Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (2026)

Declaration of policy

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

111.31111.31 Declaration of policy.

111.31(1)(1) The legislature finds that the practice of unfair discrimination in employment against properly qualified individuals by reason of their age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, substantially and adversely affects the general welfare of the state. Employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing agencies that deny employment opportunities and discriminate in employment against properly qualified individuals solely because of their age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, deprive those individuals of the earnings that are necessary to maintain a just and decent standard of living.

111.31(2)(2) It is the intent of the legislature to protect by law the rights of all individuals to obtain gainful employment and to enjoy privileges free from employment discrimination because of age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters, and to encourage the full, nondiscriminatory utilization of the productive resources of the state to the benefit of the state, the family, and all the people of the state. It is the intent of the legislature in promulgating this subchapter to encourage employers to evaluate an employee or applicant for employment based upon the individual qualifications of the employee or applicant rather than upon a particular class to which the individual may belong.

111.31(3)(3) 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 age, race, creed, color, disability, marital status, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, arrest record, conviction record, military service, use or nonuse of lawful products off the employer’s premises during nonworking hours, or declining to attend a meeting or to participate in any communication about religious matters or political matters. Nothing in this subsection requires an affirmative action program to correct an imbalance in the work force. This subchapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.

111.31(4)(4) The practice of requiring employees or prospective employees to submit to a test administered by means of a lie detector, as defined in s. 111.37 (1) (b), is unfair, the practice of requesting employees and prospective employees to submit to such a test without providing safeguards for the test subjects is unfair, and the use of improper tests and testing procedures causes injury to the employees and prospective employees.

111.31(5)(5) The legislature finds that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of creed under s. 111.337 is a matter of statewide concern, requiring uniform enforcement at state, county and municipal levels.

111.31 HistoryHistory: 1977 c. 125; 1979 c. 319; 1981 c. 112, 334, 391; 1987 a. 63; 1991 a. 289, 310, 315; 1997 a. 112; 2007 a. 159; 2009 a. 290.

111.31 AnnotationThe Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations is not limited to finding sex discrimination only when a 14th amendment equal protection violation can also be found. Wisconsin Telephone Co. v. DILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 345, 228 N.W.2d 649 (1975).

111.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA), this subchapter, is more direct and positive in prohibiting sex discrimination in employment than is the basic constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws; enforcement of the law is not limited by the “rational basis” or “reasonableness” tests employed in 14th amendment cases. Ray-O-Vac v. DILHR, 70 Wis. 2d 919, 236 N.W.2d 209 (1975).

111.31 AnnotationSection 118.20 is not the exclusive remedy of a wronged teacher; it is supplementary to the remedy under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. The general provisions of s. 893.80 are superseded by the specific authority of the act. Kurtz v. City of Waukesha, 91 Wis. 2d 103, 280 N.W.2d 757 (1979).

111.31 AnnotationAn employee who was not handicapped, but perceived by the employer to be so, was entitled to protection under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Dairy Equipment Co. v. DILHR, 95 Wis. 2d 319, 290 N.W.2d 330 (1980).

111.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Fair Employment Act provides the exclusive remedy for retaliatory discrimination. Bourque v. Wausau Hospital Center, 145 Wis. 2d 589, 427 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1988).

111.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Fair Employment Act does not apply to national guard personnel decisions; federal law prevents the state from regulating personnel criteria of the national guard. Hazelton v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 178 Wis. 2d 776, 505 N.W.2d 793 (Ct. App. 1993).

111.31 AnnotationThe exclusive remedy provision in s. 102.03 (2) does not bar a complainant whose claim is covered by the Workers Compensation Act from pursuing an employment discrimination claim under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Byers v. LIRC, 208 Wis. 2d 388, 561 N.W.2d 678 (1997), 95-2490.

111.31 AnnotationThis act protects all employees, including prospective and de facto employees. 67 Atty. Gen. 169.

111.31 AnnotationState courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal Title VII civil rights actions. Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 110 S. Ct. 1566, 108 L. Ed. 2d 834 (1990).

111.31 AnnotationThe federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not preempt state fair employment laws prohibiting discriminatory exclusion of pregnancy benefits in disability plans. Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. DILHR, 599 F.2d 205 (1979).

111.31 AnnotationNo private right of action exists under this subchapter. Busse v. Gelco Express Corp., 678 F. Supp. 1398 (1988).

111.31 AnnotationWisconsin’s Fair Employment Act: Coverage, Procedures, Substance, Remedies. Angle. 1975 WLR 696.

111.31 AnnotationPerceived Handicap under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Rollins. 1988 WLR 639.

111.31 AnnotationThe Wisconsin Fair Employment Act and the 1982 amendments. Rice. WBB Aug. 1982.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 101 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Coulee Catholic Schs. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2009 WI 88 (Wis. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Coulee Catholic Schs. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2009 WI 88 (Wis. 2009). · cites it 12× “PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 23 Following her termination, Ostlund filed an age discrimination complaint with the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin *876 Department of Workforce Development ("Equal Rights Division").”

