Wisconsin
How Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White applies in Wisconsin: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Torts.
Wisconsin law follows the principles established in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White regarding the definition of retaliation under Title VII, applying a broad understanding of retaliatory actions including any materially adverse employment action. Retaliation claims are evaluated under a framework that considers the employer's intent and the impact on the employee.
In Wisconsin, to establish a case of retaliation under Wis. Stat. § 111.322, a plaintiff must show that they engaged in protected activity, the employer took adverse action, and there is a causal connection between the two.
The court held that a teacher’s complaint of sexual harassment was a protected activity, and the subsequent adverse action of non-renewal of the contract constituted unlawful retaliation.
The court found that reporting discriminatory practices is a protected activity, and the violation of employment policies without just cause following the report qualified as retaliation under Wisconsin law.
The court ruled that an employee’s complaints regarding workplace safety were protected activities, and any detrimental changes in job duties in response constituted retaliatory action.
While Wisconsin's approach to retaliation aligns with the federal standard set by Burlington Northern, Wisconsin courts may emphasize the employee's perception of adverse actions more heavily, recognizing a broader spectrum of potentially retaliatory conduct. Federal courts might require a stricter interpretation of what constitutes a materially adverse action, whereas Wisconsin law allows for more subjective evaluations.
Understanding the principles from Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White is essential for the Wisconsin bar exam, particularly in tort law sections. Key focus areas include the definitions of protected activities and adverse actions.