The legal framework in Wisconsin prohibits employers from dismissing employees for reasons that violate state or federal statutes, public policy, or contractual agreements. For example, firing an employee because of their race, religion, or in retaliation for reporting illegal activities would be considered unlawful under established precedents and statutes.
Adherence to these regulations is crucial for both employers and employees. For employers, compliance mitigates the risk of costly litigation and reputational damage. For employees, these protections ensure fair treatment and recourse in the event of unjust dismissal. The development of these regulations reflects a societal commitment to equitable employment practices and safeguarding worker rights within the state.
The following sections will delve into the specifics of prohibited grounds for termination, available legal remedies, and the procedural steps involved in pursuing a claim. Further discussion will cover relevant case law and practical guidance for navigating the complexities of employment law in Wisconsin.
1. Discrimination
The specter of discrimination looms large within the realm of employment, particularly in termination scenarios. Wisconsin law expressly forbids employers from using protected characteristics as the basis for dismissal, casting a protective shield over employees who might otherwise face unjust treatment. These protections aim to ensure fairness and equality in the workplace, but the reality is often more nuanced and challenging to prove.
-
Protected Class Status
Wisconsin law recognizes several protected classes, including race, sex, religion, national origin, age (over 40), disability, marital status, sexual orientation, and ancestry. Terminating an employee because of membership in one of these classes constitutes illegal discrimination. For example, if an older employee is replaced by a younger, less experienced individual shortly before retirement, suspicion of age discrimination may arise. Such cases require careful examination of the employer’s motives and the employee’s performance record.
-
Disparate Treatment
Disparate treatment occurs when an employer intentionally treats an employee differently based on their protected class status. This might manifest as unequal application of disciplinary policies, where employees of one race are punished more severely than employees of another for the same infraction. Establishing disparate treatment often requires demonstrating that similarly situated employees were treated differently under comparable circumstances. Statistical evidence can sometimes support such claims, revealing patterns of biased behavior.
-
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact, on the other hand, arises when a seemingly neutral employment policy has a disproportionately negative effect on a protected class. A height requirement for a physically demanding job, while seemingly unbiased, could disproportionately exclude women or individuals of certain ethnic backgrounds. To defend against a disparate impact claim, an employer must demonstrate that the policy is job-related and consistent with business necessity. The employee may then need to show that a less discriminatory alternative exists.
-
Burden of Proof
In discrimination cases, the burden of proof generally rests on the employee to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. This typically involves demonstrating membership in a protected class, qualification for the job, an adverse employment action (like termination), and circumstances suggesting discrimination. Once the employee meets this initial burden, the employer must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination. The burden then shifts back to the employee to prove that the employer’s stated reason is merely a pretext for discrimination a false excuse masking the true discriminatory motive.
The interplay between discrimination and wrongful termination is complex, demanding meticulous investigation and legal expertise. While laws provide a framework for protection, proving discriminatory intent or effect often requires uncovering subtle patterns of bias and challenging seemingly legitimate justifications. Understanding the nuances of protected class status, disparate treatment, disparate impact, and the shifting burden of proof is crucial in navigating the legal landscape surrounding discrimination in Wisconsin termination cases.
2. Retaliation
The shadow of retaliation hangs heavy in the sphere of employment. Under Wisconsin’s legal framework, an employer cannot legally terminate an employee for engaging in protected activities. These activities often involve asserting ones rights, reporting violations, or participating in investigations. A wrongful termination claim built on retaliation arises when the causal link between protected activity and termination is established, a sequence often steeped in circumstantial evidence and careful analysis. Consider the story of a factory worker, Maria, who reported safety violations to OSHA. Shortly after, she began receiving negative performance reviews, despite years of satisfactory service. Then came the termination. The proximity in time, coupled with the sudden shift in evaluation, raised suspicions that her termination was not based on performance but on her whistleblowing.
The importance of proving causation cannot be overstated. Employers rarely announce retaliatory motives outright. Instead, they may cite performance issues or restructuring as reasons for termination. Attorneys must then meticulously piece together the narrative, examining emails, performance reviews, and witness testimonies to unearth the truth. Another example involves a bookkeeper, David, who refused to falsify financial records at the direction of his supervisor. He was subsequently fired. Davids case hinged on proving that his refusal to commit an illegal act, a protected activity, was the driving force behind his termination, not some unrelated performance deficit. Wisconsin’s legal system recognizes the insidious nature of retaliation and provides avenues for redress, but the burden of proof rests firmly on the employee.
