State of Wisconsin Department of Justice v. State of Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development
875 N.W.2d 545
Wis.2015Background
- This is a Wisconsin Supreme Court review of a court of appeals decision in DOJ v. DWD involving Wis. Stat. ch. 230 Employee Protection, where ERD found DOJ retaliated against Schigur for disclosing information under 230.81.
- In April 2008, at a DOJ staff meeting, Myszewski announced 24-hour security for the Attorney General at the Republican National Convention; Schigur emailed concerns about legality under OSER regulations.
- On May 22, 2008, Schigur was removed from her Director role and returned to her prior Special Agent In-Charge position.
- Schigur filed a July 2008 ERD complaint; ERD initially found probable cause and the matter proceeded to an administrative hearing; multiple ERD non-final decisions ultimately found retaliation.
- The circuit court reversed the ERD, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review to address statutory interpretation of the whistleblower protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opinion alone about government activity is 'information' under 230.80(5). | Schigur | DOJ | Opinion alone is not information. |
| Whether Schigur's emails disclosed information under 230.81 given recipients already knew the content. | Schigur | DOJ | Not a disclosure because recipients already knew. |
| Whether the DOJ believed Schigur disclosed information under 230.81 and whether that belief supports retaliation under 230.80(8)(c). | Schigur | DOJ | DOJ belief about disclosure is not viable under 230.80(8)(c); argument fails. |
| Whether liberal construction of Wis. Stat. §§ 230.80-.89 applies to protect whistleblowers in this case. | Schigur | DOJ | Majority declines liberal construction; liberal construction discussed but not applied to save disclosures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutson v. Wis. Pers. Comm'n, 263 Wis. 2d 612 (2003) (interprets liberal construction and statutory language in whistleblower context)
- Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (plain meaning and purposive interpretation of statutes; context and purpose matter)
- State v. Polashek, 253 Wis.2d 527 (2002) (definition of 'disclose' requiring recipient's lack of knowledge in a disclosure)
- Apex Elec. Corp. v. Gee, 217 Wis.2d 378 (1998) (court discretion to decide legal questions of public interest on appeal)