Under the current family and medical leave law, an employer that employs at least 50 individuals on a permanent basis must allow an employee who has been employed by the employer for more than 52 consecutive weeks and who has worked for the employer for at least 1,000 hours during the preceding 52 weeks to take family leave to care for the employee’s child, spouse, domestic partner, or parent who has a serious health condition. Employers covered under the law must also allow an employee covered under the law to take up to two weeks of medical leave in a 12-month period when that employee has a serious health condition. An employee may file a complaint with DWD regarding an alleged violation of the family and medical leave law within 30 days after either the violation occurs or the employee should reasonably have known that the violation occurred, whichever is later.
The bill makes the following changes to the family and medical leave law:
1. Requires employers covered under the law to allow employees covered under the law to take family leave to provide for a grandparent, grandchild, or sibling who has a serious health condition.
2. Decreases the number of hours an employee is required to work before qualifying for family and medical leave to 680 hours during the preceding 52 weeks.
3. Extends the time period in which an employee may file a complaint with DWD to 300 days after either the violation occurs or the employee should reasonably have known that the violation occurred, whichever is later.
4. Removes the age restriction from the definition of “child” for various purposes under the family and medical leave law.
5. Requires employers to allow employees to take family leave in the instance of an unforeseen or unexpected gap in childcare for an employee’s child, grandchild, or sibling or because of a qualifying exigency as to be determined by DWD related to covered active duty, as defined in the bill, or notification of an impending call or order to covered active duty of an employee’s child, spouse, domestic partner, parent, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling who is a member of the U.S. armed forces.
6. Requires employers to allow employees to take family leave to address issues related to the employee or the employee’s child, spouse, domestic partner, parent, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling being the victim of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, or stalking.
7. Requires employers to allow employees to take family leave to care for a child, spouse, domestic partner, parent, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling of an employee who is in medical isolation and requires employers to allow employees to take medical leave when an employee is in medical isolation. The bill defines “medical isolation” to include when a local health officer or DHS advises that an individual isolate or quarantine; when a health care professional, a local health officer, or DHS advises that an individual seclude herself or himself when awaiting the results of a diagnostic test for a communicable disease or when the individual is infected with a communicable disease; and when an individual’s employer advises that the individual not come to the workplace due to a concern that the individual may have been exposed to or infected with a communicable disease.
Paid family and medical leave benefits
The bill requires employers that are covered by the current family and medical leave law to provide paid benefits to their employees for up to eight weeks of family and medical leave annually, beginning on January 1, 2027. The bill exempts most state employers from required coverage. Under the bill, an employer may buy private insurance to pay benefits to employees. Employers are prohibited from deducting any cost of the insurance from an employee’s paycheck or otherwise seeking reimbursement for the cost of providing the leave benefits.
Under the bill, the amount of leave benefits for a week for which benefits are payable is as follows: 1) for the amount of the employee's average weekly earnings that are not more than 50 percent of the state annual median wage in the calendar year before the employee’s application year, 90 percent of that individual's average weekly earnings; or 2) for the amount of the employee’s average weekly earnings that are more than 50 percent of the state annual median wage in the calendar year before the employee’s application year, 50 percent of that employee’s average weekly earnings.
The bill also provides an employee with the right to appeal a final decision of an employer or an insurer to deny a leave benefit.
Minimum wage
The bill requires the secretary of workforce development to establish a committee to study options to achieve a minimum wage that ensures all workers in this state earn a living wage. Under the bill, the committee consists of nine members, with five appointed by the governor, and one each appointed by the speaker of the assembly, the assembly minority leader, the senate majority leader, and the senate minority leader. The committee must submit a report containing its recommendations for options to achieve a minimum wage and other means to ensure that all workers in this state earn a living wage to the governor and the appropriate standing committees of the legislature no later than October 1, 2026.
Employee right to request and receive work schedule changes
The bill requires an employer to negotiate in good faith with an employee to accommodate changes the employee requests to his or her work schedule. Further, the bill requires that unless an employer has a bona fide business reason for denying the request, the employer must approve an employee’s request if it is directly related to any of the following:
1. A serious health condition of the employee.
2. Responsibilities of the employee as a caregiver for a family member.
3. Enrollment of the employee in certain educational or training programs.
4. A part-time employee’s work scheduling conflicts with the employee’s other employment.
If an employer denies an employee’s request for a schedule change, the employer must inform the employee of the reasons for denial, including whether any of the reasons is a bona fide business reason as defined in the bill.
Service employee right to predictable work schedule
The bill requires an employer that employs an employee in certain service industry occupations, including retail, food service, and cleaning occupations, to provide the service employee with a written copy of the employee’s work schedule on or before the service employee’s first day of work. With certain exceptions, if an employer changes the service employee’s work schedule, the employer must provide the new work schedule to the employee at least 14 days in advance.
The bill also requires that, if an employer changes a service employee’s work schedule with fewer than 14 days’ notice, the employer must pay the service employee an amount equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay for one hour of work. Exceptions to this requirement include when the employee consents to the change or when the employer requires the service employee to work additional time because another employee was scheduled to work that time and is unexpectedly unavailable to work.
The bill also requires the following for employers that use certain scheduling practices:
1. If the service employee reports to work and the employer does not allow the employee to work all time scheduled, the employer must provide the employee with a) full compensation as if the employee had worked the full shift or b) if the employee is scheduled to work more than four hours and works less than four hours, an amount equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay for the difference between four hours and the amount of time the employee actually works.
2. If the employer requires the service employee to contact the employer, or wait to be contacted by the employer less than 24 hours before a work shift to determine whether the employee must report to work, the employer must pay the employee an amount equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay for one hour of work.
3. If the employer requires the service employee to work a split shift, the employer must pay the employee an amount equal to the employee’s regular rate of pay for one hour of work.
If a service employee experiences more than one type of these scheduling practices with respect to a particular work shift, the employer must pay only one type of compensation, whichever is greatest.
The bill also provides that, during any period in which the employer’s regular operations are suspended due to an event outside of the employer’s control, the employer is not required to comply with the service employee work scheduling requirements created in the bill.
Enforcement of rights regarding work schedules
The bill provides that an employer may not interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of the right of an employee to request and receive work schedule changes and the right of certain service employees to a predictable work schedule, and may not discharge or discriminate against such an employee for enforcing the employee’s rights under the bill. An employee whose rights are violated may file a complaint with DWD, and DWD must process the complaint in the same manner that employment discrimination complaints are processed under current law. That processing may include the ordering of back pay, reinstatement, compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and costs and attorney fees.
The bill also provides that DWD or an employee whose rights are violated may bring an action in circuit court against the employer without regard to exhaustion of any administrative remedy. If the circuit court finds that a violation has occurred, the employer may be liable to the employee for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, and, under certain circumstances, liquidated damages equal to 100 percent of the amount of compensatory damages awarded to the employee. In addition to any damages imposed on an employer in an administrative proceeding or circuit court action, an employer that willfully violates the protections created in the bill may be required to forfeit not more than $1,000 for each violation.
Liquidated damages in wage claim actions
Under current law, if an employee files a claim in circuit court for unpaid wages, the court may award liquidated damages to the employee in addition to past due wages. Under current law, the liquidated damages are as follows: 1) if an employee files the suit before DWD has finished its investigation and attempted to settle the claim, a court may award not more than 50 percent of the wages due and unpaid and 2) if an employee files the suit after DWD has completed its investigation of a wage claim, a court may award not more than 100 percent of the wages due and unpaid. Under the bill, irrespective of whether DWD has completed its investigation of a wage claim, an employee is presumed to be entitled to 100 percent of the wages due and unpaid in liquidated damages in addition to the unpaid wages due. An employer may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that they acted in good faith and had a reasonable belief that they were in compliance with the law.
Compensation in job posting
Under the bill, an employer must include the compensation for the position in any job posting made by the employer.
Local employment regulations
The bill eliminates the preemptions of local governments from enacting or enforcing ordinances related to the following:
1. Regulations related to wage claims and collections.
2. Regulation of employee hours and overtime, including scheduling of employee work hours or shifts.
3. The employment benefits an employer may be required to provide to its employees.
4. An employer’s right to solicit information regarding the salary history of prospective employees.
5. Regulations related to minimum wage.
6. Occupational licensing requirements that are more stringent than a state requirement. See Local Government.
Certain state and local employment regulations
The bill eliminates the following:
1. The prohibition of the state and local governments from requiring any person to waive the person’s rights under state or federal labor laws as a condition of any approval by the state or local government.
2. A provision under which neither the state nor a local government may enact a statute or ordinance, adopt a policy or regulation, or impose a contract, zoning, permitting, or licensing requirement, or any other condition, that would require any person to accept any provision that is a subject of collective bargaining under state labor laws or the federal National Labor Relations Act.