Successfully navigating a retaliation claim demands a deep understanding of Wisconsin’s employment laws, the ability to recognize protected activities, and the tenacity to construct a compelling case. While the path may be fraught with challenges, the protections against retaliatory termination stand as a vital safeguard for employees who dare to speak out against injustice and illegality in the workplace. The Maria’s and David’s of the workforce depend on the enforcement of these laws, ensuring that their courage to uphold the law does not result in professional ruin.
3. Contract Breach
A contract, whether written or implied, forms the foundation of many employment relationships. When an employer violates the terms of this agreement by prematurely or unjustly terminating an employee, it becomes a matter intertwined with Wisconsin regulations governing improper dismissal. Consider the case of a sales executive, recruited with a promise of a three-year contract. After only eighteen months, and with no documented performance issues, the executive was abruptly dismissed. The executive argued the premature end to the three-year term constituted a breach of contract, triggering the possibility of a wrongful termination claim under applicable Wisconsin statutes.
The critical element lies in the contracts specifications. Definite term contracts, specifying duration and conditions for termination, offer the clearest grounds for a breach claim. However, implied contracts, inferred from employer policies, handbooks, or verbal assurances, can also provide a basis, albeit a more complex one. Imagine a scenario where an employee handbook guarantees progressive discipline before termination, but an employee is summarily fired for a minor infraction. The employee may contend that the handbook created an implied contract, and the failure to follow the progressive discipline policy constituted a breach, leading to an unlawful termination. The strength of such cases hinges on the clarity and consistency of the employer’s communications and past practices.
In essence, contract breach serves as a distinct pathway within the broader landscape of Wisconsin wrongful termination law. While discrimination or retaliation cases focus on employer motive, contract breach centers on the employer’s failure to uphold the terms of an agreed-upon employment arrangement. The practical significance rests in ensuring that employers honor their commitments and that employees have recourse when those commitments are broken, particularly when resulting in job loss. It highlights the importance of documenting employment agreements clearly and understanding the binding nature of employer promises, even if not formally written in a traditional contract.
4. Public Policy
The concept of public policy forms a crucial bulwark within Wisconsin regulations addressing improper dismissal. It provides a legal shield to employees terminated for actions that serve the broader interests of society. An employee dismissed for refusing to participate in illegal activities, reporting safety violations, or fulfilling civic duties can invoke this principle. Consider a hypothetical scenario: a laboratory technician observes her supervisor falsifying test results that could have serious environmental consequences. She reports these violations to the appropriate regulatory agency and is subsequently terminated under the pretext of “poor performance.” Public policy provides a potential avenue for legal recourse, as her actions protected the public interest.
The application of the public policy exception, however, is not without its complexities. Wisconsin courts often require a clear and substantial public policy to be at stake, often derived from statutory or constitutional provisions. The mere assertion of a public benefit is generally insufficient; the employee must demonstrate a direct link between their actions and a recognized public good. For example, a nurse who is fired for advocating for improved patient care standards might have a viable claim if the standards are rooted in specific state regulations governing healthcare. Conversely, a disagreement over internal company policies, absent a broader public implication, is unlikely to qualify under the public policy exception. The critical question becomes whether the employee’s actions directly advanced or protected a well-defined public interest, not simply a personal or professional preference.
Ultimately, the public policy exception serves as a significant check on employer authority within Wisconsin. It acknowledges that certain employee actions are so intrinsically linked to the public welfare that they should be protected from employer reprisal. While the burden of proof rests on the employee to demonstrate the nexus between their actions and the public good, this legal doctrine provides a vital safeguard, ensuring that employees are not penalized for upholding the principles of justice, safety, and the rule of law. The technician and the nurse, by acting in the public interest, become testaments to the importance of public policy as a component of Wisconsin wrongful termination laws, ensuring that ethical behavior and the protection of the broader community are not silenced by fear of job loss.
