Previous
Page
Supreme Court Digest
By Prof. Daniel D. Blinka & Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer
| Attorney General | Civil
Procedure |
| Criminal Procedure | Employment
Discrimination |
| Dealerships | Insurance |
Employment Discrimination
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Americans with
Disabilities Act - Personal Liability of Employer's
Agents
Alberte v. ANEW Health Care
Services Inc., 2000 WI 7 (filed 8 Feb. 2000)
The plaintiff was employed by ANEW Health Care Services Inc.,
a corporation that provides skilled nursing services. Her supervisor
also was the president and 47.5 percent owner of the corporation.
The supervisor discharged the plaintiff from her employment at
ANEW.
The plaintiff sued ANEW and the supervisor, alleging that
they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to reasonably
accommodate her disability (a back condition), retaliating against
her, and terminating her employment. The suit specifically alleged
that the supervisor was serving as ANEW's agent when these
actions took place and sought to hold the supervisor personally
liable for her allegedly discriminatory actions.
The defense moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action against
the supervisor as an individual on the ground that Title VII
and the ADA do not subject her to personal liability. The circuit
court granted the motion and dismissed the supervisor from the
action.
In a published decision the court of appeals reversed the
circuit court. It held that the statutes referred to above subject
agents to individual liability. See Alberte
v. ANEW Health Care Services Inc., 223 Wis. 2d 1, 588
N.W.2d 298 (Ct. App. 1998).
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Wilcox, the supreme
court reversed the court of appeals. It concluded that Congress
did not intend to hold agents personally liable under Title VII
or the ADA. In so holding it joined the Seventh Circuit and the
majority of other federal circuit courts. Alternative interpretations
defeat legislative intent, produce unreasonable outcomes, and
are unsupported by the history of the statute.
Dealerships
Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law - "Situated in
this State"
The Baldwein Co. v. Tri-Clover
Inc., 2000 WI 20 (filed 29 Feb. 2000)
Tri-Clover Inc. terminated the company's 56-year-old
relationship with the Baldwein Company, an Illinois corporation
that sells sanitary pumps, valves, and the like. Baldwein was
Tri-Clover's distributor. Tri-Clover is a Delaware corporation
with its headquarters, distribution center, and principal place
of business in Kenosha. The long-standing oral agreement between
the two companies was reduced to writing in 1985. Baldwein derived
about 90 percent of its revenue from selling Tri-Clover's
products, but most of its business was in Illinois. Not more
than 4 percent of its sales were made in Wisconsin. Baldwein
sued Tri-Clover under Wisconsin's Fair Dealership Law (WFDL)
in federal court.
This case was before the Wisconsin Supreme Court on certification
from the Seventh Circuit. The "essential question"
raised in the case concerned "when is a dealership 'situated
in this state' under Wis. Stat. sec.
135.02(2)." Writing for the court, Justice Sykes held
that courts must consider "the dealership's total involvement
and investment in promoting and selling the grantor's products
or services in the State of Wisconsin." The test is based
on the statute's language, history, and purpose, and is
"similar" to that announced in Ziegler Co. v. Rexnord,
139 Wis. 2d 593 (1987). The Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law's
"situated in this state" element "limits the application
of the WFDL to commercial relationships that exist in some substantial
way in this state (and otherwise satisfy the definition in the
statute)."
The court declined to create a "minimum percent-of-sales"
test for determining dealership status. The multiple factor "community
of interest" test invites consideration of the following
factors, such as: 1) the percent of total sales, revenue, or
profits in Wisconsin; 2) the duration of the relationship; 3)
the extent and nature of the dealer's Wisconsin obligations;
and 4) the "territorial" stake in the state. The court
listed about 10 factors that should be considered (see ¶
30). Most clearly, however, "a Wisconsin choice-of-law provision
will not operate to trigger the application of the WFDL."
The court remanded the case to the federal court for application
of its decision.
Chief Justice Abrahamson concurred, arguing there was no need
for remand because the record supported a finding that Baldwein
was a dealer situated in the state.
Insurance
UM Coverage - Unidentified Vehicles - Flying
Debris
Theis v. Midwest Security Ins.
Co., 2000 WI 15 (filed 22 Feb. 2000)
The plaintiff was injured while driving his truck when an
object flew off an unidentified semi-trailer that was in front
of him and crashed through the plaintiff's windshield. The
plaintiff sought payment from his uninsured motorist (UM) coverage,
but his insurer denied the claim. In a declaratory action, the
circuit court ruled that the UM coverage did apply. The court
of appeals certified the issues to the supreme court.
The supreme court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice
Abrahamson, affirmed. First, the court held that Wis. Stat. section
632.32(4) "requires that the uninsured motorist clauses
of an insurance policy provide coverage when a detached piece
of an unidentified motor vehicle is propelled into the insured's
motor vehicle by an unidentified motor vehicle." The "detached
piece" might come from the unidentified motor vehicle itself,
or it might be "highway debris" propelled by the unidentified
vehicle. The court's holding coincided with an insured's
reasonable expectations, fulfilled the statute's purpose
of providing the same coverage regardless of whether the negligent
driver was insured, and did not open the door to fraudulent claims.
The second issue concerned whether the plaintiff had demonstrated
negligence by the unidentified semi-trailer. The court held that
this action sought only a declaration of coverage regarding this
type of accident and remanded the case to proceed to arbitration.
Prof. Daniel D. Blinka and Prof. Thomas
J. Hammer invite comments and questions about the digests. They
can be reached at the Marquette University Law School, 1103 W.
Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53233, (414) 288-7090.
|