German v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Bryan Vergin, Joan A. Arnold Merkle and German, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v. Department Division of Transportation, Wisconsin Thompson Patrol, State Wisconsin, State of Charles Singletary, Defendants-Appellants- and William L.

Petitioners. Supreme Court 3, 1999. argument No. 98-0250. Oral November —Decided June 2000 WI 62 (Also 50.) reported in 612 N.W.2d defendants-appellants-petitioners For the argued by Moriarty, cause was Richard Briles assis- attorney general, tant with whom on the briefs was Doyle, attorney general. James E. plaintiffs-respondents For the there awas brief Davey Cates, S.C., Madison, Bruce M. and Lawton & argument by Davey. and oral Bruce M.

Amicus Curiae brief was filed Bruce Meredith Marilyn Windschiegl, Madison, on behalf of Wis- consin Education Association Council.

¶ 1. WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, Petitioner, J. (DOT)1 Department Transportation the Wisconsin published seeks review of decision of the court of appeals, DOT, German v. 2dWis. 589 N.W.2d (Ct. 1998). App. appeals 651 The court of affirmed an State, The defendants in this case are the the Wisconsin Department Transportation, of and two individual defendants capacity, Thompson sued in their official Charles William Singletary, collectively L. all of whom we will refer to as "DOT". denying

order the circuit of court DOT'S motion to dis- wage brought by miss a claim officers of the Wisconsin (officers). brought State Patrol The officers a claim upon 109.03(5X1995-96),2 alleging § based they on-duty during that are their lunch break and are wages pursuant therefore owed that for time to Wis. 274.02(3) 1997). (May, § Admin. Code. DWD This sec- requires employers tion of the administrative code pay employees periods for meal that are not free from work.

¶ 2. The first issue is whether the officers can 109.03(5) seeking § a claim under Wis. Stat. on-duty periods, meal or whether the officers' remedy procedures exclusive is the administrative may Wis. Stat. 103.005. If we determine the action be brought under Wis. Stat. ch. then the second issue legislature we must decide is whether the has waived sovereign immunity type in ch. 109 for this of claim. 3. We hold that Wis. Stat. 103.005 is not the grounded exclusive means to enforce a claim 274.02(3) upon Wis. Admin. Code DWD and that the right of action created Wis. Stat. allows upon regula- for claims based the hours and overtime brought tions to be in circuit court without first obtaining Department administrative review the (DWD). Development agree Workforce In addition, we with the court of has waived the state's in Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the court appeals. statutory All references are to the 1995-96 version of the Statutes,

Wisconsin unless otherwise noted. History

Facts and Procedural ¶ Patrol In 1996 officers of the Wisconsin State 4. employer, against DOT, in Dane filed suit their they County Court. The officers asserted were Circuit duty during their 30-minute neither relieved from on-duty compensated breaks, for this time as lunch nor 274.02(3).3 by required As a Admin. Code DWD alleged they were entitled to result, the officers compensation these hours worked. Their suit to for pursuant compel payment filed due was Wage Payments, §§ 109.03, 109.01 and law). (wage claim Claims and Collections Law ¶ dismiss the suit. This 5. The DOT moved to by County Court, Circuit motion was denied the Dane presiding.4 P. Charles Jones Honorable by sought expedited The review DOT appeals. The court of affirmed court of appealed circuit The DOT to this order of the court. (1997-98), pursuant which to Wis. Stat. 808.10 court granted. we 274.02(3): Wis. Admin. Code DWD on-duty periods, employer pay employes all meal The shall on-duty period time. An meal

which are to be counted as work provide period employer at least 30 min- where the does not meal employe Any period is not free work. meal where utes free from premises an on- of the will also he considered to leave the duty period. meal Fair brought the officers under the Additional claims Act, 201-219 and U.S.C. Labor Standards 29 U.S.C. §§ and are not at issue dismissed the circuit court 1983 were here.

Standard of Review ¶ 7. We are asked to review denial of a motion to sufficiency complaint, dismiss. To determine the of the statutory authority by we must examine the cited plaintiffs as the basis for their claim to determine two First, issues. we must determine whether Stat. Wis. § 109 is a vehicle to enforce Wis. Admin. Code DWD 274.01(3), promulgated by authority rule vested in the under law, DWD the hours and overtime § 103.02, or whether this administrative.code sec- only tion can be enforced the administrative review procedures in Second, Wis. Stat. ch. 103. we must sovereign determine if the has waived Statutory interpretation in ch. 109. is a question of law which we review de novo. Morris v. County, Juneau 543, 550, 219 Wis. 2d 579 N.W.2d 690 (1998). goal interpreting Our a statute is to discern legislature. the intent of the Id.

Analysis ¶ 8. We first resolve whether the officers' claim is properly brought under law, claim Wis. Stat. plain language broadly

ch. 109. The of ch. 109 defines "wage" part pay- the word in relevant as "remuneration employe personal able to an examples for services" and cites as pay, pay.

salaries, vacation and overtime 109.01(3).5 § The breadth of this definition 109.01(3): Wis. Stat. § "Wage" "wages" payable employe or mean remuneration to an services, personal including salaries, commissions, holiday and pay, pay, pay pay, sup- vacation overtime severance or dismissal plemental unemployment compensation required benefits when binding bargaining agreement, under a any collective bonuses and advantages agreed upon other similar between the obligation encompasses employer's under Wis. pay employee an Admin. Code DWD 274.02 to for on- duty wages. pro- meal break This administrative code requires "personal services," vision "remuneration" for comparable examples listed in We see little difference between a claim under ch. 109 employee seeking overtime with the officers' on-duty wages. In claim for employee meal break both cases the performed

asserts that has been work wages are now due. The DOT contends that a claim under Wis. only can

Admin. Code DWD be resolved through procedures the administrative in Wis. Stat. thl"i*egislature an administra 103.005. Where enacts statute, tive scheme to enforce a the administrative presumed mechanism is exclusive unless there is an legislative contrary. affirmative indication of the Bour que Hosp. Center, 589, 594, v. Wausau 145 Wis. 2d (Ct. 1988). argues App. The that N.W.2d 433 resolving DOT compensable whether meal breaks are on- duty Stat. work time is an issue that arises under Wis. brought 103, the Hours of Work Law and is to be procedures forward in the administrative review chapter through Wis. ch. 109. that Stat. —not provisions ¶ 10. The of Wis. Stat. ch. 109 and 103.02 address two sides of the same coin. promul- authority Under the of 103.02 the DWD has requiring employers gated rule to an administrative pay employees on-duty periods. Admin. for meal Wis. 109.03(5), In Code DWD right provided employees has with the wages against employer an an action court employes employe provided by or as policy. established pursuing due first administrative with without review appeals As the court of noted: DWD. acknowledge argument We the DOT's that the really seeking are officers determination work," periods whether their lunch are "hours of but part parcel wages that is of their claim for due. pay-or possibly, compensatory The amount of time- may ultimately the officers be found to have due necessarily them must await a determination of any compensation whether is due them for lunch Nonetheless, the essence of the officers' periods. they claim is that are compensation due paid. DOT has not (emphasis origi-

German, 223 Wis. 2d at 539 n.5 in the nal). statutory provisions Combined, these create a system employee compensated to assure that each is for his or her labor. subject

¶ 11. Statutes on same matter are interpreted giving in a them, manner that harmonizes McDonough each statute full force and effect. v. Department Dev., 227 Wis. 2d of Workforce (1999) (quoting 279-80, 595 N.W.2d 686 State v.Aaron (Ct. 1997)). App. D., 56, 66, 214 Wis. 2d N.W.2d argument employees' private The DOT's right vitiates an of action for due in Wis. Stat. ch. 109. The reasoning compelling. of the court of employee-initiated wage

If an claim could not be brought merely under ch. 109 because it was dis- puted grounds, on hours and overtime an employer an employee's merely by could defeat suit alleging that the employee "off-duty" during part was of the employee claiming wages time for which the is due. The "off-duty" allegation require interpre- would 272.12(12)(2)(b) tation of WIS. ADM. CODE DWD § 584 (which made to hours and overtime applicable is disputes by virtue of WIS. ADM. CODE DWD § 274.045). Thus an could convert the employee's wages ch. 109 claim for due to a ch. 103 due, claim to determine whether were thereby avoiding employee-initiated suit and penalties provided by ch. 109. 223 2d at 543. German, Wis. Further, notes, and as the court of presumption remedy

"the that an administrative legislative apply expres- not if there is exclusive does contrary. (citing sion to the Id. at 538 Gardner v. (Ct. Gardner, 420, 428, 2d Wis. N.W.2d 103.005(14)(a) 1993)). App. provides § Stat. Wisconsin employ- that the DWD shall administer laws related to regulation employment far as not ment and "so provided otherwise for in the statutes." We find that 103.005(14), meaning together plain § read when are author- with Wis. Stat. ch. is that by ized to seek enforcement of Wis. through Admin. Code relationship ¶ 13. The between Wis. Stat. ch. 103 legislative Stat. ch. 109 is demonstrated in Wis. history. Wisconsin Stat. 109.03 was created proposed a 380, Laws of 1975. The new law was Special Employe Committee on Protection Business Closing Legislative Council and consoli- 1973-75 existing wage payment dated claim laws closing protections, including plant with notifi- new newly imported § 109.03 most cation law. The created provisions of the of the former 103.39 (1973).6 relating statutory language to court The wage adopted 380, in ch. of actions on claims Laws substantially identical to that which had 1975, was provided in ch. 103. been pro- § addition, 380, of 1975 3 In Laws investigate department to

vided that was specifically § to enforce 103.02.7 claims and 109.09(1). language in This remains Wis. Stat. Subse- portion quently, Act 86 amended that of Wis. 1993 Wis. allowing Stat. ch. 109 to action for adding wages court, in that the action could be circuit brought filing wage claim with the without first department under As the court of stated, we find "no indication that scope employee-initiated wage intended the claim scope actions to be more limited than the of the actions pursue employee's that is authorized to on the DWD German, behalf." 223 Wis. 2d at 542. relationship

¶ 15. The chs. between Wis. Stat. 103 and 109 is also evident in Wis. Admin. Code ch. penalties provision chapter 274. The of that DWD "[a]ny part in states relevant who vio- subject lates order s. DWD. . .274.03. . .shall be 103.39(1) (1973) provided Wisconsin Stat. in relevant part employe coming meaning that "each within this against any right person section shall have a of action such regular day pay the full amount of his due on each as provided any competent jurisdiction." herein court of Chapter 380, provides part: Laws of relevant (1) claims, Wage department "109.09 collection. The shall inves tigate attempt adjust equitably controversies between employers alleged wage employes depart as to claims. The 66.293, 103.02, 103.49, chapter ment shall enforce this and ss. 103.82 and 104.12."

penalties provided in ss. . . .109.11." Wis. Admin. Code § 274.07. upon plain language

¶ 16. Based ofWis. Stat. legislative history 109, ch. of ch. and 109 Wis. Stat. any 103, the absence of 103, bar this claim in ch.

and the need to 109, harmonize ch. ch. 103 and Wis. 274.03(2), Admin. Code DWD we conclude that the properly brought officers have this action under ch. 109.

¶ 17. The second issue we must then consider is legislature sovereign whether the has waived immu nity in Wis. Stat. ch. 109. The State of Wisconsin's sovereign immunity §IV, derives from Article 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution.8 It is axiomatic that the state express legis cannot be sued without the consent ofthe lature. Bahr v. Bd., State Inv. 186 379, Wis. 2d (Ct. App. 1994); Regents, N.W.2d 152 Lister v. Board of (1976); Chicago, 282, 291, 72 Wis. 2d 240 N.W.2d 610 State, M. & St. P.R. Co. v. 512-13, 10 53 Wis. N.W. (1881). sovereign immunity properly If raised, is personal jurisdiction then the court is without over the Lister, state. 72 Wis. 2d at 291. sovereign immunity

¶ 18. The state's from suit agencies Sovereign extends to the state's and arms. Id. immunity apply does not to the activities of a state- agency independent proprietary powers created with (an concern"). "independent going and functions Id. at nothing suggests 292. There is in this case that independent going exception applicable. concern The IV, Article 27 of the Wisconsin Constitution states: "The legislature shall direct law in what manner and what may brought against courts suits be the state.” 15.01(5), agency. §§ 15.46.9 is a state DOT argued that the DOT is an have neither The officers they independent going nor that do not have to concern legislature has consented to the that the demonstrate Instead, the officers that has been commenced. action expressly consented to has assert that initiating their claim in circuit court state point and Wis. Stat. to Wis. Stat. and I03.005(l4)(a).10 agree. We argue sovereign The officers the state is in Wis. Stat. ch. 109 because is waived chapter's definition of included this expressly employees to ch. 109 allows because directly pass- court, circuit without claims through ing Stat. administrative review. Wis. 109.0K2)11 109.03(5).12 §§ §15.01(5) "'Department' states: means

