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.

117.4 ERISA, Labor relations laws (NLRA, LMRA)

The Complainant alleged that her employer improperly influenced the third-party administrator of its short-term disability plan to deny benefits. The Complainant’s eligibility for short term disability benefits was governed by the federal Employment Retirement Security Income (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. sec. 1001 et seq. The Complainant presented no evidence to substantiate her claim that the employer exercised any influence over the third-party administrator’s denial of disability benefits. Harris v. Charter Commc'ns, LLC (LIRC, 03/13/20).

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent discriminated her when it assigned (or “mapped”) her position to an office assistant classification rather than the account analyst classification. The Respondent contended that the Complainant’s claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act was preempted by operation of sec. 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Although the process for mapping positions was a creation of the collective bargaining process, the individual mapping decisions depended not on an interpretation of a union contract term, but instead on an expert analysis of the classification strength of the duties and responsibilities of each position. Therefore, the Complainant’s claim was not preempted. Estes v. Wis. Gas (LIRC, 05/25/04).

The Equal Rights Division appropriately dismissed a complaint in which the Complainant alleged that he had been retaliated against by the Respondent for having filed previous complaints when the Respondent denied him disability retirement benefits. The Complainant’s claim was pre-empted by ERISA. ERISA pre-empts a state law claim if the claim requires a court to interpret or apply the terms of an employee benefit plan. Because the Complainant’s claim in this case was that, according to the terms of the ERISA plan, he was entitled to the company’s disability benefits, his claim was pre-empted by ERISA. Reich v. Ladish Co. (LIRC, 06/30/99).

Section 301 of the federal Labor Management Relations Act preempts certain kinds of claims relating to labor agreements. However, the significant question is not merely whether a collective bargaining agreement is involved in a case, but whether it would be necessary to interpret the provisions of such a collective bargaining agreement in order to decide the issues presented by the case. Atkins v. Pepsi Cola Gen. Bottlers (LIRC, 12/18/96).

Sec. 301 of the Federal Labor Management Relations Act preempts questions relating to interpretations of labor agreements as well as legal consequences that were intended to flow from breaches stemming from such agreements. However, an employee has a substantive right to file a complaint under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, notwithstanding a collective bargaining agreement. In this case, the Complainant's equal rights claim did not require an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement. Although the contract was applicable to the equal rights controversy, the Administrative Law Judge did not have to interpret the contract, but rather had to determine the parties’ application of the contract. Therefore, the Complainant's equal rights claim was not federally preempted. Seeman v. Universal Foods (LIRC, 03/30/92).

Section 111.33(2)(b), Stats., insofar as it prohibits age discrimination against persons over 70, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to the extent that it applies to employee benefit plans covered by ERISA. Dresser Indus. v. DILHR, 619 F. Supp. 1310 (W.D. Wis., 1985).

The prohibition against sex discrimination contained in the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act is not preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) or the National Labor Relations Act. Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. DILHR, 87 Wis. 2d 56, 273. N.W.2d 786 (1978); also, Bucyrus-Erie v. DILHR, 599 F.2d 205 (7th Cir. 1979), cert denied, 444 U.S. 1031 (1980); Brown v. DILHR, 476 F. Supp. 209 (W.D. Wis. 1979); Gen. Tel. of Wis. v. LIRC (Ct. App., Dist. IV, unpublished opinion, 10/26/81); Sorgel Elec. v. LIRC (Dobson) (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 08/10/79).

The Industrial Commission was not preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act from hearing a complaint that a pension agreement violated the age discrimination prohibition of the Act. Walker Mfg. v. Indus. Comm’n, 27 Wis. 2d 669, 135 N.W.2d 307 (1964).