970 N.W.2d 837
Wis.2022Background
- In 2013 Derrick Palmer was convicted of multiple domestic-violence offenses (two counts of strangulation/suffocation, four counts of battery, one fourth-degree sexual assault, and criminal damage) and had an earlier (2001) domestic battery conviction; he applied for work after release.
- In 2015 Cree, Inc. offered Palmer an Applications Specialist position contingent on a background check; the check disclosed Palmer’s convictions and Cree rescinded the offer after its general counsel screened the record.
- Palmer filed a discrimination complaint under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act alleging unlawful adverse action based on conviction record; an ALJ found Cree met the § 111.335(3)(a)1. substantial-relationship exception; LIRC reversed, concluding the domestic nature of the crimes did not substantially relate to the job.
- The circuit court reversed LIRC; the court of appeals reinstated LIRC; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals.
- The Supreme Court held Cree carried its burden under Wis. Stat. § 111.335(3)(a)1: the circumstances of Palmer’s convictions (serious, recent, pattern; willingness to use extreme violence and power/control issues) materially related to the Applications Specialist job (unsupervised work, opportunity to isolate victims in a large facility, unsupervised travel), so rescission was not unlawful discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Palmer) | Defendant/Respondent Argument (Cree / LIRC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether rescinding the job offer violated the Fair Employment Act or was permitted because the offense circumstances "substantially relate" to the job under Wis. Stat. § 111.335(3)(a)1. | Palmer: convictions arose in a domestic context and do not materially relate to the duties or ordinary conditions of the Applications Specialist position. | Cree: Palmer’s violent, recent, and repeated offenses reveal traits (power/control, willingness to use extreme violence, isolation of victims) that materially relate to an unsupervised, interpersonal job with opportunities to isolate victims. | Held for Cree: court finds substantial relationship based on specific conviction traits + job circumstances (facility layout, unsupervised duties and travel), so rescission lawful. |
| Whether the domestic setting of the offenses presumptively makes them irrelevant to workplace risk. | Palmer: domestic crimes typically do not predict workplace violence; LIRC rightly treated domesticity as limiting relevance. | Cree: the domestic setting is not dispositive; what matters are circumstances that foster recurrence (isolation opportunities, character traits), which can exist at work. | Held for Cree: domestic context is not a categorical bar; relevant is whether workplace circumstances materially permit recurrence. |
| Proper weight to give agency credibility findings and expert testimony (deference to LIRC). | Palmer/LIRC: LIRC discounted Cree’s expert and factual claims about job circumstances; courts should defer to agency fact and credibility determinations. | Cree: expert testimony and record facts establish the substantial-relationship elements; courts may independently decide whether the legal standard is met. | Held: although factual deference generally applies, statutory interpretation and application of the legal standard are reviewed de novo; court concluded record (including expert exposition on general principles) supports finding a substantial relationship. |
Key Cases Cited
- Law Enforcement Standards Bd. v. Village of Lyndon Station, 101 Wis. 2d 472, 305 N.W.2d 89 (1981) (conviction for official misconduct substantially related to police chief duties; common-sense link between offense facts and job).
- Gibson v. Transportation Commission, 106 Wis. 2d 22, 315 N.W.2d 346 (1982) (elements of armed robbery bore on fitness for school-bus driver; elements can illuminate circumstances relevant to job).
- Milwaukee County v. Labor & Industry Review Comm'n, 139 Wis. 2d 805, 407 N.W.2d 908 (1987) (framework for "substantial relationship"—focus on circumstances material to fostering criminal activity, e.g., opportunity, reaction to responsibility, character traits).
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004) (statutory interpretation requires giving words their common and ordinary meaning).
- Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 382 Wis. 2d 496, 914 N.W.2d 21 (2018) (reviewing court reviews agency legal conclusions de novo).