Skip to content
Bills from the 2015–16 session

Senate Bill 270

Wrongful discharge from employment. (FE)

Stopped in committee

It never got a ⁠, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Sep 29, 2015

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. No public hearing was held.

  3. Senate vote, not reached

  4. Assembly vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 13, 2016: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

It never got a hearing in the Senate Committee on Labor and Government Reform. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.

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 would have done

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

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).

Read the full summary

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 violation of a public policy; 2) the employer violated the express provisions of its own written personnel policy; or 3) except during an employee's probationary period, the discharge was not for good cause, which is defined in the bill as reasonable, job-related grounds for dismissal based on a failure to satisfactorily perform job duties, disruption of the employer's operation, or any other legitimate business reason.

The bill permits an employee to bring an action in circuit court alleging a wrongful discharge committed by an employer in violation of the bill within one year after the date of the discharge and provides that in any such action the employer has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the employee was discharged fairly and not for a wrongful reason. If the court finds that an employer has committed a wrongful discharge, the court may award the employee lost wages and lost fringe benefits for a period not to exceed four years from the date of discharge, together with interest, costs, and attorney fees, less earnings that the employee earned or with reasonable diligence could have earned during the interim.

The court may also order such other action, for example reinstatement, as will effectuate the purpose of the bill and, if the court finds that the employer acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of the employee's rights, may order punitive damages based on the amount of lost wages and lost fringe benefits awarded.

Who's behind it

5 senators are its ⁠. All 5 are Democrats.

18 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 23 names

Authors (5)

Signed on in support (18)

What it would cost

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

What happened

  1. Apr 13, 2016

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Nov 13, 2015

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  3. Sep 29, 2015

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Labor and Government Reform.

  4. Sep 29, 2015

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Sep 29, 2015 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Erpenbach, Wirch, Carpenter, Hansen and Harris Dodd; cosponsored by Representatives Ohnstad, Hesselbein, Berceau, Bowen, Considine, Genrich, Goyke, Hebl, Johnson, Kessler, Milroy, Sargent, Sinicki, Subeck, C. Taylor, Young, Zamarripa and Zepnick

  2. Sep 29, 2015 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Labor and Government Reform

  3. Nov 13, 2015 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 13, 2016 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. 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

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

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

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