5. Just Cause
The concept of “just cause,” though not universally mandated in Wisconsin, wields considerable influence within its landscape of improper dismissal regulations. It functions as a contractual stipulation, frequently enshrined in collective bargaining agreements or individual employment contracts, thereby altering the employment-at-will doctrine prevalent in the state. When an employer agrees to a “just cause” standard, the power to terminate an employee is no longer discretionary; rather, it becomes contingent upon demonstrable, legitimate reasons linked to performance or misconduct. Imagine a seasoned factory worker with a spotless record, suddenly facing termination. The union contract, however, stipulates that termination requires “just cause.” The employer cites “restructuring,” but the union challenges the decision, arguing that the worker’s performance remains exemplary and no legitimate business reason warrants the dismissal. The ensuing arbitration hinges on defining and proving “just cause” within the context of the agreement.
The practical significance of “just cause” lies in its imposition of procedural and substantive constraints on employer actions. Substantively, the employer must demonstrate that the termination stemmed from legitimate factors, such as poor performance, violation of company policy, or economic necessity. Procedurally, the employer often must provide due process, including warnings, opportunities for improvement, and a fair investigation. Consider the case of a retail employee accused of theft based on circumstantial evidence. If the employer terminates the employee without a thorough investigation, affording the employee a chance to defend themselves, a violation of the “just cause” provision may exist. The burden of proof typically rests on the employer to demonstrate that the termination met the “just cause” standard. The absence of “just cause” does not, by itself, constitute a violation of state law unless a contract or agreement binds the employer to that standard. In situations without such agreements, the employee must look to protections against discrimination, retaliation, or other unlawful reasons for termination, relying on the broader framework of regulations addressing improper dismissal.
In essence, “just cause” serves as a potent contractual safeguard against arbitrary or capricious terminations in Wisconsin. While not a universally applicable protection, its presence in employment agreements significantly alters the power dynamic between employer and employee. It necessitates demonstrable evidence and fair procedures, fostering a more secure and equitable employment relationship. The challenges lie in defining “just cause” within specific contexts and ensuring consistent application of its principles. However, when effectively implemented, “just cause” becomes a cornerstone of workplace fairness, mitigating the potential for unjust dismissal and promoting a more stable employment environment. Its impact, though contractually driven, reverberates throughout Wisconsin’s understanding of employment rights and responsibilities.
6. Legal Remedies
When an employer acts against Wisconsin regulations regarding improper dismissal, the law does not stand idly by. The concept of remedies emerges as a crucial component, offering pathways to redress the harm inflicted upon the wronged employee. These remedies, designed to restore the employee to a position as close as possible to where they would have been had the termination not occurred, are varied and tailored to the specifics of each case. Imagine a scenario where an employee, unfairly targeted due to age discrimination, loses their job after decades of loyal service. The prospect of future earnings vanishes, and the emotional toll weighs heavily. Without legal recourse, this injustice would stand unchallenged, leaving the employee to bear the brunt of the employer’s unlawful actions. Legal remedies transform this narrative, providing a framework for accountability and restitution.
The spectrum of available remedies includes, but is not limited to, reinstatement, back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Reinstatement, when feasible, returns the employee to their former position, effectively undoing the termination. Back pay compensates for lost wages and benefits between the time of termination and the resolution of the case. Front pay provides compensation for future lost earnings when reinstatement is not possible or advisable. Compensatory damages address the emotional distress, reputational harm, and other intangible losses suffered by the employee. Punitive damages, reserved for cases of egregious employer misconduct, serve to punish the employer and deter similar behavior in the future. Each remedy plays a unique role in rectifying the wrong and ensuring a degree of justice for the employee. For instance, consider a case where an employee was wrongfully fired for reporting illegal activities within the company. In addition to reinstatement and back pay, the court might award compensatory damages to address the severe emotional distress caused by the termination and punitive damages to send a strong message to the employer and other businesses about the consequences of retaliatory behavior. The pursuit of these remedies often requires meticulous documentation, compelling witness testimony, and a deep understanding of relevant employment laws. The stakes are high, as the outcome can significantly impact the employee’s financial security and overall well-being.
