AB 160

Under current law, subject to certain exceptions, the employer-employee

relationship is governed by the employment-at-will doctrine, under which an

employer may discharge an employee "for good cause, for no cause, or even for a cause

morally wrong, without being thereby guilty of a legal wrong."

Hausman v. St. Croix

Care Center,

214 Wis. 2d 655 (1997).

This bill prohibits an employer, including the state, from discharging an

employee unfairly or for any wrongful reason, except that this prohibition does not

apply to: 1) a discharge that the employee has chosen to contest under any other state

or federal law that provides a procedure or remedy for contesting the discharge; 2)

a discharge that is covered by a written collective bargaining agreement; 3) a

discharge that is covered by a written contract of employment for a specific term; or

4) a discharge of an employee who any other state or federal law specifically provides

is an employee at will or is to serve at the pleasure of a public official or other

appointing authority.

The bill, however, does not preclude an employer from discharging an employee

for a violation of a work rule or performance standard if the procedures used to

discharge the employee are fair. Under the bill, a discharge of an employee for a

violation of a work rule or performance standard is unfair if any of the following

applies:

1. The work rule or performance standard was not made known to the employee

prior to the discharge.

2. The employer failed to enforce the work rule or performance standard in

similar situations for a prolonged period.

3. The employer did not conduct an interview with the employee, or hold a

hearing, concerning the violation prior to the discharge, did not conduct that

interview or hearing promptly after the violation, or did not provide the employee

with a precise description of the conduct constituting the violation.

4. The employer did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the

employee committed the violation.

5. The violation is the same as or substantially similar to a violation committed

by another employee who was not discharged for committing the same or a

substantially similar violation.

6. Unless the violation is egregious, the employer failed to first apply a less

drastic form of discipline for the violation.

7. The discharge is disproportionate to the gravity of the violation, taking into

consideration any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

Also, under the bill, a discharge is for a wrongful reason if: 1) the discharge was

in retaliation for the employee's refusal to violate a public policy or reporting a