Masri v. State of Labor & Industry Review
832 N.W.2d 139
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- Masri, a doctoral candidate, interned unpaid as a Psychologist Intern at MCW in Froedtert Hospital for 40 hours/week with facilities and networking access.
- Supervisor promised health insurance and grants; Masri received neither before termination in 2008 after reporting alleged ethics violations.
- Masri filed a retaliation complaint with ERD; ERD dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 146.997 because Masri was not an employee.
- ALJ and then LIRC affirmed the dismissal; circuit court subsequently affirmed the LIRC decision in 2011–2012.
- Masri sought judicial review seeking reversal and ERD full investigation; the issue is whether § 146.997 protects interns/non-employees.
- Statute § 146.997 governs health-care whistleblowers and the question is whether it protects Masri as an employee or non-employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 146.997 apply to non-employees | Masri argues the statute's use of 'person' includes non-employees. | LIRC and court hold § 146.997 protects only employees. | Statute applies to employees; Masri is not protected as a non-employee. |
| Whether Masri was an employee under the statute | Masri contends she was an employee due to control and benefits. | LIRC's view is that Masri did not receive compensatory benefits and lacked employee status. | Masri was not an employee under § 146.997; LIRC's interpretation reasonable. |
| What level of deference applies to LIRC's interpretation | LIRC's determination deserves no deference given first-impression concerns. | LIRC's interpretation merits due weight or greater deference due to expertise and context. | Due weight deference applied; LIRC's interpretation upheld. |
| Is the legislative purpose of § 146.997 consistent with protecting interns | Statute addresses whistleblowers broadly, including interns, to protect patients. | Statute's text and structure limit protection to employees; extending to interns would be inconsistent. | Court affirmed that protection is limited to employees; Masri not protected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oshkosh Corp. v. LIRC, 332 Wis. 2d 261, 796 N.W.2d 217 (2011 WI App 42) (deference to agency factual findings and possible deference to interpretations)
- Milwaukee Symphony Orchestra, Inc. v. Wisconsin DOR, 324 Wis. 2d 68, 781 N.W.2d 674 (2010 WI 33) (great weight vs due weight deference framework)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court, 271 Wis. 2d 633, 681 N.W.2d 110 (2004 WI 58) (statutory language interpreted in context to avoid absurd results)
- Byers v. State, 263 Wis. 2d 113, 665 N.W.2d 729 (2003 WI 86) (statutory interpretation starts with plain language)
- JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA v. Green, 311 Wis. 2d 715, 753 N.W.2d 536 (2008 WI App 78) (contextual reading of statutory language)