Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Senate Bill 202

Elimination of compensatory and punitive damages for acts of employment discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing

Topics: Circuit court, Damage (personal injury), Discrimination in employment, Genetics and genetic testing, Lie detector, Workforce Development, Department of

Became law

The governor signed it on Apr 6, 2012. It's ⁠.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Sep 27, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, passed

  4. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed 60 to 35

  5. Governor, passed

    Signed

  6. Law, here now

    2011 Wisconsin Act 219

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 10, 2012: “Published 4-19-2012”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it does

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Under the current fair employment law, a person alleging discrimination in employment or unfair honesty or genetic testing may file a complaint with the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) seeking action that will effectuate the purpose of the fair employment law, including reinstating the employee, providing back pay, and paying costs and attorney fees. In addition, the fair employment law permits DWD or a person who has been discriminated against or subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing to bring an action in circuit court to recover compensatory and punitive damages caused by the act of discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing after the completion of all administrative proceedings before DWD and the Labor and Industry Review Commission concerning the violation. If the circuit court finds that a defendant has committed an act of discrimination or unfair honesty or genetic testing, the circuit court must order the defendant to pay to the person discriminated against compensatory and punitive damages in an amount that the circuit court finds appropriate, subject to certain limitations, as follows:

1. If the defendant employs 100 or fewer employees, $50,000.

Read the full summary

2. If the defendant employs more than 100 but fewer than 201 employees, $100,000.

3. If the defendant employs more than 200 but fewer than 501 employees, $200,000.

4. If the defendant employs more than 500 employees, $300,000.

This bill eliminates the awarding of compensatory and punitive damages to persons who have been discriminated against in employment or subjected to unfair honesty or genetic testing. Under the bill, DWD may still award to such a person back pay, costs, and attorney fees.

Who's behind it

7 senators are its ⁠. All 7 are Republicans.

26 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 33 names

Authors (7)

Signed on in support (26)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There were 6 votes on this bill. Taking a bill up right away needs two-thirds of the members, a higher bar than passing it, so that vote can draw more yeses than the final one.

Senate Committee on Judiciary vote to recommend it

Passed, 3 to 2 · Oct 26, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote on an amendment

Passed, 17 to 15 · Nov 2, 2011

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Senate substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 17, Noes 15”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 55 to 37 · Nov 3, 2011 · 6 didn't vote

See how each of the 98 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (55)

No (37)

Didn't vote (6)

Official motion: “Refused to suspend the rules, Ayes 55, Noes 37”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Senate vote to pass it

Passed, 17 to 16 · Nov 3, 2011

See how each of the 33 senators voted

D: Democrat, R: Republican

Official motion: “Passed, Ayes 17, Noes 16”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 58 to 37 · Feb 16, 2012 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (58)

No (37)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 58, Noes 37”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 60 to 35 · Feb 21, 2012 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 99 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (60)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 60, Noes 35”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 10, 2012

    The new law was published.

  2. Apr 6, 2012

    The governor signed it. It became 2011 Wisconsin Act 219.

  3. Mar 29, 2012

    Sent to the governor.

  4. Feb 21, 2012

    The Assembly passed it too, 60 to 35.

  5. Feb 14, 2012

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Nov 3, 2011

    “Read” (the official wording)

  7. Nov 3, 2011

    The Assembly received it.

  8. Nov 3, 2011

    The Senate passed it, 17 to 16.

  9. Nov 3, 2011

    “Read a third time” (the official wording)

  10. Oct 26, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 3 to 2.

  11. Oct 19, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  12. Oct 12, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  13. Sep 27, 2011

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations.

  14. Sep 27, 2011

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Sep 27, 2011 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Grothman, Galloway, Darling, Lasee, Kedzie, Zipperer and Moulton;Cosponsored by Representatives Litjens, LeMahieu, Pridemore, Thiesfeldt, Honadel, Brooks, Knodl, Kleefisch, T. Larson, Kooyenga, Rivard, Kapenga, Steineke, Severson, Petersen, Stroebel, Vos, Knilans, Craig, A. Ott, Kaufert, Tauchen, Bies, Kuglitsch, Endsley and Strachota

  2. Sep 27, 2011 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations

  3. Oct 12, 2011 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Oct 19, 2011 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  5. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  6. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Judiciary, Utilities, Commerce, and Government Operations, Ayes 3, Noes 2

  7. Oct 26, 2011 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  8. Nov 1, 2011 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 11-2-2011 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  9. Nov 2, 2011 · Senate

    Read a second time

  10. Nov 2, 2011 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 offered by Senators Taylor, Hansen, Miller, S. Coggs, C. Larson, Holperin and Carpenter

  11. Nov 2, 2011 · Senate

    Senate substitute amendment 1 laid on table, Ayes 17, Noes 15

  12. Nov 2, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered to a third reading

  13. Nov 3, 2011 · Senate

    Read a third time

  14. Nov 3, 2011 · Senate

    Passed, Ayes 17, Noes 16

  15. Nov 3, 2011 · Senate

    Ordered immediately messaged

  16. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Received from Senate

  17. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Read

  18. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend the rules, Ayes 55, Noes 37

  19. Feb 14, 2012 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Rules

  20. Feb 14, 2012 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 2-16-2012 by committee on Rules

  21. Feb 16, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  22. Feb 16, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  23. Feb 16, 2012 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to read a third time, Ayes 58, Noes 37

  24. Feb 21, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a third time and concurred in, Ayes 60, Noes 35

  25. Feb 21, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  26. Feb 22, 2012 · Senate

    Received from Assembly concurred in

  27. Mar 1, 2012 · Senate

    Report correctly enrolled on 3-1-2012

  28. Mar 29, 2012 · Senate

    Presented to the Governor on 3-29-2012

  29. Apr 6, 2012 · Senate

    Report approved by the Governor on 4-5-2012. 2011 Wisconsin Act 219

  30. Apr 10, 2012 · Senate

    Published 4-19-2012

Terms on this page

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Wisconsin Act

The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.

Official term: Act

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote