Connie J. MOTOLA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. LABOR & INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION and City of New Berlin, Respondents-Respondents,
No. 97-0896
Supreme Court of Wisconsin
June 30, 1998
580 N.W.2d 297 | 219 Wis. 2d 588
Oral argument May 5, 1998. (On certification from the court of appeals.)
For the respondent-respondent, LIRC, the cause was argued by David C. Rice, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief (in the Court of Appeals) was James E. Doyle, attorney general.
For the respondent-respondent, City of New Berlin, there was a brief (in the Court of Appeals) by Elizabeth A. McDuffie, Brent P. Bendrud and Krukowski & Costello, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Elizabeth A. McDuffie.
Amicus curiae was filed (in the Court of Appeals) by James W. Conway, city attorney and Susan M. Love and Davis & Kuelthau, Milwaukee for the City of Kenosha.
¶ 1. JANINE P. GESKE, J. The court of appeals certified two questions to this court: (1) Under Braatz v. LIRC, 174 Wis. 2d 286, 496 N.W.2d 597 (1993), may any employer limit its married employees to coverage under one health insurance policy? (2) When bringing an action under the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act,
¶ 2. In this case, employees of a municipality each were enrolled in “single” person coverage through
¶ 3. We conclude that a public employer, as defined in
¶ 4. We recite the facts as found by the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC). We will uphold LIRC‘s factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence. See
¶ 5. Ms. Connie J. Motola began employment with the City in 1977, as a dispatcher in the City Police Department. Ms. Motola remains employed in that position. When Ms. Motola began her City employment, she was unmarried. At that time she was provided health insurance coverage under the City‘s group health insurance policy. Ms. Motola was enrolled for single coverage which extended only to her own medical needs.
¶ 6. In 1980, Ms. Motola married Richard Motola, another City employee. At that time Richard Motola carried single coverage health insurance under the City‘s group health policy for his own medical needs. After their marriage, the Motolas continued to maintain their individual health insurance plans. Prior to the birth of their child in 1984, the Motolas requested family health insurance coverage.
¶ 7. In response to this request, the City changed Richard‘s enrollment status to family coverage, providing coverage for Richard Motola and his legal dependents, including his spouse, Connie Motola, and their child(ren). Ms. Motola‘s status was changed from that of a single coverage enrollee to coverage as a dependent under the family coverage enrollment of
¶ 8. The City has been a party to a collective bargaining agreement with the New Berlin Public Employees Union, Local 2676, governing the terms and conditions of employment of certain City employees since at least 1984. Since the 1985-86 collective bargaining agreement became effective, the agreement has provided:
The City shall provide the standard health insurance program. . .for all employees, except regular part-time employees, and shall pay the full premium cost of the single plan for single employees and the family plan for employees with dependents. . . .In the event an employee has a spouse that is also a City employee, that employee and the employee‘s spouse will be entitled to only one family health insurance contract between them from the City. (Emphasis added.)4
Based on evidence referring to the italicized portion of the above provision as the “Motola clause,” LIRC inferred that this provision of the collective bargaining agreement was negotiated around the time of the birth of the Motolas’ child to specifically address their request for family coverage.
¶ 10. On occasion since the mid-1980‘s, the City has offered its employees the option of selecting health coverage under one of two or more different insurance plans. At those times, application of the “Motola clause,” or the nonduplication policy, would have the effect of precluding two employees who were married to one another from each having family coverage for their own medical needs under different plans.
¶ 11. Currently, the City provides its employees only one health insurance plan through a group insurance policy between the City and Prime Care Health Plan, Inc. That policy provides health benefits to enrollees and to their dependents. “Dependent” is defined as an enrollee‘s legal spouse and unmarried dependent children. So long as his or her legal marital status continues, the rights of the spouse of an enrollee to health insurance benefits under the plan are no different from the rights of the enrollee spouse to health insurance benefits under the plan.
