Asma Masri v. State of Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review
850 N.W.2d 298
Wis.2014Background
- Masri was an unpaid doctoral intern at MCW placed in Froedtert Hospital’s transplant unit; she reported clinical/ethical concerns to MCW administrator Mayer on November 19, 2008 and was terminated effective November 24, 2008.
- ERD/DWD investigated Masri’s retaliation claim under Wis. Stat. § 146.997 and initially dismissed, ruling Masri was not an employee and thus not covered.
- LIRC, affirming the ALJ, held § 146.997 applies only to employees and Masri, as an unpaid intern, was not an employee; the circuit court and court of appeals affirmed.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to determine the proper level of deference to LIRC and the statute’s proper interpretation.
- The majority concludes § 146.997 applies only to compensated employees and Masri was not protected; the dissent argues for a broader interpretation extending coverage to
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 146.997 covers unpaid interns | Masri: $ Masri argues unpaid interns should be covered to protect whistleblowers and patients | Mayor: § 146.997 applies only to employees with compensation or tangible benefits | No; statute covers only compensated employees |
| What level of deference applies to LIRC’s interpretation | Masri: deference should be due given agency expertise | Masri? LIRC’s view should be reviewed de novo or given minimal deference | Due weight deference applied to LIRC’s interpretation |
| Whether LIRC’s interpretation comports with the statute’s purpose | Masri: broader purpose supports extending protection to interns | MCW: purpose is to protect employees and discourage retaliation; interns not covered | LIRC's interpretation reasonable and consistent with remedial purpose; interns not covered |
| Whether public policy arguments require a broader reading of 'employee' | Masri: public policy favors protecting those who report misconduct | Legislature did not intend interns to be protected | Public policy arguments do not override statutory text; court defers to text |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (Wis. 2004) (statutory interpretation guiding plain meaning; context and structure matter)
- Jamerson v. Dep't of Children & Families, 345 Wis. 2d 205 (Wis. 2013) (agency deference on first-impression issues; can support due weight)
- UFE Inc. v. LIRC, 201 Wis. 2d 274 (Wis. 1996) (three levels of deference to agency decisions; due weight applicable here)
- Ratsch v. Mem'l Med. Ctr., ERD No. CR200504192 (LIRC) (Wis. 2006) (agency interpretation restricting § 146.997 to employees; prior LIRC view)
- Langer v. City of Mequon, ERD No. 199904168 (ERD) (Wis. 2000) (unpaid workers not entitled under certain employment acts; agency interpretation precedent)