9 Wisconsin agency within the executive principal administrative government, not include the Wisconsin state but does branch of independent agencies under subch. III." "Department transporta-

Wisconsin Stat. 15.46 states: of § tion; transportation department creation. is created a of There secretary supervision the direction and of the of under transportation." 10 103.005(14)(a) department Wisconsin Stat. states: "The § enforce, provided so far not otherwise shall administer and as labor, statutes, relating employment, for in the the laws to child relating regulation employment and all offices other laws employment." of 109.01(2) "Except provided states: as in Wisconsin § 109.07(l)(d), any any 'employer' person engaged means in s. employing persons more activity, enterprise or business one or state, including political the state and its subdivi within charitable, tax-exempt organizations nonprofit sions and or institutions."

¶ 20. The state's is waived in Wis. Chapter expressly "employer" Stat. ch. 109. defines political to include the state and its subdivisions. Wis. § Stat. employee Wisconsin Stat. allows an against

to a cause of action an employer wages. express leg- for This is consent brought against islature to suits legislature the state. When the n excluding wishes to enact a statute expressly state from the definition of it does 111.02(7)- ("The 'employer' so. See Wis. Stat. term person engages means a who the services of an employe.. any politi- .but shall not include the state or 111.51(5)(a) ."); cal (" subdivision thereof. . . Wis. Stat. Utility Employer' any employer, 'Public means other any political than the state or subdivision thereof . . . ."). Sovereign immunity is waived in ch. 109. On this point ambiguity. there is no argues

¶ 21. However, DOT that Wis. Stat. ch. simply compel employers 109 is a mechanism to paychecks promptly issue and is not a means to enforce This section of the statutes was amended 1997 Wis. Act 237, 354n. The impact analysis amendment does not our this case. 109.03(5): Wis. Stat. § Except (1), provided employer may Enforcement. as in sub. no

by special employes by any contract with or other means secure exemption employe right from this section. Each shall have a against any employer action employe's for the full amount of the wages regular pay day provided due on each as in this section 109.11(2), provided any increased as in s. court competent jurisdiction. employe may bring against An an action employer filing wage under this subsection without first claim 109.09(1). department with employe brings the under s. An who an against action under this subsection shall have a lien upon property employer, personal, all the of real or in located this state as in s. described sought any as a are in back other claim which immunity sovereign Any remedy. in ch. of waiver purpose compelling argued, the of for the sole it is is paycheck. claims that there The DOT of a issuance immunity sovereign express in waiver of clear and no brought type the in officers of claim ch. 109 for disagree. We this case. argument presented in

¶ a similar The state 22. Family Department Services, Health and v. Butzlaff 1998). (Ct. App. In 673, 590 N.W.2d 9 223 Wis. 2d argued that under Wis. the state Butzlaff, 103.10(13) Family Act Medical Leave of the (FMLA) sovereign expressly waived had immunity who had been state for suits proceedings underlying administrative in successful judicial However, the state claimed that review. ambiguous as to whether the statute was permitted by employees were unsuccessful who

suit judicial procedure related and its administrative in the as well as Butzlaff, The state asserted review. any ambiguity in the hand, if there is case at concerning the claim can be whether or not statute sovereign brought, at is not waived. Id. then 681-82. correctly noted in But- The court of argument that the state's

zlaff against suit statutory consent to confuses statutory conditions agencies with the state and its all The former must be apply parties. for suit that sovereign constitute a waiver clearly expressed to according to immunity. interpreted The latter are ordinary statutory rules of construction. Id. at 682. In this case it is evident that the against in Wis. Stat. ch. 109 consented to suit the state claims. Although ¶ 24. we reach the same conclusion as appeals, disagree point the court of we with one in its analysis. finding sovereign method of In type brought by had waived for been of claim appeals part upon officers, the court of relied in Bahr. German, 223 Wis. 2d at 532-33. The issue in Bahr was whether or not the State Investment Board was an independent going ineligible concern and thus for sov- ereign immunity. Bahr, In the court of determined that the State Investment Board was an independent going part concern in because it was " [its own] authorized statute to 'sue and be sued in (quoting Bahr, name.'" 186 Wis. 2d at 399 (1993-94)). already 25.17 We have concluded that the "independent going question concern" is not at issue Although correctly this case. Bahr did not illustrate the appeals' point, court of we final concur with the court's conclusion in the case at hand. presents arguments 25. The DOT a number of

against our conclusions in this case. We find none of persuasive. them argues

¶ 26. First, the DOT that Wis. Stat. ch. penal strictly 109 is a statute and must be construed to exclude the officers' claim. Wisconsin Stat.

