Braatz v. Labor and Industry Review Com'n, 91-1891
| Decision Date | 02 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1891,91-1891 |
| Citation | 174 Wis.2d 286,496 N.W.2d 597 |
| Parties | , 61 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 561, 62 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 42,464, 61 USLW 2586, 81 Ed. Law Rep. 306, 16 Employee Benefits Cas. 2546 Theodore R. BRAATZ, Joanne Helen Wright, Susan E. Flemmen, Roxanne Lambert and Saundra O. Kortesma, Petitioners-Respondents, v. LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant-Petitioner. . Oral Argument |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
For the respondent-appellant-petitioner the cause was argued by Bruce A. Olsen, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom on the briefs was James E. Doyle, Atty. Gen.
For the petitioners-respondents there was a brief by Timothy E. Hawks and Shneidman, Myers, Dowling & Blumenfield, Milwaukee and oral argument by Mr. Hawks.
Amicus curiae brief was filed by Chris Galinat and Melissa A. Cherney, Madison for the Wisconsin Educ. Ass'n Council.
The issue in this case is whether the Labor and Industry Review Commission ("LIRC") properly concluded that the marital status provisions of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act ("WFEA") permit the school district of Maple's health insurance nonduplication policy. The circuit court answered in the negative, and LIRC appealed from the judgment. The court of appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment in Braatz v. LIRC, 168 Wis.2d 124, 483 N.W.2d 246 (Ct.App.1992).
We affirm the court of appeals reversal of LIRC's decision. The school district of Maple's nonduplication policy constitutes marital status discrimination which is prohibited under the WFEA. Health insurance is not excepted from this prohibition, expressly or implicitly.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The plaintiffs are teachers employed by the Maple School District. Each teacher is married; each teacher's spouse is employed; and each spouse's employer offers health insurance benefits to the spouse.
The 1986-87 collective bargaining agreement between the Maple Federation of Teachers and the Maple Board of Education provides as follows:
Article V-A. Insurance. Health, Life, Dental and Long Term Disability.
Section 1. Health and Hospitalization Insurance Coverage:
Hospital, medical and major medical coverage for the employees and their family will be provided if requested by the employee through the existing contract with the insurance company presently providing coverage to district employees. All requests for hospital, medical, and major medical will be subjected to the limitations outlined in a, b, c and d below:
a. All single employees may request single coverage under this plan.
b. Unmarried person who has the care custody or support of any minor children of said unmarried person is eligible for family coverage if the policy so warrants.
c. A married employee is entitled to family coverage.
d. A married teacher who [sic] spouse is eligible for family coverage at his/her place of work shall have the option of carrying either the district's policy or the spouse's policy but not both. If the spouse carries a single plan, the employee of the district shall be eligible for a single plan through the district.
(1) Employees who are presently duplicating insurance coverage who do not fall into the above guidelines would be allowed to do so if they notify the school district that they wish to have the premium for health insurance deducted from their paycheck. Employees who do not fall into the above guidelines who are duplicating insurance and do not wish to have the premium deducted from their paycheck will have to notify the school district that they wish to have their health coverage with the district terminated.
(2) The Board would allow duplicate coverage if the employee's other insurance policy provided significantly less coverage than the School District of Maple's policy. This would be determined by the school administration.
The LIRC describes this condition of employment as simply a "health insurance non-duplication policy." However, it is a non-duplication policy applicable only to married employees. Married employees, with employed spouses who are covered by comparable employer provided health insurance, are forced to elect the district's policy or the spouse's policy. 1 The plaintiffs in this case were forced to make this election.
The WFEA prohibits employers from "discriminat[ing] against any individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment" on the basis of marital status. Section 111.322(1) 2; sec. 111.321, Stats. 3 Section 111.32(12) defines marital status as "the status of being married, single, divorced, separated or widowed."
There is only one express exception to this prohibition against marital status discrimination. It provides as follows: "Notwithstanding s. 111.322, it is not employment discrimination because of marital status to prohibit an individual from directly supervising or being directly supervised by his or her spouse." Section 111.345, Stats.
The declaration of policy in sec. 111.31(3), Stats., mandates liberal construction of the WFEA:
In the interpretation and application of this subchapter, and otherwise, it is declared to be the public policy of the state to encourage and foster to the fullest extent practicable the employment of all properly qualified individuals regardless of ... marital status.... This subchapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.
LIRC argues that the school district of Maple's policy does not discriminate based on marital status. Instead, application of the policy is triggered by the conduct of an employee's spouse (choosing to work, accepting health insurance benefits from an employer, etc.) rather than marital status. Because LIRC did not rely on this rationale in its decision, we review this interpretation of the school district's policy de novo.
We disagree with LIRC's interpretation. The school district's policy constitutes marital status discrimination. It is only married employees with duplicate coverage who must make a choice between the district's policy or the policy provided by their spouse's employer. Single employees who have health insurance coverage from another source are not forced to choose between that coverage and the district's coverage.
Moreover, the choice required by the district's policy does not account for an employee's death or divorce, which may terminate the former spouse's coverage through the district and leave him or her unable to obtain a single or family policy elsewhere, especially if not qualifying healthwise. This problem would not exist if spouses were allowed to accept their employer-provided health insurance in addition to the district's coverage.
Also, insurance companies consider double policies within a family by allowing coverage only by a primary carrier. The policy can state that it is secondary to any other coverage and therefore the premium can be lower. This, of course, will raise an issue of which policy is primary coverage.
In its decision, LIRC concluded that the school district's policy did not violate the WFEA because health insurance benefits are implicitly excepted from the WFEA's prohibition against marital status discrimination. In support of its implied exception theory, LIRC argues that the fact that the state of Wisconsin, as an employer and by statute, offers different health insurance benefits to married and single employees evinces a legislative intent to allow employers in general to do the same.
LIRC specifically refers to two state practices. First, the state offers dependant health insurance benefits to an employee's spouse but not to an employee's adult companion, although dependant in fact. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue v. Hogan
...and other legal principles to the facts of the case. It is a question of law, which we decide de novo. See Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis.2d 286, 293, 496 N.W.2d 597, 600 (1993). The Hogans' arguments on the question are based on the department's failure to seek judicial review of the commission's......
-
St. John's Home of Milwaukee v. Department of Health & Social Services
...statutes, administrative rules and federal regulations involve questions of law that we review de novo. See Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis.2d 286, 293, 496 N.W.2d 597, 600 (1993). St. John's claims that the 1993 Methods did not contain specific provisions allowing the offset of investment income a......
-
State v. Koopmans, s. 94-2424-C
...this court reviews de novo. Wagner Mobil, Inc. v. City of Madison, 190 Wis.2d 585, 591-92, 527 N.W.2d 301 (1995); Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis.2d 286, 293, 496 N.W.2d 597 (1993). Accordingly, we owe no deference to the decisions of the circuit court and court of appeals. Colby v. Columbia County......
-
State v. Koopmans, No. 94-2424 (Wis. 6/13/1997), 94-2424.
...court reviews de novo. Wagner Mobile, Inc. v. City of Madison, 190 Wis. 2d 585, 591-92, 527 N.W.2d 301 (1995); Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis. 2d 286, 293, 496 N.W.2d 597 (1993). Accordingly, we owe no deference to the decisions of the circuit court and court of appeals. Colby v. Columbia County, ......