129.4 Cases

The Respondent had a policy which did not proscribe affairs by employees with married co-employees, but which did require that employees be discreet when they carry out an extramarital affair. This policy did not constitute marital status discrimination. Olmanson v. DHFS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 01/19/01).

The Complainant established that the Respondent discriminated against her because of her sex and her marital status in regard to compensation through testimony that the Respondent’s owner made overtly discriminatory statements when approached about increasing the Complainant’s pay to bring it more in line with the pay of male sales representatives. Comments made by the owner included the following: (1) that “between [the Complainant] and her husband, they made enough money”; (2) that “a ‘snatch’ didn’t need to make that much money”; (3) that the Complainant had gotten good results from some accounts because “she was probably screwing the meat manager”; (4) that he was “paying her husband enough and she’s a woman and she’s compensated properly and she doesn’t need any more, any additional compensation;” and (5) that the Complainant “was a good heifer or a good cow and she would produce but we don’t have to give her any more.” Forster v. Abbyland Processing (LIRC, 03/22/95), aff’d sub nom. Abbyland Processing v. LIRC (Marathon Co. Cir. Ct., 01/25/96); aff’d, 206 Wis. 2d 309, 557 N.W.2d 419 (Ct. App. 1999).

The Complainant was not discriminated against on the basis of marital status where the interviewer made remarks to her about her work and family responsibilities. Such remarks may have been precipitated by the Complainant’s résumé, which stated, “available for assignments involving some travel.” Further, there was no evidence that the Complainant’s response to the interviewer was considered in arriving at her score on the interview. Bell-White v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm’n, 04/30/92).