subjects ability pay wages with the due, intentionally but who fails to do so with the intent to annoy, obtain a reduction in the debt or with intent to oppress, employee, harass, hinder or defraud the to a jail, days fine of not $550, more than or both. opinions long recognized ¶ 27. Our that, have penal rule of strict construction of statutes is not a " general application;. . . . Some 'rule of or universal a liberal construction is times a strict and sometimes required, penal respect law, even in to a because the carry dominating purpose is to of all construction out legislative purpose.'" Kittilstad, v. State (1999) (quoting 245, 262, 603 732 State v. 2d N.W.2d (1914)). Boliski, 78, 81, Wis. 145 N.W. 368 When 156 unambiguous legislature if is or strict the intent of the purpose legislation, of construction the the the thwarts apply. at does not Id. 262 rule of strict construction (citing (1980)). 48, 70, 2d Rabe, State v. 96 Wis. 291 N.W.2d 809 interpretation DOT's In this case the would legislative purpose giving in a thwart right action Stat. ch. 109. Our construc of under Wis. keeping purpose in the clear tion of the statute is with ch. 109. of Next, DOT cites Arndt v. Wisconsin (W.D.Wis. F.Supp.

Dep't 475, 478 Corrections, 972 of 1996), seemingly arguing our that it conflicts with con- Although Arndt, the in federal district court clusions. inquiry 103, Wis. chs. 109 and its is examined distinguishable First, at from the case hand. Arndt 109 the court concluded that ch. contained no waiver of sovereign immunity. respectfully disagree We with Second, this conclusion.13 district court character- statutory 109 as two distinct ized chs. and 103 v. The concurrence labels our discussion ofArndt Wiscon 1996) (W.D. Corrections, Supp. Dep't sin 972 F. Wis. as a of "ill "criticism" of district court and advised." Neither asser is correct. The court was asked to and did tion district specifically address whether Stat. ch. 109 contains a immunity: of the state's waiver chapter private Plaintiffs look to cause of action allowed under statutory [to waiver].... find A waiver of the state's only by the found where stated the most will be However, schemes. as the court of noted, and already as we have stated, chs. 109 and 103 are not nearly so distinct. German, 223 Wis. 2d at 539-40. The "legislature prevent did not intend to the enforcement by wage of ch. 103 claim actions when it moved the provisions [ch. 109]." claim enforcement to Id. at reasoning sum, 541. In we do not find the set forth in persuasive. Arndt

¶ 29. The DOT also cites state that, cases14 it contends, characterize Wis. Stat. ch. 109 as a law nar- rowly assuring prompt payment focused on of wages actually jurisdic- due rather than as a broad grant. analysis tional Our of ch. 109 with Wis. Stat. ch. gives 103 and Wis. Admin. Code DWD 274 full effect wage payment purpose of the statutes. We con- keeping clude it purpose with the well-established prompt payment wages. to assure As the judge circuit court noted, allows employee bring private cause of action for "the wages full amount" of due. We believe that this statute contemplates presented by a situation such as that the officers in case, this where the issue is not that the express language overwhelming implication or such from the any

text as to leave no room for other reasonable construction. Id. at 479. The district court found sovereign no waiver of immu- nity in differing ch. 109. Our conclusion here is not a criticism of court; simply, district we respectfully, disagree. but MEDC, v. 243, 250-51, 216 Wis. 2d 576 N.W.2d 14 Pfister (Ct. App. 1998); Cos., Inc., Jacobson v. American Tool 554 222 (Ct. 384, 400, Erdman v. Wis. 2d 1998); 588 App. N.W.2d 67 Jovoco, Inc., 736, n.6, 181 Wis. 2d (1994); 749 512 N.W.2d 487 Fighters City Kenosha, Kenosha Fire v. 658, 665, 168 Wis. 2d of (Ct. Employees Local 1901 v. Brown 484 App. 1992); N.W.2d 152 County, 728, 733-35, 146 Wis. 2d (1988); 432 N.W.2d 571 Coatings, Inc., DILHR v. 338, 344-46, 126 Wis. 2d 376 N.W.2d (1985). 834