Am. Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 305 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. 1981). · cites it 10× “(3) of sec. 111.31, Stats., the legislature stated: ".”

Stoughton Trailers, Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2007 WI 105 (Wis. 2007). · cites it 8× “" Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3). ¶ 23 Wisconsin Stat.”

Crystal Lake Cheese Factory v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2003 WI 106 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 8× “LIRC determined that Susan Catlin (Catlin) was an individual with a disability within the meaning of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA), Wis. Stat. § 111.31 -.395 (1999-2000), [2] and that Crystal Lake Cheese Factory had discriminated against her based on her disability…”

Watkins v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. 1984). · cites it 6× “) Although sec. 111.31, Stats. 1975, subsequently was amended, the basic content remained unchanged.”

Motola v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 580 N.W.2d 297 (Wis. 1998). · cites it 13× “Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3). ¶ 50. In this case the City of New Berlin's denial of Connie Motola's request for health insurance coverage under a policy in her name was discrimination based on her marital status.”

Anderson v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 330 N.W.2d 594 (Wis. 1983). · cites it 8× “31(3), Stats. 1973. (Emphasis added.) *255 The Fair Employment Act is designed to prevent discrimination which “tends to deprive the victims of the earnings which are necessary to maintain a just and decent standard of living.”

Tina Haskenhoff v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, 897 N.W.2d 553 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “”); Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (1961) (“All the provisions of this subchapter shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.”

Byers v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 561 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1997). · cites it 6× “Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3) 7 ¶ 24. The purposes of the two statutes are very different.”

Am. Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 286 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 10× “[3] Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has stressed in other discrimination cases the express legislative intent set forth in sec. 111.31, Stats., that the Act must be *27 liberally construed to effect its broad purpose of eliminating practices which have a discriminatory…”

State v. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106 (Wis. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “§ 111.31 (1983-84) (declaring that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against public policy).”

Cree, Inc. v. LIRC, 2022 WI 15 (Wis. 2022). · cites it 7× “" Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3). It therefore follows that we must narrowly construe exceptions such as § 111.”

Show all 101 citing cases →

— Wis. Stat. § 111.31(1) — 8 cases

Am. Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 286 N.W.2d 847 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “[3] Further, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has stressed in other discrimination cases the express legislative intent set forth in sec. 111.31, Stats., that the Act must be *27 liberally construed to effect its broad purpose of eliminating practices which have a discriminatory…”

Anderson v. State Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 330 N.W.2d 594 (Wis. 1983). “31(3), Stats. 1973. (Emphasis added.) *255 The Fair Employment Act is designed to prevent discrimination which “tends to deprive the victims of the earnings which are necessary to maintain a just and decent standard of living.”

Cree, Inc. v. LIRC, 2022 WI 15 (Wis. 2022). “" Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3). It therefore follows that we must narrowly construe exceptions such as § 111.”

Wingra Redi-Mix Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2023 WI App 34 (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).

Hempel v. City of Baraboo, 2003 WI App 254 (Wis. Ct. App. 2003).

— Wis. Stat. § 111.31(2) — 9 cases

Hutchinson Tech., Inc. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 2004 WI 90 (Wis. 2004).

Byers v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 561 N.W.2d 678 (Wis. 1997). “Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3) 7 ¶ 24. The purposes of the two statutes are very different.”

Racine Unified Sch. Dist. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 476 N.W.2d 707 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).

Cnty. of La Crosse v. Wisconsin Emp. Relations Comm'n, 513 N.W.2d 579 (Wis. 1994).

Cree, Inc. v. LIRC, 2022 WI 15 (Wis. 2022). “" Wis. Stat. § 111.31 (3). It therefore follows that we must narrowly construe exceptions such as § 111.”

— Wis. Stat. § 111.31(3) — 22 cases

Am. Motors Corp. v. Dep't of Indus., Labor & Human Relations, 305 N.W.2d 62 (Wis. 1981). “(3) of sec. 111.31, Stats., the legislature stated: ".”

Watkins v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 345 N.W.2d 482 (Wis. 1984). “) Although sec. 111.31, Stats. 1975, subsequently was amended, the basic content remained unchanged.”

Am. Motors Corp. v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 350 N.W.2d 120 (Wis. 1984).

City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 407 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1987).

— Wis. Stat. § 111.31(8)(c) — 1 case

City of La Crosse Police & Fire Comm'n v. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n, 385 N.W.2d 516 (Wis. Ct. App. 1986).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.