The Wisconsin Supreme Court continues to issue its final opinions of the 2010-11 Term. Below are two decisions decided by the court on Tuesday:
DeBoer Transportation, Inc. v. Charles Swenson, 324 Wis. 2d 485, 781 N.W. 2d 709 (2011)
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 and refused 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), who determined the deBoer failed to show “reasonable cause” for its refusal to rehire Swenson. LIRC concluded that deBoer’s actions did not constitute
“reasonable cause” because deBoer offered no explanation for why it could not alter the check-ride to accommodate Swenson’s personal need to take care of his father. The court held that LIRC incorrectly applied the worker’s compensation statute.
Courts have previously held that merely saving costs is reasonable cause. The court concluded that Swenson’s failure to complete the check-ride, a long standing “legitimate safety policy” of deBoer, was reasonable cause for refusing to rehire Swenson. The court concluded that worker’s compensation statute §102.35 (3) does not require an employer to change its legitimate and long-standing safety policies in order to assist an employee in meeting personal obligations.
Justce Bradley, joined by Chief Justice Abrahamson dissented, arguing the check-ride was merely a pretext for a refusal to rehire.
Kilian v. Mercedes – Benz USA, 324 Wis. 2d 583, 785 N.W. 2d 687 (2011)
In a unanimous decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that Mercedez-Benz’s enforcement of a lease after the plaintiff received a refund for the leased car violated Wisconsin’s Lemon Law. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to his costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees, but was not entitled to an award for pecuniary loss.
Steve Kilian (Kilian) leased a Mercedes-Benz from Mercedes-Benz Financial (Financial). After numerous problems associated with the vehicle, Kilian returned the vehicle to the dealer and received a refund check from Mercedes-Benz as required by Wisconsin’s Lemon Law.
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.
Even though Kilian sought equitable relief and not pecuniary damages, the Supreme Court concluded that he could maintain an action under Lemon Law. In reversing the lower court, the Supreme Court ruled that the court of appeals incorrectly interpreted the Lemon Law statute by limiting its remedy to pecuniary loss.
The Supreme Court rejected Financial’s argument that it made an innocent mistake because there was no way to stop the notices from being mailed by its automated collections system. According to the court, this argument ignored that fact that the Lemon Law unambiguously prohibits enforcement of the lease following the issuance of a refund to the customer and that the statute provides no exception for “mistaken enforcement.”
The court ruled that Kilian was entitled to his costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorney fees, but was not entitled to an award for pecuniary loss. According to the court, because Kilian had already received a complete refund from Mercedes – Benz USA, it would be against legislative intent to award him double pecuniary damages, the usual remedy under the Lemon Law.
Justice Ziegler did not take part in this decision.