Skip to main content

Rice Lake Harley Davidson v. State of Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission

WISCTAPPSeptember 16, 2014No. No. 2014AP13Cited 5 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cane, Hoover, Reserve, Stark
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWage Theft

Outcome

The court affirmed LIRC's finding that Rice Lake Harley violated the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act by engaging in wage discrimination against female employee Diane Mack on the basis of sex, and remanded for full attorney fees award.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened:** Diane Mack, a female employee at Rice Lake Harley Davidson, filed a complaint claiming the motorcycle dealership paid her less than male coworkers for doing similar work. She argued this wage gap violated Wisconsin's Fair Employment Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex. The case went through Wisconsin's Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC), which sided with Mack. Rice Lake Harley Davidson then appealed the decision to court. **What the Court Decided:** The Wisconsin Court of Appeals upheld LIRC's ruling in September 2014. The court confirmed that Rice Lake Harley Davidson had illegally discriminated against Mack by paying her unequal wages based on her sex. The court also sent the case back to determine the full amount of attorney fees that the dealership must pay to cover Mack's legal costs. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This ruling reinforces that employers cannot pay workers differently based on their gender when they perform substantially similar work. It shows that workers have legal protections against wage discrimination and can successfully challenge unequal pay practices. The attorney fees award also demonstrates that employers may face additional financial consequences beyond just paying back wages when they violate anti-discrimination laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.