Ultimately, legal remedies form an integral part of the Wisconsin scheme addressing improper dismissal. They provide a mechanism for holding employers accountable, compensating wronged employees, and deterring future violations. While navigating the legal process can be challenging, the availability of these remedies underscores the importance of understanding ones rights and seeking legal counsel when facing an unjust termination. Without the prospect of meaningful remedies, the protections afforded by regulations against improper dismissal would ring hollow, leaving employees vulnerable to abuse and injustice. The effectiveness of these regulations is directly proportional to the strength and accessibility of the remedies they provide, ensuring that the scales of justice are balanced in favor of fairness and accountability.
7. Federal Laws
The landscape of employment law in Wisconsin is not solely defined by state statutes. Federal laws form an indispensable foundation, casting a wide net of protection against improper dismissal and intertwining inextricably with state-level regulations. These federal statutes, enacted to ensure nationwide consistency and address fundamental rights, often serve as the bedrock upon which Wisconsin wrongful termination laws are built, creating a layered system of employee safeguards. Consider the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a landmark piece of federal legislation. Title VII of this Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Wisconsin’s own anti-discrimination laws mirror and, in some cases, expand upon these protections. An employee in Milwaukee, terminated due to their religious beliefs, could pursue legal action under both federal Title VII and corresponding Wisconsin state laws. The federal law provides a baseline of protection, while the state law may offer additional remedies or a more expansive definition of discrimination.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) further exemplify this interplay. The ADEA protects individuals 40 years of age or older from age-based discrimination, while the ADA safeguards qualified individuals with disabilities. A long-term employee in Madison, terminated shortly before retirement and replaced by a younger, less experienced individual, could potentially invoke the ADEA, regardless of whether Wisconsin state law provides identical protections. Similarly, an employee with a disability, fired after requesting reasonable accommodations, could pursue a claim under the ADA. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), another federal law, grants eligible employees the right to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specific family and medical reasons. An employee in Green Bay, terminated after returning from FMLA leave, could argue that the termination was unlawful under federal law, even if Wisconsin’s state-level leave policies differ. Federal laws operate as a safety net, ensuring minimum standards of employee protection across the nation, even in states like Wisconsin with established regulations addressing improper dismissal.
In essence, understanding the connection between federal laws and Wisconsin wrongful termination laws is crucial for both employers and employees. Employers must navigate a complex web of overlapping regulations to ensure compliance and avoid costly litigation. Employees, on the other hand, need to be aware of their rights under both federal and state law to effectively protect themselves from unjust termination. The interaction between federal and state laws ensures a comprehensive approach to safeguarding employee rights, strengthening the foundation for fair and equitable employment practices throughout Wisconsin. Challenges arise when federal and state laws conflict, requiring courts to determine which law prevails. However, the general principle remains that federal law sets a minimum standard, with states free to offer additional protections. This dual system strengthens the overall safety net, promoting a more just and equitable workplace environment within Wisconsin.
8. State Laws
Wisconsin’s stance on improper dismissal is largely defined by its own set of regulations, acting as a crucial layer of protection alongside federal statutes. These laws, born from legislative action and judicial interpretation, establish specific rights and responsibilities for both employers and employees within the state. They delve into nuances often untouched by federal legislation, offering tailored safeguards that address the unique characteristics of Wisconsin’s workforce and economy.
-
Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA)
The WFEA stands as a cornerstone, prohibiting discrimination based on factors like ancestry, arrest record, conviction record, marital status, sexual orientation, and military service characteristics not always covered by federal law. A Madison-based company that refuses to hire a qualified applicant due to their sexual orientation would run afoul of the WFEA, even if federal law doesn’t explicitly address sexual orientation discrimination in the same way. The WFEA’s expansive scope provides broader protections than federal law in certain areas.
-
Whistleblower Protection Act
Wisconsin’s Whistleblower Protection Act shields state employees from retaliation for reporting fraud, waste, or mismanagement within state government. While federal law also protects whistleblowers in certain sectors, the state act specifically targets state employees, creating a direct avenue for redress if a state worker is fired for exposing wrongdoing. Imagine a state auditor dismissed after uncovering financial irregularities in a state agency; the Wisconsin act provides a legal recourse specifically designed for such a situation.
-
Family and Medical Leave Act (WFMLA)
While the federal FMLA sets a national standard for family and medical leave, Wisconsin’s WFMLA offers similar protections to employees of smaller companies that might not be covered under the federal act. This ensures that more Wisconsin workers have the right to take unpaid leave for qualifying reasons, without fear of termination. The state act expands the reach of family and medical leave protections to a wider segment of the Wisconsin workforce.
