin, (2) had his “home base” at the employer’s Chicago terminal, and (3) was terminated by a representative of the employer who was in Chicago when he notified the Complainant (who was in Wisconsin) of the discharge over the telephone. The Complainant apparently drove in a number of states, including Wisconsin. The controlling factor in determining whether there is jurisdiction under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act is where the discrimination took place. Buyatt v. C.W. Transport (LIRC, 07/25/77).