842 Termination of employment

The Respondent was found to have violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act by discharging the Complainant because of arrest record; however because the underlying criminal charges against the Complainant were not yet resolved, the Complainant was not entitled to a monetary remedy. The Respondent could have suspended the Complainant without pay or other benefits until the charges against him were resolved. The appropriate remedy is to order the Complainant reinstated to “suspended” status. Maline v. Wis. Bell (LIRC, 10/30/89).

Where the employer violated the Act by terminating an employee because of arrest, but where the acts the employee was arrested for were substantially related to her job so that suspension of the employee would have been permitted, and where the employer permanently went out of business prior to the resolution of the charges against the Complainant, no remedy of any sort was granted. No back pay was appropriate since the Complainant would have appropriately been on suspension for all time periods up to the closing of the business, and neither reinstatement nor a cease and desist order would be appropriate since the Respondent was permanently out of business. Shipley v. Town & Country Rest. (LIRC, 07/14/87).

Where the Complainant and another employee had both engaged in disruptive conduct, but the Complainant and not the other employee was discharged, and the Commission found that the discharge was discriminatory, the Commission properly held that the Complainant's back pay entitlement ended at the time that the employer subsequently terminated the other employee whose conduct had been the same as that of the Complainant's. It was a rational interpretation of the statute that the discrimination was eliminated by the firing of the other employee. Pike v. LIRC (Waukesha Co. Cir. Ct., 08/08/85).

An employee who was unlawfully discharged as a welder was granted reinstatement with all rights, privileges, benefits, seniority and remuneration he would have received but for the unlawful disqualification, including loss of pay and other benefits, from the date he was certified by his physician as able to safely return to work until the date of his reinstatement. Chicago & N.W. R.R. v. LIRC, 91 Wis. 2d 462, 283 N.W.2d 603 (Ct. App. 1979).

A male who was discriminatorily discharged received, in addition to an award of reinstatement and full seniority, back pay, including lost earnings and compensation for four weeks of vacation pay and three paid holidays he would have received but for the unlawful discrimination. Lienhardt v. Pacon (LIRC, 09/16/77).

An unlawfully discharged firefighter was entitled to all the benefits he would have received absent the discrimination, including outside part-time earnings, lost medical expenses incurred after his health insurance coverage lapsed and veteran’s benefits he would have received if he had been allowed to complete his probationary period. Berndt v. City of Wis. Rapids (DILHR, 12/01/76), aff’d sub nom. City of Wis. Rapids v. DILHR (Wood Co. Cir. Ct., 08/23/76).