126.5 Harassment because of creed

An employer cannot be found liable for religious harassment unless it is carried out directly by the employer or, if carried out by co-employees, the employer knows or should reasonably know of it and fails to take reasonable action to prevent it. An employer has fairly wide latitude to address allegations of harassment as it sees fit, provided its actions are reasonably calculated to remedy the situation and prevent future harassment. The Respondent did not permit harassment to occur when it was not aware of the harassment the Complainant was experiencing until she told the Respondent about it and, when the Respondent learned of the harassment, it issued a written warning to the co-worker who had engaged in the most egregious harassment and transferred the Complainant to a different production line in a different part of the building where she would not have to work with the two co-workers who engaged in the harassment. Sanchez v. Eillien's Candies, Inc. (LIRC, 07/31/15).

The Complainant was not subject to unlawful religious harassment where there were no acts of disparagement of the Complainant because of his beliefs. While a supervisor’s proselytizing of its employees could in some circumstances rise to the level of harassment if it were persistent, unwelcome, and created either a hostile environment or a perception on the part of an employee that a quid pro quo was contemplated, this case does not approach that level. The topic of religion and religious belief arose between the Complainant and the Respondent only sporadically, and without any significant pressure being applied to the Complainant. Brye v. Brakebush Bros. (LIRC, 01/11/93).

An employer cannot be found liable for religious harassment unless it is carried out directly by the employer or, if carried out by co-employees, the employer knows or should reasonably know about the harassment and fails to take reasonable action to prevent it. Valentin v. Clear Lake Ambulance Serv. (LIRC, 02/26/92).

Occasional and sporadic use of religious slurs, albeit deplorable, may still not rise to the level of a violation of law. Valentin v. Clear Lake Ambulance Serv. (LIRC, 02/26/92).

An employer can violate the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act’s prohibition on discrimination because of creed if it either engages directly in religious harassment of an employee (through its management or supervisory personnel) or if it tolerates religious harassment of an employee by co-workers. However, in order to constitute a violation of the Act, harassment must rise above the level of occasional and sporadic use of slurs or epithets. In this case there was some evidence of hostility directed toward the Complainant, whose creed is WICCA, by her co-workers. In some instances the Complainant’s self-identification as a witch was referred to. However, the inconsistencies in the Complainant’s evidence as to the extent of this type of conduct and her general lack of credibility left no basis for deciding how extensive that conduct may have been. The Complainant, therefore, failed to meet her burden of proving that she was subject to religious harassment that rose to a level of a violation of the Act. Catley v. Benjamin Air Rifle Co. (LIRC, 06/21/91).

An employer was not aware of a Jewish employee’s religion at the time he was discharged on the basis of his job performance, although there was evidence that a supervisor had made anti-Semitic comments in the employee’s presence. Ugent v. Gilbert’s Liquor Store (LIRC, 08/14/84).