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.

551.1 Generally

A complaint under the Whistleblower Law was dismissed where the Complainant was not a state employee. Kochanowski v. Mid-State Tech. College (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/21/02).

A whistleblower disclosure must relate to circumstances which are not already common knowledge in order for the alleged retaliator to have any reason to retaliate because of it. Lane v. DOC (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 06/07/01).

The Complainant was not permitted to amend his whistleblower complaint to include the State of Wisconsin as an additional Respondent. There was clear evidence of a legislative intent not to permit the State the Wisconsin to be named as a Respondent in a complaint of whistleblower retaliation. Oriedo v. DPI (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 08/12/98).

A prima facie case involving alleged assistance “in any action or proceeding relating to the lawful disclosure of information under sec. 230.81 by another employee,” sec. 230.80(8)(b), Stats., does not require that the Complainants disclose information as provided in sec. 230.81, Stats. (e.g., in writing to the supervisor or in writing to an agency designated by the Personnel Commission). Pierce v. Wis. Lottery & DER (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 09/17/93).

To establish a prima facie case in the whistleblower retaliation context, there must be evidence that: (1) the employee participated in a protected activity and the alleged retaliator was aware of that participation, (2) there was a disciplinary action, and (3) there is a causal connection between the first two elements. Sadlier v. DHSS (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 03/30/89).

The statutory requirement that the Whistleblower Act be liberally construed has no relation to the burdens of proof of parties to litigation under the law and does not entitle the Complainant to the benefit of the doubt in resolving questions of credibility. Morkin v. UW-Madison (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 11/23/88; aff’d sub nom. Morkin v. Wis. Pers. Comm'n (Dane Co. Cir Ct., 09/27/89).

Where the Complainant’s immediate supervisor was within an executive salary group, the Complainant was not an employee under the Whistleblower law and was ineligible to file a complaint under that law. Crownhart v. Investment Bd. (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 01/13/88).

The definition of “employee” in sec. 230.80(3), Stats., should be liberally construed to permit claims arising from an earlier employment relationship, even if the alleged retaliation occurred after the Complainant had stopped working for the employer. Hollinger v. UW-Milwaukee (Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 11/21/85).