Skip to main content

Wis. Dep't of Workforce Dev. v. Wis. Labor & Indus. Review Comm'n

WISJune 26, 2018No. No. 2016AP1365Cited 12 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Abrahamson
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.

Outcome

The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the Labor and Industry Review Commission's decision, holding that employers may adopt absenteeism policies stricter than the statutory standard, and that employees violating such policies commit misconduct disqualifying them from unemployment benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** This case involved an employee at Mequon Jewish Campus who was fired for missing too much work. The employee applied for unemployment benefits, but the employer argued they shouldn't receive them because their excessive absences counted as workplace misconduct. The dispute centered on whether the employer's attendance policy was too strict compared to what state law requires. **What the Court Decided** The Wisconsin Supreme Court sided with the employer. The court ruled that companies can create attendance policies that are stricter than the basic standards set by state law. When employees violate these stricter policies, it counts as misconduct that disqualifies them from receiving unemployment benefits. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision gives employers significant power to set tough attendance rules and deny unemployment benefits to workers who violate them. Workers need to carefully review their company's attendance policies, as missing work—even for reasons that might seem reasonable—could result in both job loss and denial of unemployment benefits. Employees should understand that their employer's attendance policy may be much stricter than what state law requires, and violations can have serious financial consequences.

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.