-
Judicial Interpretation and Common Law Exceptions
Wisconsin courts play a significant role in shaping the contours of wrongful termination law through their interpretation of statutes and the development of common law exceptions to the employment-at-will doctrine. For example, the courts have recognized a public policy exception, protecting employees fired for refusing to violate the law or for exercising a legal right. This judge-made law supplements statutory protections, providing flexibility and adaptability to address novel situations not explicitly covered by legislation.
These state laws, working in tandem with federal regulations, create a comprehensive framework aimed at preventing improper dismissal in Wisconsin. The interplay between state and federal law ensures that employees have multiple avenues for seeking justice if they are unfairly terminated, while employers must navigate a complex web of regulations to ensure compliance. The specifics of each case, the employee’s characteristics, and the employer’s actions all determine which laws apply and what remedies are available, underscoring the importance of understanding both federal and state protections.
Frequently Asked Questions About Wisconsin Wrongful Termination Laws
The labyrinthine nature of employment law often leaves individuals grappling with uncertainty. The following addresses common inquiries regarding dismissal in Wisconsin, aiming to offer clarity amidst the complexity.
Question 1: Does Wisconsin operate under “employment-at-will,” and if so, what implications does this have for employee rights?
The principle of “employment-at-will” indeed holds sway in Wisconsin, allowing employers to terminate employees for any reason, or no reason at all, provided the termination does not violate a contract, statute, or public policy. However, this principle is not absolute. Laws prohibiting discrimination, retaliation, and other wrongful grounds carve out significant exceptions. An employee, therefore, must understand that while arbitrary dismissal may be permissible, dismissal based on protected characteristics or activities is not.
Question 2: If an employer provides a reason for termination that seems pretextual, what steps can an employee take?
When an employer’s stated reason for termination appears dubious, indicating a potential cover-up for unlawful motives, the employee faces a challenging, yet navigable, path. The employee must gather evidence suggesting the stated reason is false and the true reason is discriminatory or retaliatory. This evidence might include performance reviews, witness testimonies, or internal communications. Legal counsel can be invaluable in assessing the strength of the evidence and guiding the employee through the process of filing a claim and presenting their case effectively.
Question 3: What recourse is available if an employee believes they were terminated for reporting illegal activity within the company?
An employee terminated for reporting illegal activity, often referred to as “whistleblowing,” may have grounds for a wrongful termination claim under Wisconsin’s public policy exception. However, proving the connection between the reporting and the termination is crucial. The employee must demonstrate that the reported activity was indeed illegal and that the termination occurred as a direct result of the reporting. Documentation of the report, witness accounts, and timing of the termination become critical elements in building a case.
Question 4: How does the existence of an employment contract impact an employee’s rights in a termination scenario?
An employment contract significantly alters the landscape of employee rights. If a contract exists, the terms of that contract govern the termination. Employers must adhere to any provisions regarding termination procedures, reasons for termination (“just cause”), and severance. Breach of contract can form the basis of a wrongful termination claim, requiring the employee to demonstrate the existence of a valid contract and the employer’s failure to comply with its terms.
Question 5: What types of damages can an employee seek in a successful wrongful termination case in Wisconsin?
Damages in a successful case may encompass various forms of compensation. These can include back pay (lost wages and benefits from the time of termination), front pay (future lost earnings if reinstatement is not feasible), compensatory damages (to address emotional distress and reputational harm), and, in cases of egregious employer misconduct, punitive damages (to punish the employer and deter future wrongdoing). The specific amount and type of damages awarded depend on the unique circumstances of each case.
Question 6: Is there a time limit for filing a wrongful termination claim in Wisconsin, and what happens if the deadline is missed?
Strict deadlines, known as statutes of limitations, govern the filing of wrongful termination claims. The specific deadline varies depending on the nature of the claim (e.g., discrimination, contract breach). Missing the deadline typically bars the employee from pursuing legal action. It is crucial to consult with an attorney promptly to determine the applicable deadline and ensure timely filing of the claim.
Navigating the intricacies of employment termination requires diligent attention to detail and a thorough understanding of applicable laws. Seeking legal counsel is often the most prudent course of action.
