Wisconsin was the first state to pass legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. 1981 Assembly Bill 70 added sexual orientation to the list of legally protected classes, along with gender, race, and religion. This legislation was signed by a Republican governor, Lee Dreyfus.
Laurie McCallum, recently appointed by Scott Walker to our state's Labor and Industry Review Commission, has just gone on record stating that, despite state statute and precedent, asserts that Wisconsin's workplace protections only apply to sexual harassment.
NEPOTISM.
Followers of Wisconsin politics know that Senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald helped get his brother Jeff (now speaker of the assembly) into his Assembly seat. That they got their father a spot as head of the State Patrol.
You might know that Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch (gay marriage is like marrying tables or dogs) is married to Joel Kleefisch, a prominent member of the Assembly. This is Rebecca's first go at public office. Nice, starting out as Lt. Gov.
So who's Laurie McCallum? She's the wife of former republican governor Scott McCallum, who lost election in 2002.
THE CASE.
The full article is in the Milwaukee Gazette. The case involves Chris Bowen, who worked for two decades at Stroh Tool and Die:
The court record showed that a group of Bowen’s co-workers repeatedly called him “fag,” “maricon” and “my little bitch,” among other slurs, over a period of years. Bowen once found a bulls-eye hunting target over which the word “gay” was written stuck to his toolbox. Someone put a sign that said, “queer” or “queen” on his locker. A sticker was put in his workplace that said, “Honk if you’re gay.”
In a statement that was excluded as evidence at Bowen’s administrative hearing, co-worker Kathryn Corroo said, “I witnessed the sexual harassment against Chris Bowen, especially during February 2002 through May 2002 by (co-employees) Tom Meier, Rick Hafemeister, David Lepke, Jesse Manhardt and Rose McGee. … I heard Tom Meier say that Chris was not in a very good mood and that maybe it was because he (Chris) didn’t get a apiece (sic) of ass over the weekend at Pridefest, the day after the weekend of Pridefest. I heard Rick Hafemeister make comments to Chris and myself about how all nigers (sic) and queers, etc. ... (sic) should be put in a big hole and shot. And get rid of them all.”
Mmm. Nice workplace. Bowen eventually lost his job:
Bowen was fired in 2003 after a disagreement with another worker, who claimed Bowen grabbed his shirtsleeve during an altercation. Hetizer said the worker taunted Bowen and then complained he’d been assaulted when Bowen responded.
McCallum dissented in a commission decision:
In a 2-1 decision, commissioners Robert Glaser and Ann L. Crump found that Stroh was responsible for fostering a workplace environment hostile to Bowen because of his sexual orientation. Stroh did not deny that the harassment occurred...
McCallum was the "1" in the "2-1". She stated that, not only doesn't the anti-discrimination law apply to harassment on the basis of sexual preference, but she thought that the company acted responsibly to Bowen's complaints. Because there's no problem with anti-gay harassment in the workplace.
If Scott Walker finishes out his four year term, he will get to name at least one more member of the commission. Good luck if you have any employment problems in Wisconsin. (Unless of course you're the employer.)
9:09 AM PT: Thanks to johnny wurster for searching out the original decision. The first footnote is good reading, where the two other commissioners take McCallum to task:
(1)( Back ) While the majority of the commission would have thought it went without saying that harassment based upon sexual orientation is prohibited under the Act, and in spite of the fact that the respondent has not raised this issue, the dissenting commissioner has attempted to call that essential premise into question. The dissent argues that since the portion of the Act that specifically addresses harassment only makes reference to sexual harassment or harassment based upon sex, the legislature must not have intended harassment based upon sexual orientation to be covered. The majority rejects this interpretation. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 111.31(3), the provisions of the Act are to be liberally construed "to encourage and foster to the fullest extent praticable the employment of all properly qualified individuals regardless of. . . sexual orientation. . . ." In keeping with its stated purpose, the Act contains a broad prohibition against discriminating against any individual with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of employment. Wis. Stat. §§ 111.322(1) and 111.36(1)(d). Working in an atmosphere free of harassment is unquestionably a "term and condition" of employment covered by the Act, and the commission has specifically found that the "terms and conditions" portions of the statute prohibits other types of harassment than sexual harassment...
The dissenting commissioner nonetheless argues that, because Wis. Stat. § 111.36(1)(b) contains a specific prohibition against sexual harassment, it is must be presumed that the legislature did not intend to cover harassment on any other basis. By that logic, however, it would be permissible to harass an employee based upon race, national origin, religion, age, or disability, simply because the word "harassment" does not specifically appear in the statute in reference to those otherwise protected classes. The commission has never found this to be the case and, in addition to Plastocon, cited above, has issued numerous decisions addressing harassment based upon race, see, for example, Salley v. Nationwide Mortgage & Realty Corp., ERD Case No. CR200502419 (LIRC Dec. 13, 2007), national origin, for example, Polasik v. Astronautics, Corp., ERD Case No. 8123357 (LIRC April 8, 1983), and creed, for example, Brye v. Brakebush Bros., ERD Case No. 8802413 (LIRC Jan. 11, 1993).