Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (2026)
Demotion; dismissal; procedure
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
63.10(1)(1) Whenever a person possessing appointing power in the county, the chief executive officer of a department, board or institution, the county park commission, county election commission, civil service commission, and county board of welfare as to officers and employees under their respective jurisdictions, believes that an officer or employee in the classified service in that person’s, commission’s or board’s department has acted in such a manner as to show the officer or employee to be incompetent to perform the officer’s or employee’s duties or to have merited demotion or dismissal, the person, commission or board shall report in writing to the civil service commission setting forth specifically the complaint against the officer or employee, and may suspend the officer or employee at the time such complaint is filed. It is the duty of the director of personnel to file charges against any officer or employee in the classified service upon receipt of evidence showing cause for demotion or discharge of the officer or employee in cases where a department head or appointing authority neglects or refuses to file charges. Charges may be filed by any citizen against an officer or employee in the classified service where in the judgment of the commission the facts alleged under oath by the citizen and supported by affidavit of one or more witnesses would if charged and established amount to cause for the discharge of the officer or employee. The commission shall forthwith notify the accused officer or employee of the filing of the charges and on request provide the officer or employee with a copy of the same. Nothing in this subsection shall limit the power of the department head to suspend a subordinate for a reasonable period not exceeding 10 days. In case an employee is again suspended within 6 months for any period whatever, the employee so suspended shall have the right of hearing by the commission on the second suspension or any subsequent suspension within said period the same as herein provided for in demotion or dismissal proceedings.
63.10(2)(2) The commission shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of said charges, the time to be within 3 weeks after the filing of the same, and notify the person possessing the appointing power and the accused of the time and place of such hearing. At the termination of the hearing the commission shall determine whether or not the charge is well founded and shall take such action by way of suspension, demotion, discharge or reinstatement, as it may deem requisite and proper under the circumstances and as its rules may provide. The decision of the commission shall be final. Neither the person possessing the appointing power nor the accused shall have the right to be represented by counsel at said hearing, but the commission may in its discretion permit the accused to be represented by counsel and may request the presence of an assistant district attorney to act with the commission in an advisory capacity.
63.10(3)(3) If the county and a labor organization representing employees of the county enter into a collective bargaining agreement under subch. IV of ch. 111, the agreement may provide that the provisions of the agreement relating to dismissal, demotion and suspension shall supersede this section with respect to employees covered by the agreement while the agreement is in effect. This subsection does not apply to any action under sub. (1) to suspend an employee with pay.
63.10 AnnotationThe ten day suspension under sub. (1) applies only to minor cases warranting intradepartmental discipline, not to serious charges referred to the civil service commission. State ex rel. Messner v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission, 56 Wis. 2d 438, 202 N.W.2d 13 (1972).
63.10 AnnotationThe time limitation under sub. (2) is mandatory. Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission, 82 Wis. 2d 565, 263 N.W.2d 214 (1978).
63.10 AnnotationWhen an employee resigns and adequately alleges that the resignation is coerced, a timely demand for reinstatement or a hearing requires the commission to schedule a hearing. Watkins v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission, 88 Wis. 2d 411, 276 N.W.2d 775 (1979).
63.10 AnnotationReview of an order under this section shall be by certiorari. State ex rel. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee County Personnel Review Board, 176 Wis. 2d 706, 500 N.W.2d 634 (1993).
63.10 AnnotationA county rule that allowed the imposition of a reevaluation period after suspension of an employee did not conflict with sub. (2) or s. 59.52 (8). The legislative decision in sub. (2) to permit a local government to impose discipline as its rules provide was dispositive in this case. When there had been a just cause determination and hearing for the conduct at issue, the county could impose a reevaluation period with consequences for another instance of that conduct without running afoul of the requirements of the statutes. However, the reevaluation period was required to conform to the county rule’s requirements for specificity and relationship to the employee’s violations. State ex rel. Miller v. Milwaukee County Personnel Review Board, 2016 WI App 83, 372 Wis. 2d 440, 887 N.W.2d 919, 15-2118.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1962–2020 · leading case: Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2001 WI 65 (Wis. 2001).
Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2001 WI 65 (Wis. 2001). “The word "cause" also appears in Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (1997-98), 3 a section included in the chapter entitled "County and City Civil Service.”
Karow v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 263 N.W.2d 214 (Wis. 1978). “See sec. 63.10(1), Stats. At the same time there is a public interest — which is shared by the employee — in the employee not being wrongly deprived of his or her livelihood and not suffering injury to reputation on the basis of charges which might prove unfounded.”