The next section will present case studies illuminating the application of these principles in real-world scenarios.
Navigating “Wisconsin Wrongful Termination Laws”
The termination of employment can feel like navigating a minefield, fraught with uncertainty and potential peril. Understanding the nuances of “Wisconsin wrongful termination laws” is not just about knowing the rules; it’s about arming oneself with the knowledge necessary to protect hard-earned rights. Think of it as charting a course through turbulent waters preparation and awareness are the keys to safe passage.
Tip 1: Document Everything. Imagine Sarah, a dedicated project manager, who suspected her recent demotion was due to her pregnancy. While she couldn’t be sure, she meticulously documented every conversation, email, and performance review. This record became invaluable when she later faced termination and pursued a wrongful termination claim. Documentation is the compass guiding one through the fog of legal battles. Dates, names, and specific details transform suspicions into actionable evidence.
Tip 2: Know Your Contracts. Consider the story of David, a sales representative terminated without the severance pay outlined in his employment agreement. David had carefully reviewed his contract upon hiring, noting the severance clause. When the company reneged, he had a clear, legally binding document to support his claim. Contracts are the anchors that hold one steady amidst shifting tides. Understanding the terms of employment, including termination clauses, is paramount.
Tip 3: Be Aware of Protected Characteristics. Think of Maria, a factory worker suddenly let go after disclosing her medical condition. Maria knew that Wisconsin law protected employees from discrimination based on disability. She consulted an attorney, who helped her demonstrate a link between her disclosure and the termination. Awareness of protected characteristics, such as race, religion, age, disability, and other categories enshrined in law, forms a shield against unlawful actions.
Tip 4: Recognize Retaliation. Recall the case of John, a whistleblower who reported safety violations at his construction site. Shortly after, he was fired for “poor performance,” a reason that seemed dubious given his years of satisfactory service. John understood that Wisconsin law prohibited retaliation against employees who reported illegal activities. This knowledge empowered him to challenge his termination. Recognizing the subtle signs of retaliation, such as sudden negative performance reviews or altered job responsibilities, is crucial.
Tip 5: Understand the Public Policy Exception. Picture Elizabeth, a nurse fired for refusing to falsify medical records. Elizabeth knew that she had a legal obligation to uphold ethical standards and protect patient safety. This understanding led her to challenge her termination under the public policy exception, which protects employees from being fired for refusing to violate the law or for acting in the public interest. Recognizing actions that serve the public good, such as refusing to break the law or reporting violations, is key.
Tip 6: Seek Legal Counsel Promptly. It’s always worth consulting a professional when it comes to legal matters. Navigating the legal complexities of wrongful termination cases demands expertise. Consulting an attorney early in the process can provide invaluable guidance, helping one assess the strength of their case and navigate the legal system effectively. Attorneys are the seasoned navigators who can guide one through the most treacherous waters, charting the best course towards justice.
These tips serve as crucial guidelines in the challenging journey following a job loss. By meticulously documenting events, understanding contracts, recognizing protected characteristics and retaliation, being aware of public policy exceptions, and seeking legal counsel when necessary, one can navigate the complexities of “Wisconsin wrongful termination laws” with greater confidence.
The next step involves delving into specific case studies, further illustrating the application of these principles in real-world scenarios. Remember, knowledge is power, and in the realm of employment law, it’s the key to protecting your rights.
Wisconsin Wrongful Termination Laws
The preceding exploration has charted a course through the intricate landscape of dismissal regulations in Wisconsin. The journey has illuminated the protective boundaries against discrimination, the recourse against retaliation, the sanctity of contractual obligations, and the overriding importance of public policy. “Wisconsin wrongful termination laws,” while complex, serve as a bulwark against injustice, offering a framework for accountability when the employment relationship is severed unjustly.
The stories of Maria, David, and Elizabeth, though fictionalized, echo real-world struggles. They serve as reminders that behind every legal principle lies a human experience. The pursuit of justice in these matters is not merely a legal exercise; it is a defense of dignity, a validation of worth, and a reaffirmation of the fundamental right to fair treatment in the workplace. May this understanding empower both employers and employees to uphold the principles of equity and integrity, ensuring a more just and equitable future for all within the Wisconsin workforce.
