Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 134.02 (2026)
Blacklisting and coercion of employees
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
134.02(1)(1) Any 2 or more persons, whether members of a partnership or company or stockholders in a corporation, who are employers of labor and who shall combine or agree to combine for any of the following purposes shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, which fine shall be paid into the state treasury for the benefit of the school fund:
134.02(1)(b)(b) Procuring or causing the discharge of any employee by threats, promises, circulating blacklists or causing blacklists to be circulated.
134.02(1)(c)(c) After having discharged any employee, preventing or attempting to prevent the employee from obtaining employment with any other person, partnership, company or corporation by the means described in par. (a) or (b).
134.02(1)(d)(d) Authorizing, permitting or allowing any of their agents to blacklist any discharged employee or any employee who has voluntarily left the service of his or her employer.
134.02(1)(e)(e) Circulating a blacklist of an employee who has voluntarily left the service of an employer to prevent the employee’s obtaining employment under any other employer.
134.02(1)(f)(f) Coercing or compelling any person to enter into an agreement not to unite with or become a member of any labor organization as a condition of his or her securing employment or continuing therein.
134.02(2)(a)(a) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any employer from giving any other employer, to whom a discharged employee has applied for employment, or to any bondsman or surety, a truthful statement of the reasons for the employee’s discharge, when requested to do so by any of the following:
134.02(2)(b)(b) It shall be a violation of this section to give a statement of the reasons for the employee’s discharge with the intent to blacklist, hinder or prevent the discharged employee from obtaining employment.
134.02(2)(c)(c) Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any employer from keeping for the employer’s own information and protection a record showing the habits, character and competency of the employer’s employees and the cause of the discharge or voluntary quitting of any of them.
134.02 AnnotationTo plead a claim for blacklisting, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) the defendants acted together; 2) with malice; and 3) with a common purpose to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining employment. Deeren v. Anderson, 518 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (2021).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Heideman v. Wirsing, 840 F. Supp. 1285 (W.D. Wis. 1992).
Heideman v. Wirsing, 840 F. Supp. 1285 (W.D. Wis. 1992). “Heideman’s § 134.02 claim alleges that defendants conspired to prevent him from continuing his employment with the City of Phillips and to prevent Mm from obtaining other employment.”
Deeren, Kevin v. Anderson, Richard (W.D. Wis. 2021). “01 , against Semingson and Reinders; and (4) blacklisting of employees under Wis. Stat. § 134.02 , against Semingson and Reinders.”
Deeren, Kevin v. Anderson, Richard (W.D. Wis. 2021). “01 against Semingson and Reinders; and (4) blacklisting of employees under Wis. Stat. § 134.02 against Semingson and Reinders.”
Penny Powell v. Gregory E. Patten (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “CODE § 134.02(14) as defining “[t]ourist or transient occupant[]” as a “person[] who occup[ies] a dwelling unit for less than 60 days while traveling away from [his or her] permanent place of residence.”
Vargo, Victor v. Barca, Peter (W.D. Wis. 2022). “Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.02(1)(c) (3d ed. 2016). In this circuit, when one panel disagrees with a previous panel’s decision, the proper procedure is to seek approval from the full court to overrule the earlier decision.”
Keith v. Carlson (E.D. Wis. 2025). “, Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.02[1][d], p. 134-26 (3d ed. 2011).”).”
Lumino, Inc. v. Lumi Importing Ltd. (W.D. Wis. 2025). “, Moore's Federal Practice § 134.02[1] [d], p. 134-26 (3d ed. 2011).”
— Wis. Stat. § 134.02(1)(c) — 1 case
Vargo, Victor v. Barca, Peter (W.D. Wis. 2022). “Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice § 134.02(1)(c) (3d ed. 2016). In this circuit, when one panel disagrees with a previous panel’s decision, the proper procedure is to seek approval from the full court to overrule the earlier decision.”
— Wis. Stat. § 134.02(14) — 1 case
Penny Powell v. Gregory E. Patten (Wis. Ct. App. 2020). “CODE § 134.02(14) as defining “[t]ourist or transient occupant[]” as a “person[] who occup[ies] a dwelling unit for less than 60 days while traveling away from [his or her] permanent place of residence.”
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.