¶ 12. LIRC also found, however, that if the legal marital status of married employees changes, then
¶ 13. On May 10, 1994, Ms. Motola filed with the Equal Rights Division (ERD) of the Department of Workforce Development (DWD)5 a discrimination claim against the City.6 Ms. Motola alleged that under the WFEA,7 the City‘s denial of her request for sepa-
¶ 14. The hearing examiner8 agreed that Ms. Motola had established by a fair preponderance of the evidence that the City violated the WFEA by adopting and maintaining a policy that provides for the reduction of the compensation paid by the City to one spouse if two City employees are married to each other. Specifically, the hearing examiner concluded that the City violated the WFEA by reducing Ms. Motola‘s compensation because she was married to another City employee.
¶ 15. On review, LIRC reversed the decision of the hearing examiner and dismissed Ms. Motola‘s complaint. Ms. Motola appealed, and the circuit court affirmed LIRC‘s decision. The circuit court held that the City did not discriminate against Ms. Motola because of her marital status. The court further concluded that Ms. Motola was not harmed because she received health coverage as a dependent under a family policy instead of as an enrollee of an individual policy.9
¶ 16. Ms. Motola appealed from the order of the circuit court, and the court of appeals certified two questions to this court.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 17. In an appeal from a circuit court order in an administrative review proceeding, the appellate court reviews the agency‘s decision and not the order of the circuit court. See Barnes v. DNR, 178 Wis. 2d 290, 302, 506 N.W.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1993), aff‘d, 184 Wis. 2d 645, 661, 516 N.W.2d 730 (1994). This case concerns interpretation of a statute, the WFEA, as it applies to a municipal employer of a married couple. We also interpret portions of
¶ 18. Before we review LIRC‘s reasoning, we describe the two Wisconsin opinions which have addressed the application of the WFEA marital status discrimination clause to employers’ health insurance coverage practices.
¶ 19. In 1993, we considered whether the marital status clause of the WFEA permitted a school district to enforce its health insurance nonduplication policy. See Braatz, 174 Wis. 2d at 288. Plaintiffs were teachers, married to spouses employed by other employers. The collective bargaining agreement in place for the school district provided that “a married teacher who [sic] spouse is eligible for family coverage at his/her place of work shall have the option of carrying either the district‘s policy or the spouse‘s policy but not both. If the spouse carries a single plan, the employee of the district shall be eligible for a single plan through the district.” Id. at 289. The condition of the collective bargaining agreement in Braatz applied to both publicly and privately employed spouses of district employees.
¶ 20. The nonduplication policy in Braatz was applicable only to married employees. See id. at 290. We considered that the WFEA, which prohibits employers from discriminating against an individual based on marital status, is to be liberally construed. See id. at 291. LIRC contended in Braatz that the school district‘s policy was not discriminatory but was triggered by conduct of the employee. We concluded, however, that the policy constituted marital status discrimination because it required only married employees with duplicate coverage to make a choice between the district‘s insurance plan or that of their spouse‘s employer. See id. at 291-92.
¶ 22. In reaching that conclusion, we first distinguished the court of appeals’ decision in Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 167 Wis. 2d 205, 220, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Ct. App. 1992), because that case involved not a married couple, but an employee and her companion. See Braatz, 174 Wis. 2d at 294. Next, we assumed, for the sake of LIRC‘s argument, that the State‘s nonduplication policy indicated an implied exception to the WFEA prohibition. We distinguished the State‘s policy from that of the school district at bar because the district‘s policy covered employees with spouses employed elsewhere. See Braatz, 174 Wis. 2d at 294. Third, we pointed to the only express exception in the WFEA, the exception for age discrimination on health insurance issues. See id. at 295;
¶ 23. Significantly, we did not decide in Braatz the question of whether there are any implied exceptions to the marital status discrimination clause of the WFEA for married co-employees. We simply held that in that case, the Maple School District‘s nonduplication policy violated the WFEA, and did not fall “within an
¶ 24. Three years after our decision in Braatz, the court of appeals decided Kozich v. Employe Trust Funds Board, 203 Wis. 2d 363, 553 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1996). In that case, both spouses were State employees. The husband had a family health insurance plan through his employing agency since 1987. That plan covered the husband, his wife and their two children. In 1988, his wife, employed by a different state agency, also applied for and received family coverage under the State plan. All four family members were covered. In 1991 the husband was advised that he and his wife could not both continue to carry family coverage, and that one of them would have to drop their family coverage, or they would both have to change to single plans. Id. at 366-67.