593 paycheck, never a but that have received wages they of due to seek the full amount to obtain them. addition, DOT In contends that

affirming ability to their action the officers' under Wis. Stat. ch. 109 will raise federal constitu According DOT, concerns. state statutes tional past 109 in the such as have been found constitutional they narrowly support In focused. of this because were proposition St. Iron & Saint DOT cites Louis Mountain (1899); Railway 404, Paul, v. U.S. Paul Co. 173 406 - 10 Williams, 685, R.R. v. 233 U.S. 692-705 Erie Co. (1914); (1928), McBride, 350, Ribnik v. 277 U.S. 375 part by v. State ex rel. overruled in Olsen Nebraska of (1941); Ass'n, & Western Bond U.S. Reference Hosp. Columbia, and Adkins v. Children's District (1923), part by 261 U.S. West overruled (1937). Hotel U.S. 379 We are Parrish, Coast Co. v. persuaded. "Simply to a as con not label claimed error so, make and we decide stitutional does not it need not validity broadly claims of constitutional stated but specifically argued." Scherreiks, never State v. 153 Wis. (Ct. 1989) (citations App. 510, 520, 2d omitted). 451 N.W.2d 759 argues upholding ¶ 31. The DOT further open to decision of the court of will the door additional claims which the administrative review by-passed procedure established statue is because employee proceeds asserts a claim for directly court To circuit under Wis. Stat. ch. 109. point string illustrate its DOT cites of statutes involving wages. example, For the DOT cites Wis. Stat. 46.21(2)(i), involving § a work to a statute allowance county institutions; inmates at Employment §§ 111.31-111.395, the Wisconsin Fair Family § Act; 103.10, Stat. Wis. Wisconsin relating Act; 103.49, Medical Leave Stat. prevailing wage rates.

¶ 32. court We concur with the that point this are DOT's concerns on "unwarranted and German, overstated." 223 Wis. 2d at 542. The DOT does not discuss whether the statutes it cites contain remedy and, so, an administrative edy if whether that rem- remedy is exclusive. The administrative in Wis. not 103.005 is exclusive. Nor does the DOT dis- relationship cuss the between the statutes it cites and already, Wis. Stat. ch. 109. As we have set forth there is significant relationship between Wis. Stat. ch. 103 considering only case, and ch. 109. In this arewe directly.necessary statutes to resolve the issue before speculate court; we will not on the outcome when argument complete other are statutes involved and a presented. not Finally, argues DOT that even without

considering sovereign immunity, the issue of dismissal is warranted because the officers have failed to state a upon granted. claim which relief can be The DOT did petition review, not raise this issue its and we decline it to consider here.15 review, granting par In this court's order we asked the questions. question

ties to brief two additional The first was plaintiffs required whether were to serve a notice of claim pursuant to Wis. Stat. The second issue was impacts whether the fact that no notice of claim was filed resolu parties agree tion of the case on the merits. Because the inapplicable and the 893.82 is to the State of Wisconsin Department Transportation we need not address these issues further. on-duty

¶ has classified sum, In the DWD 34. compensable periods 103.02; time. Wis. Stat. as meal Under Wis. Code DWD Wis. Admin. claims for can state pursuant to this classification. due

By of the court of decision the Court.—The is affirmed.

¶ ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF 35. SHIRLEY S. join (concurring). ¶ I 28 of the do not JUSTICE majority opinion. majority opinion's criticism of The F.Supp. Dep't Corrections, 972 Arndt v. Wisconsin (W.D.Wis. 1996), my opinion, ill advised. is, in large part the U.S. Constitution and Arndt turns in on present concerns, not in the case at federalism issues bar. join ¶

¶ stated, I in 28 For the reasons do not 36. opinion. of the I authorized to state that Justice am joins SYKES this concurrence.

DIANE S.

Case Details

Case Name: German v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Court Name: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 21, 2000

Citation: 612 N.W.2d 50

Docket Number: 98-0250

Court Abbreviation: Wis.