129.1 Coverage, generally

The Complainant argued that her marital status was that of a divorced parent (as opposed to that of simply being divorced). The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act provides no special protections for divorced parents. Gersmehl v. Acuity Mutual Ins. Co. (LIRC, 07/29/11).

The proscription against discrimination on the basis of marital status does not prohibit employer action that is triggered by the employee’s conduct, rather than the employee’s status as a married individual. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act is not intended to protect an employee’s right to engage in an extramarital affair. The evidence in this case overwhelmingly showed that the Respondent terminated the Complainant’s employment as a sales manager due to its concerns regarding the effect his relationship with a part-time employee was having on its employees and business, as well as a concern regarding the potential risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit against the Respondent. Dobberstein v. NSight Telservices (LIRC, 02/23/07).

The WFEA creates an exception to marital status discrimination by allowing anti-nepotism policies, despite their disparate impact on married people as a class. The prohibition against marital status discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act is intended to protected the status of being married in general, rather than the status of being married to a particular person. Bammert v. LIRC, 2000 WI App 28, 232 Wis. 2d 365, 606 N.W.2d 620.

The Complainant failed to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted where the basis of her claim was that the Respondent refused to pay her for providing personal and medical care to her husband, who was severely disabled. Mack v. Waushara County (LIRC, 05/08/96).

An employer who demands that an employee place work before his or her personal life does not discriminate on the basis of marital status. Perrett v. CPI Corp. (LIRC, 11/15/95).

It was not unlawful discrimination on the basis of marital status for the Respondent to object to the Complainant submitting medical excuses for absences which were signed by her husband, who was a physician. The Respondent’s objection was premised not on the marital relationship per se, but on the inherent conflict of interest involved. Earnhart v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n 11/19/92).

Discrimination against a person because he is engaged in an interracial marriage is race discrimination. Miner v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi (LIRC, 05/29/91), aff’d sub nom. Miner v. LIRC (Rock Co. Cir. Ct., 04/07/92).

An anti-nepotism policy might be subject to attack as having a disparate impact on the employment opportunities of married persons as a class. A blanket anti-nepotism policy might also be considered a direct imposition on the right to marry and, thus, on the marital relationship, such as to constitute marital status discrimination under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Miner v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi (LIRC, 05/29/91), aff’d sub nom. Miner v. LIRC (Rock Co. Cir. Ct., 04/07/92).

A company policy prohibiting employees from dating or living together does not constitute marital status discrimination because the policy applies equally to all employees, regardless of marital status, and attempts to regulate conduct rather than the status of being married or single. Vaisman v. Aldridge, Inc. (LIRC, 10/21/91).

“Going through a divorce” cannot be equated with the statutory definition of marital status, which is defined as “the status of being married, single, divorced, separated or widowed.” The Complainant’s act of filing for divorce did not change her marital status as being married. Therefore, in order to prevail on her claim of marital status discrimination, she would have had to establish that the Respondent treated married people differently. Scheife v. Apple Chevrolet (LIRC, 09/11/91).

A Respondent’s statement that he paid females less because they had “someone at home to take care of them,” demonstrates an unfortunately traditional attitude sometimes held towards working women which is essentially a matter of sex discrimination, not a matter of a distinction between persons because they are married, single, divorced or separated. Sahr v. Tastee Bakery (LIRC, 01/22/91).

The Respondent did not violate the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act when it discharged the Complainant because the Complainant’s wife did not move with him to another state within a certain length of time after the Complainant was transferred there. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not prohibit an employment act simply because it is unfair or arbitrary and involves the individual’s spouse. Rather, it prohibits discrimination based on an individual’s marital status. Birk v. Georgia-Pacific (LIRC, 08/03/90), aff’d sub nom. Birk v. LIRC, (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 01/04/91).

A rule prohibiting the romantic association of any employee with a married employee of the opposite sex does not discriminate on the basis of marital status. The rule prohibits single and married employees equally from forming romantic associations with married employees. Federated Elec. v. Kessler, 131 Wis. 2d 189, 388 N.W.2d 553 (1986).