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.

117.6 Worker’s Compensation Act (Ch. 102, Stats.)

The fact that redress might be available to the Complainant under either the Workers’ Compensation Act or the Wisconsin Open Personnel Records Law would not prohibit the Complainant from stating a claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, provided the conduct alleged was otherwise covered under the Act. Ferguson v. Buechel Stone Corp. (LIRC, 10/31/01).

The exclusive remedy provision in the Wisconsin Worker’s Compensation Act does not bar a claimant whose claim is covered under that Act from pursuing a claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act for discrimination in employment. Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997).

Where an employee enters into a compromise settlement under sec. 102.16(1), Stats., of the Worker’s Compensation Act, the employee is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Worker’s Compensation Act from seeking additional relief under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act for handicap discrimination. Marson v. LIRC, 178 Wis. 2d 118, 503 N.W.2d 582 (Ct. App. 1993). [Ed. note: In B,Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997), the Supreme Court overruled this case “to the extent that it stands for the proposition that ‘(t)he right of the employee to recover compensation provided for by worker’s compensation is exclusive of all remedies against the employer.’” (emphasis included)].

The Complainant alleged that the Respondent refused to rehire him because of mental retardation and because of a back injury suffered at work. The Worker's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for the Respondent's refusal to rehire the Complainant because of his back injury, but the claim that the Respondent refused to rehire the Complainant because of his mental retardation should not have been dismissed. The mental retardation handicap claim was not related to his work-related back injury. Norris v. DILHR, 155 Wis. 2d 337, 455 N.W.2d 665 (Ct. App. 1990). [Ed. note: The Supreme Court disavowed the reasoning of Norris in Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997)].

Because sec. 102.35(3), Stats. provides a remedy under the Worker's Compensation Act for a refusal to rehire after a work-related injury, and because sec. 102.03(2), Stats. provides that remedies under the Worker's Compensation Act are the exclusive remedy for the employee, the Equal Rights Division has no jurisdiction in cases arising out of a refusal to rehire after a work-related injury. Schachtner v. DILHR, 144 Wis. 2d 1, 422 N.W.2d 906 (Ct. App. 1988). [Ed. note: This decision was overruled by Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997)].