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.

117.1 Title VII

While it has long been recognized that it can be appropriate to look at federal court decisions interpreting Title VII as guidance for interpretations of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, it has also been recognized there are limits to this, and that there can be situations in which Wisconsin should adhere to its own path, which may diverge from the course the federal authorities have taken. Mack v. Rice Lake Harley Davidson (LIRC, 02/07/13), aff'd sub. nom Rice Lake v. LIRC, aff'd in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions, Rice Lake v. LIRC, 2014 WI App 104, 357 Wis. 2d 621, 855 N.W.2d 882.

It is appropriate to consider federal decisions where the WFEA and Title VII serve identical purposes, although such decisions are not binding and must be disregarded if they conflict with the Wisconsin's Legislature's intent in enacting the WFEA. Federal case law has long been considered when determining back pay issues under the WFEA. Erwin v. Don & Cary's Nokomis Inn (LIRC, 09/28/07).

Because Title VII does not contain any language similar to sec. 111.36(1)(b), Stats., federal cases addressing the question of hostile work environment sexual harassment are not helpful to an analysis of whether the Respondent has violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Anderson v. MRM Elgin (LIRC, 01/28/04). Considering that the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act and Title VII serve identical purposes, it is appropriate to consider federal decisions, although such decisions are not binding and must be disregarded if they conflict with our legislature's intent in enacting the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Marten Transp. v. DILHR, 176 Wis. 2d 1012, 501 N.W.2d 391 (1993).

As a general principle, Wisconsin courts look to federal decisions interpreting Title VII for guidance in applying the state employment law. However, the state court must construe Wisconsin statutes as it is believed the Wisconsin legislature intended, regardless of how Congress may have intended that comparable statutes be interpreted. Moore v. LIRC, 175 Wis. 2d 561, 499 N.W.2d 289 (Ct. App. 1993).

It is particularly appropriate to look to federal case law for guidance in applying the religious accommodation provision in the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Marquardt v. Wal-Mart Stores (LIRC, 06/14/93). Wisconsin courts have at times looked to federal employment law for guidance in considering discrimination claims under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. However, the courts are not bound to do so. The court will refuse to interpret provisions of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act in accordance with analogous federal laws where the statutory language differs from that of the federal legislation. Racine Unified School Dist. v. LIRC, 164 Wis. 2d 567, 476 N.W.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1991).

Wisconsin courts must construe Wisconsin statutes as it believes the Wisconsin Legislature intended, regardless of how comparable federal statutes are interpreted. Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. DILHR, 87 Wis. 2d 56, 273 N.W.2d 786 (Ct. App. 1978); McMullen v. LIRC, 148 Wis. 2d 270, 434 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1988).

Remedies under Title VII and the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act are to be pursued separately and, in applying the WFEA, the provisions of Title VII should not be automatically incorporated. AMC v. DILHR (Bartell), 101 Wis. 2d 337, 305 N.W.2d 62 (1981).

The Wisconsin courts will look to federal case law for guidance in applying the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act.Hamilton v. DILHR, 94 Wis. 2d 611, 288 N.W.2d 857 (1980); Bucyrus-Erie v. DILHR, 90 Wis. 2d 408, 280 N.W.2d 142 (1979).