The Wisconsin Supreme Court last week announced that it accepted 18 new cases for the 2010-11 term. Below is a discussion of three of the cases that most directly affect Wisconsin businesses.

DeBoer Transportation, Inc. v. Swenson, et al.

The issue in this case is whether an employer failed to show “reasonable cause” by not rehiring an employee recovering from an injury who refused to participate in the company’s mandatory overnight reorientation.

The employee, Charles Swenson (Swenson), injured his knee at work. After several months away from work, Swenson was cleared to return to his job. His employer, DeBoer Transportation, instituted a “reorientation” program for drivers that have been off work more than 60 days. One of the requirements was an overnight “check-ride” that required the driver to spend a number of nights on the road traveling.

Swenson took care of his terminally ill father and therefore requested that DeBoer pay the cost of caring for his father during the overnight check-ride. Because DeBoer refused to pay for the care of Swenson’s father or to make alternative check-ride arrangements, Swenson decided not to participate in the check-ride. As a result, Swenson was not rehired.

Swenson filed a complaint with the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC), which concluded that DeBoer failed to show “reasonable cause” for its refusal to rehire Swenson, as required by Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3). The circuit court upheld LIRC’s decision.

The Court of Appeals reversed LIRC. According to the Court of Appeals, the “reasonable cause standard in Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3) does not contemplate requiring employers to either deviate from a facially reasonable and uniformly applied policy, or explain why it would be burdensome to do so, when a returning employee requests the deviation to accommodate a non-work and non-injury personal need.”

The Court of Appeals further opined that “it is not reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended to impose on employers the burden of judging which non-work, non-injury-related requests need to be accommodated if reasonably possible.” The Court went on to pose a number of hypothetical scenarios where employers would be faced with employees making certain requests, such as making accommodations to meet an employee’s desire not to miss woodworking or dance classes.

Oral argument for this case is scheduled for 9:45 a.m. on Thursday, January 6, 2011.

Kilian v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

This case involves Wisconsin’s Lemon Law and whether the lessee had the right to recoup damages.

The vehicle (a Mercedes-Benz) in this case was leased by Mercedes-Benz Financial (Financial) to Steven Kilian (lessee). In accordance with an agreement with Mercedes-Benz under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law, Kilian returned the vehicle to the dealer and received a refund check from Mercedes-Benz.

After Kilian returned the vehicle he began receiving phone calls from Financial (the lessor) indicating that he was in default on the lease payments. Financial also reported this information to credit bureaus. When Kilian was unable to resolve the dispute, he filed a lawsuit under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law.

Kilian sued Mercedes-Benz arguing that the manufacturer violated the Lemon Law by not automatically refunding Financial the current value of the lease within 30 days of the demand for refund. Kilian also sued Financial for damages for reporting the information to the credit bureaus. Both the trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mercedes-Benz and Financial.

As for the claim against Mercedes-Benz, the court ruled that under Wisconsin’s Lemon Law, the manufacturer only has an obligation to pay off the lease when the lessor offers to transfer the title (Wis. Stat. § 218.0171(2)(b)3.a.). In this case, Mercedes-Benz did not receive an offer from Financial to transfer the title until after the lawsuit was filed. Therefore, the court ruled that Mercedes-Benz did not violate Wisconsin’s Lemon Law.

The Court of Appeals also upheld the lower court’s dismissal of damages against Financial. The Court of Appeals ruled that Kilian failed to prove that he suffered a pecuniary loss by Financial sending the information to the credit bureaus.

Oral argument is set for 9:45 on Wednesday, January 5.

Rasmussen, et al. v. General Motors Corp. et al.

This case will determine whether Wisconsin has personal jurisdiction over foreign corporations based on an agency theory.

Although the case caption cites General Motors, the specific issue in this case involves whether Wisconsin has personal jurisdiction over Nissan Japan.

The lawsuit involved a class action case against numerous auto manufacturers for alleged anti-trust violations. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Nissan Japan and its wholly owned subsidiary, Nissan North America, conspired to keep new car prices at significantly higher prices than prices in Canada for same vehicles. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants arranged for U.S. dealers to not honor warranties on cars imported from Canada to prevent lower prices cars from being imported to the U.S.

The case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction by the trial court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The issue before the Wisconsin Supreme Court is whether Wisconsin’s personal jurisdiction statute (Wis. Stat. § 801.05) allows for general or specific jurisdiction over a foreign parent corporation based on an agency theory.

The case is noteworthy because a line of cases in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin appear to support finding general jurisdiction based on an agency relationship. However, the Court of Appeals cited to a case from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that holds the opposite. See Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 660 (W.D. Wis. 1998). The Court’s decision will determine which line of cases hold and could set significant precedent for foreign corporations.

Oral argument is set for 9:45 on Wednesday, January 5 (after the Kilian case above).