Watkins v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 276 N.W.2d 775 (Wis. 1979). “The court did not reach the merits of the petitioner’s contention that the Commission was required to hold a hearing under sec. 63.10, Stats. The petitioner moved the court for reconsideration of its order and for a decision on the merits.”
Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Markel Ins., 2012 WI 26 (Wis. 2012). “2d 214 (1978) (interpreting Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (2) (1975-76), which provided that the county civil service commission "shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of said charges [allegedly meriting an employee's demotion or dismissal], the time to be within 3 weeks after the…”
Koenig v. Pierce Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 WI App 23 (Wis. Ct. App. 2016). “Karow then petitioned the circuit court for a writ of mandamus, arguing Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (2) required the Commission to hold the hearing within three weeks after the complaint was filed.”
State Ex Rel. Iushewitz v. Milwaukee Cnty. Pers. Review Bd., 500 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. 1993). “We hold that the circuit court lacked the necessary jurisdiction to review the second order of the Board and therefore affirm the court of appeals. Milwaukee County Ordinance, Sec.”
State Ex Rel. Irany v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 118 N.W.2d 137 (Wis. 1962). “(2) of sec. 63.10, Stats., the legislature has provided that "the commission shall appoint a time and place for the hearing of said charges, .”
Vill. of Elm Grove v. Richard K. Brefka, 2013 WI 54 (Wis. 2013). “The statute that set forth the time limit, Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (2), provided that the Civil Service Commission "shall" appoint a time and place for the hearing within three weeks after the complaint was filed.”
State ex rel. Milwaukee Cnty. Pers. Review Bd. v. Clarke, 2006 WI App 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “was demoted when he was relieved of his supervisory duties, informed that he was being demoted, and his rank was reduced from a Sergeant to a Deputy"; (2) Clarke exceeded his authority when he demoted Dickau prior to a just caúse finding by the PRB on Clarke's charges against…”
Webster v. Milwaukee Cnty., 731 F. Supp. 2d 837 (E.D. Wis. 2010). “Although the decision of the PRB is considered final, Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (2), “[i]t is well established in this state that where there are no statutory provisions for judicial review, the action of a board or commission may be reviewed by way of certiorari.”
Patterson v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin Sys., 350 N.W.2d 612 (Wis. 1984). “The court noted that, “Treating coerced resignations as discharges for purposes of hearings under sec. 63.10, Stats., fits well with the policies of security of tenure and impartial evaluation which underlie the civil service system.”
State Ex Rel. Dela Hunt v. Ward, 132 N.W.2d 523 (Wis. 1965). “A separation is distinguishable from discharge in that upon a separation the probationer may be restored to an *350 appropriate eligible list by the commission and again certified to other departments, while a discharge or dismissal as used in sec. 63.10, Stats., contemplates a…”
— Wis. Stat. § 63.10(1) — 4 cases
Karow v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 263 N.W.2d 214 (Wis. 1978). “See sec. 63.10(1), Stats. At the same time there is a public interest — which is shared by the employee — in the employee not being wrongly deprived of his or her livelihood and not suffering injury to reputation on the basis of charges which might prove unfounded.”
Milwaukee Dist. Council 48 v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2001 WI 65 (Wis. 2001). “The word "cause" also appears in Wis. Stat. § 63.10 (1997-98), 3 a section included in the chapter entitled "County and City Civil Service.”
State ex rel. Milwaukee Cnty. Pers. Review Bd. v. Clarke, 2006 WI App 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006). “was demoted when he was relieved of his supervisory duties, informed that he was being demoted, and his rank was reduced from a Sergeant to a Deputy"; (2) Clarke exceeded his authority when he demoted Dickau prior to a just caúse finding by the PRB on Clarke's charges against…”
State Ex Rel. Dickau v. Clarke, 2006 WI App 186 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006).
— Wis. Stat. § 63.10(2) — 3 cases
Karow v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 263 N.W.2d 214 (Wis. 1978). “See sec. 63.10(1), Stats. At the same time there is a public interest — which is shared by the employee — in the employee not being wrongly deprived of his or her livelihood and not suffering injury to reputation on the basis of charges which might prove unfounded.”
Stas v. Milwaukee Cnty. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 249 N.W.2d 764 (Wis. 1977).
Brian Young v. City of Milwaukee Bd. of Fire & Police Commissioners (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
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.