Ogletree Deakins • June 28, 2017
Recently signed by Governor Walker, 2017 Wisconsin Act 11 went into effect on June 23, 2017. The act has two objectives. First, it seeks to modernize the language used in the Wisconsin Statutes to refer to labor performed by minors. More specifically, references to “child labor” have been replaced with the less loaded phrase “employment of minors.” The second, more substantive change made by the act is the repeal of the requirement that 16- and 17-year-olds obtain a state-issued permit before they can begin most work activities. Previously, such minors were required to show evidence of parental permission to work, and their employers were required to reimburse them for a $10 licensing fee payable to the state.
Ogletree Deakins • April 17, 2017
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has affirmed a decision holding that a call center employee with bipolar disorder proved that he was discharged “because of” his disability by establishing he was discharged for misconduct—i.e., avoiding calls—that was caused by his disability. In light of this case, Wisconsin employers dealing with employee misconduct that could be caused by a known disability may want to proceed with caution because, in some cases, the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act may require them to excuse the misconduct as a reasonable accommodation. Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, No. 2016AP355 (March 28, 2017).
Littler Mendelson, P.C. • February 26, 2017
A bill recently proposed in Wisconsin could seriously change litigation strategy and settlement considerations for many employment claims filed with state agencies. Assembly Bill 64 would amend the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (“WFEA”), the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act (“WFMLA”), and the relatively new Organ and Bone Marrow Donation Law (“OBMDL”) by empowering both the complainant and an employer to make a statutory offer of settlement. Failing to accept such a settlement offer could result in significant financial consequences.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • October 27, 2016
There are so many stories about restrictive covenants being unenforceable in Wisconsin that it is refreshing to see a case where a restrictive covenant is enforced – especially at the preliminary injunction stage.
Ogletree Deakins • August 30, 2016
In a case of first impression, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that anti-poaching provisions in post-employment restrictive covenants are subject to the statutory regulations that govern noncompete agreements in Wisconsin.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • August 22, 2016
Analyzing an anti-poaching agreement as a non-compete agreement, a Wisconsin Court of Appeals has confirmed that a former employee’s agreement not to solicit other employees may be void and unenforceable if it is too broad. The Manitowoc Company v. Lanning, No. 2015AP1530 (Wis. Ct. App. Aug. 17, 2016). The decision offers an analysis for determining when an anti-poaching agreement goes beyond protecting the employer’s legitimate interests and becomes an unreasonable restraint of trade.
Fisher Phillips • July 07, 2016
A recent decision from the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Schetter v. Newcomer Funeral Service Group, Inc., presented a smorgasbord of juicy noncompete issues, including:
Ogletree Deakins • May 16, 2016
Effective July 1, 2016, Wisconsin law will require covered employers to provide eligible employees with up to 6 weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period to undergo and recover from bone marrow or organ donation procedures. Previously, only employees of the Wisconsin state government were entitled to leave for such donations.
Ogletree Deakins • April 26, 2016
Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law several new employer-friendly 2016 amendments to the state’s Worker’s Compensation Act. In addition to cutting the statute of limitations for traumatic injury claims in half, from 12 years to 6, the amendments also deny benefits to employees under three new provisions added to the law.
Jackson Lewis P.C. • March 22, 2016
A new Wisconsin law has repealed the state’s prohibition (which has existed for more than 50 years) on manufacturing, selling, transporting, purchasing, or possessing a switchblade and which subjected violators to $10,000 in fines and nine months in jail.