The Respondent did not meet its burden of showing that back pay should be cut off without an offer of reinstatement. There was no evidence in the record to support a finding that the store where the Complainant worked would have closed after she was discharged. Moreover, when an employer operates several facilities in Wisconsin, the fact that it no longer operates the facility in which the Complainant was employed does not serve as a bar to an offer of reinstatement. There is no reason to presume that the Complainant would not have been offered a transfer to one of the Respondent’s other store or restaurant locations, had she remained employed, nor any reason to believe that the Respondent could not offer the Complainant instatement into a job at one of its other stores or restaurants within a reasonable commuting distance from the Complainant’s home. Weaver v. V&J Holding Companies Inc. (LIRC, 12/23/13).

Back pay was not cut off when the Respondent sold its facility following the Complainant’s discharge. Where the Respondent has been found to have retaliated against the Complainant because of prior opposition to allegedly discriminatory practices, it had the burden of proving that it would not have recommended him for hire by its successor. Savage v. Stroh Container (LIRC, 09/20/89).

Where the discharge of a restaurant employee was found to have been discriminatory and back pay was ordered, the owners of the restaurant could not escape liability for back pay owing after the date on which those owners sold their interest in the restaurant, where the evidence suggested that most, if not all, of the former employees were hired by the new owners of the restaurant and continued working there. Discrimination having been established, the burden was on the Respondent to prove that its back pay liability should be reduced. The Respondent here failed to prove that the Complainant would not have continued to receive income from employment at the restaurant even after it sold its interest in it. Buehler v. Schlueter Inv. Co. (LIRC, 06/05/87).

A qualified black applicant who was refused hire was entitled to the back pay he would have received from the date of the refusal to the time he would have been laid off. Lewis v. Safeguard Security Serv. (DILHR, 01/26/77); Kostroski v. Am. Can (DILHR, 04/28/77).

It was discrimination to terminate a part-time clerical employee pursuant to a policy of discharging employees in their fourth month of pregnancy where the employer could not show that the termination was caused by its computerization of the clerical work; however, her back pay was limited to the date on which her duties were actually phased out. Rech v. Glearson (LIRC, 10/26/77)