May 24, 2012

Milwaukee Sick Pay Ordinance Preempted by Wisconsin Legislature

On April 12, 2011, the Wisconsin Assembly passed a bill to eliminate Milwaukee’s paid sick leave ordinance (the “Ordinance”) and prohibit local governments from approving similar paid leave mandates on employers. The Wisconsin Senate passed the companion bill in March.

The bill was signed into law by Governor Scott Walker on May 5, 2011.

 The recent legislative action is similar to the state action taken several years ago to clarify that a living wage mandate could only be implemented on a state-wide level, not locally. The Ordinance, passed by initiative by City of Milwaukee voters in November of 2008 (direct legislation, not by the Common Council), would have required employers in the City to provide up to nine days of sick pay each year to their workers.

Michael Best was retained by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce (“MMAC”) to challenge the Ordinance in the Courts. MMAC argued that the ballot question was inadequate and misleading, that the Ordinance was preempted by existing state and federal law, and suffered other legal defects.

 The Ordinance never took effect since MMAC won a permanent injunction and dismissal of the Ordinance by the Milwaukee County Circuit Court. From there, appeals proceeded to the Court of Appeals, to the Wisconsin Supreme Court (which deadlocked on a 3-to-3 vote, with one Justice recusing herself), and back to the Court of Appeals. The MMAC argued all along that the Ordinance was preempted. Now, with clear and express preemption by the state Legislature the Ordinance, is null and void.

 Scott Beightol, Chairman of Michael Best and Partner in the Employment Relations Group, represented MMAC throughout this process. "By this law, the Legislature and Governor have affirmed what Milwaukee businesses have argued since the start: regulation of employment standards where necessary should be at the state or federal level. As workers and their work becomes increasingly mobile, a patchwork of regulations that differ from one locale to another will only lead to businesses picking and choosing where to locate their workforces and the resulting jobs, population growth, and tax revenues," said Mr. Beightol.

Mr. Beightol added, "The MMAC's position has never been 'anti-sick pay' or 'anti worker.' Instead, MMAC's business members challenged the efficacy and wisdom of an Ordinance that would set Milwaukee apart from the rest of the State. We believed that the Ordinance was preempted by the Wisconsin Family and Medical Leave Act which, for almost 20 years, has provided a uniform, statewide mandate of time off from work for family and personal situations. Thanks to the injunction from the court, and now the clear preemption statement from the Legislature, Milwaukee businesses know they compete on the same terms as any other business in the state."

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Partner

Scott Beightol, a partner in the Milwaukee office, represents businesses in all aspects of employment and labor relations, with special emphasis in litigation of discrimination, non-compete and other matters in federal and state court, the NLRB, and arbitration. Mr. Beightol counsels clients on workforce structure, HR audits and best practices, complex termination and disability/FMLA matters, union avoidance, and union relation matters involving labor negotiations and arbitrations.

414-225-4994

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.