¶ 25. Although the plaintiffs in Kozich asserted that the Braatz analysis controlled their WFEA marital status discrimination claim, the court of appeals disagreed. See id. at 371. The Kozichs asserted that the State‘s nonduplication policy discriminates on the basis of marital status. The court of appeals concluded that
ambiguous, and so looked to the legislative history of those provisions.
¶ 26. The court of appeals’ research determined that the state health insurance program:
was established by Laws of 1959, ch. 211, § 15, and the board was authorized, as it continues to be today, to “provide a plan. . .of standard health insurance coverage” for state employees. It was also authorized to determine, by rule, “the possible coverage when there is or has been state employment by more than one member of a family.” Section 66.919(7)(b) and (c), Stats. (1959). Pursuant to that grant of authority, the board promulgated WIS. ADM. CODE § GRP 20.10, which provided that “[i]f both spouses are eligible for coverage each may select individual coverage. . . .[But if] one spouse selects family coverage the other spouse may not select any coverage. . . .”12
¶ 27. The Kozich court continued to trace the legislative history of the nonduplication policy of the state health insurance program:
¶ 28. The legislature, after including marital status discrimination as a basis for an employment discrimination claim, appeared to have retained an exception for the State as an employer. The Kozich court resolved the apparent incongruity based on legislative intent:
When the Legislature amended the WFEA to prohibit marital status discrimination, it could not have intended to nullify the restricted options for health insurance coverage which it created in secs. 40.52(1)(a) and 40.02(20), Wis. Stats. This is true for several reasons. First, the Legislature added the marital status discrimination provision to the WFEA in the same legislative session that it created sec. 40.52(1)(a) and 40.02(20) to restrict options for health care insurance coverage.
Second, the creation of secs. 40.52(1)(a) and 40.02(20) gave statutory recognition to the longstanding administrative rule, sec. GRP 20.11, Wis. Adm. Code, which had mandated such restricted coverage since 1960. When the legislature enacts a statute it is presumed to act with full knowledge of existing laws.
Third, there is no indication on the record that the Legislature debated or intended a repeal of secs. 40.52(1)(a) and 40.02(20) or sec. GRP 20.11. Repeals by implication are not favored in the law.
Fourth, it is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that when a general statute and a specific statute relate to the same subject matter, the specific statute controls. In this case, the specific restriction on health insurance options contained in secs. 40.52(1)(a) and 40.02(20), control over the general prohibition against marital status discrimination contained in the WFEA.
203 Wis. 2d at 375-76 (citing Ray v. Personnel Comm‘n, No. 84-CV-6165, slip op. at 3-4 (Dane Co. Cir. Ct. May 15, 1985)).
¶ 29. By endorsing this explanation of the legislative intent, the Kozich court recognized that when the legislature created
¶ 30. In reaching its decision in this case, LIRC agreed with the ERD hearing examiner that the City‘s policy distinguishes based on marital status, potentially subjecting it to the WFEA prohibition on marital status discrimination. Nonetheless, LIRC reasoned that so long as the Motolas’ legal marital status continued, the rights of a spouse of an enrollee to health insurance benefits under the plan were no different from the rights of the enrollee. LIRC considered our decision in Braatz to leave open this question: Does legislative adoption of certain limitations on health insurance choices for State employees, whose spouses were also State employees, justify an implied exception for other employers who place similar limitations on health insurance choices for employees whose spouses have the same employer?