Worker classification notice and posting
Current law requires DWD to perform certain duties related to worker classification, including for purposes of promoting and achieving compliance by employers with state employment laws. The bill requires DWD to design and make available to employers a notice regarding worker classification laws, requirements for employers and employees, and penalties for noncompliance. Under the bill, all employers in this state must post the notice in a conspicuous place where notices to employees are customarily posted. Finally, the bill provides a penalty of not more than $100 for an employer who does not post the notice as required.
Worker’s compensation
Expansion of PTSD coverage for first responders
The bill makes changes to the conditions of liability for worker’s compensation benefits for emergency medical responders, emergency medical services practitioners, volunteer firefighters, correctional officers, emergency dispatchers, coroners and coroner staff members, and medical examiners and medical examiner staff members (collectively, “first responders”), who are diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Under current law, if a law enforcement officer or full-time firefighter is diagnosed with PTSD by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist and the mental injury that resulted in that diagnosis is not accompanied by a physical injury, that law enforcement officer or firefighter can bring a claim for worker’s compensation benefits if the conditions of liability are proven by the preponderance of the evidence and the mental injury is not the result of a good faith employment action by the person’s employer. Also under current law, liability for such treatment for a mental injury is limited to no more than 32 weeks after the injury is first reported.
Under current law, an injured first responder who does not have an accompanying physical injury must, in order to receive worker’s compensation benefits for PTSD, demonstrate a diagnosis based on unusual stress of greater dimensions than the day-to-day emotional strain and tension experienced by all employees as required under School District No. 1 v. DILHR, 62 Wis. 2d 370, 215 N.W.2d 373 (1974). Under the bill, such an injured first responder is not required to demonstrate a diagnosis based on that standard, and instead must demonstrate a diagnosis based on the same standard as law enforcement officers and firefighters. Also, under the bill, a first responder is restricted to compensation for a mental injury that is not accompanied by a physical injury and that results in a diagnosis of PTSD three times in his or her lifetime irrespective of a change of employer or employment, in the same manner as law enforcement officers and firefighters.
Worker’s compensation; penalties for uninsured employers
Under current law, an employer who requires an employee to pay for any part of worker’s compensation insurance or who fails to provide mandatory worker’s compensation insurance coverage is subject to a forfeiture. If the employer violates those requirements, for the first 10 days, the penalty under current law is not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for such a violation. If the employer violates those requirements for more than 10 days, the penalty under current law is not less than $10 and not more than $100 for each day of such a violation.
Under the bill, the forfeitures for an employer who requires an employee to pay for worker’s compensation coverage or fails to provide the coverage (violation) are as follows:
1. For a first violation, $1,000 per violation or the amount of the insurance premium that would have been payable, whichever is greater.
2. For a second violation, $2,000 per violation or two times the amount of the insurance premium that would have been payable, whichever is greater.
3. For a third violation, $3,000 per violation or three times the amount of the insurance premium that would have been payable, whichever is greater.
4. For a fourth or subsequent violation, $4,000 per violation or four times the amount of the insurance premium that would have been payable, whichever is greater.
Under current law, if an employer who is required to provide worker’s compensation insurance coverage provides false information about the coverage to his or her employees or contractors who request information about the coverage, or fails to notify a person who contracts with the employer that the coverage has been canceled in relation to the contract, the employer is subject to a forfeiture of not less than $100 and not more than $1,000 for each such violation.
Under the bill, the penalty for a first or second such violation remains as specified under current law, the penalty for a third violation is $3,000, and the penalty for a fourth or subsequent violation is $4,000.
Currently, an uninsured employer must pay to DWD an amount that is equal to the greater of the following: 1) twice the amount that the uninsured employer would have paid for worker’s compensation coverage during periods in which the employer was uninsured in the preceding three years or 2) $750 or, if certain conditions apply, $100 per day.
The bill provides that the amounts an uninsured employer must pay to DWD for a determination of a failure to carry worker’s compensation insurance are as follows:
1. For a first or second determination, the amounts specified in current law.
2. For a third determination, the greater of the following: a) three times the amount that the uninsured employer would have paid for worker’s compensation coverage during periods in which the employer was uninsured in the preceding three years or b) $3,000.
3. For a fourth or subsequent determination, the greater of the following: a) four times the amount that the uninsured employer would have paid for worker’s compensation coverage during periods in which the employer was uninsured in the preceding three years or b) $4,000.