¶ 31. In LIRC‘s view, the question left open by Braatz was answered by the court of appeals in Kozich. In its written decision, LIRC observed two factual distinctions between Braatz and Kozich. First, in Braatz, the employer‘s policy limiting coverage extended to employees whose spouses were covered by any other employers. In Kozich, the policy extended only to employees whose spouses worked for the same employer. The second distinction between the two decisions, according to LIRC, was that in Kozich the employer was the State, while in Braatz the employer was not. LIRC was persuaded that the former distinction was most significant for purposes of the WFEA. LIRC derived a rule from Kozich that a policy restricting married co-employees to one company-sponsored health policy is not marital status discrimination. LIRC also concluded, on policy grounds, that applica-
¶ 32. Ms. Motola advances several arguments why the City should not be exempted from the marital status clause of the WFEA in its provision of health insurance coverage. First, she relies on the statutory construction maxim, expressio unius est exclusio alterius, requiring that “where the legislature specifically enumerates certain exceptions to a statute, this court presumes that the legislature intended to exclude other exceptions based on the rule.” Georgina G. v. Terry M., 184 Wis. 2d 492, 512, 516 N.W.2d 678 (1994). Ms. Motola argues that because the legislature enumerated only one exception from the WFEA‘s marital status clause, that of preventing an employee spouse from supervising his or her spouse, see
¶ 33. Second, Ms. Motola contends that the outcome of this decision is controlled by our decision in Braatz. She reads Braatz as squarely rejecting the proposition that health insurance benefits are excepted from the WFEA‘s marital status discrimination clause. Ms. Motola points to the broad statement in Braatz, “Health insurance is not excepted from this prohibition [against marital status discrimination], expressly or implicitly.” 174 Wis. 2d at 289. Ms. Motola also claims that our recognition of the sole express exception for insurance benefits under the age discrimination statute, see
¶ 35. LIRC contends that its original decision was reasonable, and on that basis should be affirmed. LIRC conceded at oral argument that the City has distinguished its employees on the basis of marital status. However, LIRC asserts that if this court in Braatz had meant to read the State‘s nonduplication policy for married co-employees as the sole exception to marital status discrimination because of
¶ 36. LIRC contends that the legislature‘s amendment of the WFEA, following this court‘s decision in State ex rel Dept. of Public Instruction v. ILHR, 68 Wis. 2d 677, 229 N.W.2d 591 (1975) to include the State as an “employer” demonstrates a legislative intent that the State be treated the same as other employers for all purposes of the WFEA.
¶ 37. In describing the City‘s position, we should first acknowledge that the City does not concede that it has distinguished employees based on marital status. The City agrees with LIRC that the conclusion of
¶ 38. The City of Kenosha (Kenosha) acting as amicus curiae, begins its argument by referring to Kozich, which held that there is an implied exception to the WFEA marital status clause for the State‘s nonduplication policy. Kenosha then asserts that the exception applies to other public employers, based on the ability of other public employers to participate in a state health insurance plan offered by the Group Insurance Board. Kenosha contends that the health insurance program offered under
ETF 40.10 Public employers health insurance. (1) An employe of an employer, other than the state, shall be eligible for health insurance under s. 40.51(7), Stats., if the requirements of ss. 40.02(46) and 40.22 or of s. 40.19(4)(a), Stats., are satisfied.
Therefore, Kenosha argues that the implied exception recognized in Kozich not only applies to the State as an employer, but also to the City.
III.
¶ 39. We conclude that the legislature intended to exempt public employers, as defined in
¶ 40. Ms. Motola correctly states that nothing in the text of the WFEA expressly exempts public employers from application of the prohibition against marital status discrimination. She is also correct in stating that the only express exception with regard to health insurance benefits relates to the age of the insured. See
¶ 41. The implied exception arises, however, from a reading of the public employee health insurance provisions of
¶ 42. Although the facts in Kozich were limited to the practice of the State as an employer, the legislative history analyzed by Kozich supports our conclusion. We therefore adopt the Kozich court‘s legislative his-
¶ 43. Subchapter IV of
Any employer, other than the state, may offer to all of its employes a health care coverage plan through a program offered by the group insurance board. Notwithstanding sub. (2) and ss. 40.05(4) and 40.52(1), the department may by rule establish different eligibility standards or contribution requirements for such employes and employers and may by rule limit the categories of employers, other than the state, which may be included as participating employers under this subchapter.
Another statute,
¶ 44. Section 40.51(7) was enacted after the legislature added marital status as a basis for discrimination under the WFEA, and also after the legislature codified the nonduplication policy for State employees. We assume that in 1985, when the legislature made other public employers and employees eligible to participate in the health insurance programs offered by the group insurance board, it was aware of both the WFEA provisions and the long-standing practice of allowing the State to limit its married co-employees to one family coverage policy. Thus, the implied exception recognized by the Kozich court applies equally to the State and to other public employers eligible to participate in programs offered by the group insurance board.
¶ 45. Ms. Motola, and the dissent, argue that even if this court, based upon
¶ 46. We, however, do not read
¶ 47. We therefore conclude that the implied exception from liability under the WFEA‘s marital status clause extends to any public employer, as defined in
By the Court.—The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
¶ 48. SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE (dissenting). I dissent because I disagree with the majority opinion‘s interpretation of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA),
¶ 49. The WFEA prohibits employers from discriminating “against any individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment” on the basis of marital status.
In the interpretation and application of this subchapter, and otherwise, it is declared to be the public policy of the state to encourage and foster to the fullest extent practicable the employment of all properly qualified individuals regardless of. . .marital status.
¶ 50. In this case the City of New Berlin‘s denial of Connie Motola‘s request for health insurance coverage under a policy in her name was discrimination based on her marital status. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) concedes that by virtue of her loss of choice of health insurance coverage, Ms. Motola has suffered actual harm.
¶ 51. The question this court must address is whether the legislature exempted all public employers eligible to participate in a health insurance plan offered by the state group insurance board pursuant to
¶ 52. Nothing in the text of the WFEA exempts public employers from complying with the prohibition against marital status discrimination. Accordingly this court has previously concluded that the marital status clause of the WFEA prohibits a school district from enforcing its health insurance non-duplication policy against a school district employee married to a person
¶ 53. However, in Kozich v. Employe Trust Funds Bd., 203 Wis. 2d 363, 374-76, 553 N.W.2d 830 (Ct. App. 1996), the court of appeals interpreted
¶ 54. In this case LIRC seeks to read into the WFEA another implied exception allowing a municipality to enforce its health insurance non-duplication policy when both spouses are employed by the municipality, regardless of whether the municipality participates in a health insurance plan offered by the state group insurance board.
¶ 55. When a public employer elects to join a health insurance plan offered by the state group insurance board pursuant to
¶ 56. However, nothing in the WFEA or
¶ 57. The legislature has instructed the courts that the WFEA shall be “liberally construed” to accomplish its purpose of protecting all individuals “to enjoy privileges free from employment discrimination because of. . .marital status.”
¶ 58. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON
CHIEF JUSTICE
Notes
111.321 Prohibited bases of discrimination. “. . . [N]o employer. . .may engage in any act of employment discrimination as specified in s. 111.322 against any individual on the basis of. . .marital status. . .”
111.32(12) “Marital status” means the status of being married, single, divorced, separated or widowed.
111.322 Discriminatory actions prohibited. Subject to ss. 111.33 to 111.36, it is an act of employment discrimination to do any of the following:
(1). . .to discriminate against any individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. . .because of any basis enumerated in s. 111.321.
The parties also stipulated that in 1993 through 1995, if an employee elected family coverage, the City‘s contribution was in excess of $400 per month for that coverage.
(a) A family coverage option for persons desiring to provide for coverage of all eligible dependents and a single coverage option for other eligible persons.
. . .
In addition, a municipality may, by ordinance or resolution, elect to offer to all of its employes a health care coverage plan through a program offered by the group insurance board under ch. 40. Municipalities which elect to participate under s. 40.51(7) shall be subject to the applicable sections of ch. 40 instead of this section.