False or fraudulent worker’s compensation insurance applications
Current law specifies criminal penalties for various types of insurance fraud, which are punishable as either a Class A misdemeanor or a Class I felony, depending on the value of the claim or benefit. The bill adds to the list of criminally punishable insurance fraud the following: 1) the presentation of false or fraudulent applications for worker’s compensation insurance coverage and 2) the presentation of applications for worker’s compensation insurance coverage that falsely or fraudulently misclassify employees in order to lower premiums.
Also under current law, if an insurer or self-insured employer has evidence that a worker’s compensation claim is false or fraudulent, the insurer or self-insured employer must generally report the claim to DWD. If, on the basis of the investigation, DWD has a reasonable basis to believe that criminal insurance fraud has occurred, DWD must refer the matter to the district attorney for prosecution. DWD may request assistance from DOJ to investigate false or fraudulent activity related to a worker’s compensation claim. If, on the basis of that investigation, DWD has a reasonable basis to believe that theft, forgery, fraud, or any other criminal violation has occurred, DWD must refer the matter to the district attorney or DOJ for prosecution. The bill extends these requirements to insurers that have evidence that an application for worker’s compensation insurance coverage is fraudulent or that an employer has committed fraud by misclassifying employees to lower the employer’s worker’s compensation insurance premiums.
Worker’s compensation; substantial fault
Currently, under the worker’s compensation law, an employer is not liable for temporary disability benefits during an employee’s healing period if the employee is suspended or terminated from employment due to misconduct by the employee connected with the employee’s work. Current law defines “misconduct” by reference to the unemployment insurance (UI) law. The bill changes the definition of “misconduct” under the UI law, which change also applies for purposes of the worker’s compensation law as described above.
Reimbursements for supplemental worker’s compensation benefits
Under current law, worker’s compensation insurers must pay supplemental benefits to certain employees who were permanently disabled by an injury that is compensable under worker’s compensation.
DWD is authorized to collect up to $5,000,000 from insurers that provide worker’s compensation insurance to provide those supplemental benefits. This money must be used exclusively to provide reimbursements to insurers that pay those supplemental benefits and that request reimbursements. The bill creates a new, separate appropriation in the worker’s compensation operations fund, to be used exclusively to provide these reimbursements. The bill does not increase revenue to DWD or collections from insurers.
Unemployment insurance
Unemployment insurance; worker misclassification penalties
Current law requires DWD to assess an administrative penalty against an employer engaged in construction projects or in the painting or drywall finishing of buildings or other structures who knowingly and intentionally provides false information to DWD for the purpose of misclassifying or attempting to misclassify an individual who is an employee of the employer as a nonemployee under the UI law. The penalty under current law is $500 for each employee who is misclassified, not to exceed $7,500 per incident. In addition, current law provides for criminal fines of up to $25,000 for employers who, after having previously been assessed such an administrative penalty, commit another violation. Current law additionally requires DWD to assess an administrative penalty against such an employer who, through coercion, requires an employee to adopt the status of a nonemployee; the penalty amount is $1,000 for each employee so coerced, but not to exceed $10,000 per calendar year. Penalties are deposited into the unemployment program integrity fund.
The bill does the following: 1) removes the $7,500 and $10,000 limitations on the administrative penalties and provides that the penalties double for each act occurring after the date of the first determination of a violation; 2) removes the limitations on the types of employers to whom the prohibitions apply, making them applicable to any type of employer; and 3) specifies that DWD may make referrals for criminal prosecution for alleged criminal misclassification violations regardless of whether an employer has been subject to any other penalty or assessment under the UI law.
Increasing maximum weekly benefits
Under current law, a person who qualifies for UI receives a weekly benefit rate equal to a percentage of that person’s past earnings, but the weekly benefit rate is capped at $370. The bill changes the maximum weekly benefit rate in the following ways:
1. For benefits paid for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after January 4, 2026, but before January 3, 2027, the maximum weekly benefit rate is capped at $497.
2. For benefits paid for weeks of unemployment beginning on or after January 3, 2027, the maximum weekly benefit rate is increased based upon the change in the consumer price index and is then increased on the same basis annually thereafter.
Increasing benefit wage cap
Under current law, a person who qualifies for UI is ineligible to receive any UI benefits for a week if the person receives or will receive wages or certain other earnings totalling more than $500 (wage cap). The bill changes the wage cap in the following ways:
