DiRenzo & Bomier Recovers an Amount 295 times the Insurance Company’s Original Offer

In a fairly recent case, a client hired us to represent her related to a serious motor vehicle accident.  She originally hired another law firm and while represented by that firm, she received an offer to settle her claim for $500 because the insurance company felt that the client was not seriously injured and would not need any further treatment.  After the client hired us, we reviewed the injuries sustained by the client and determined that it was not appropriate to attempt to settle her claim as she was still treating and had not yet reached a healing plateau.

 

The client ultimately had to undergo a back fusion surgery.  After that surgery, we obtained an opinion letter from the doctor relating that surgery to the accident.  After negotiating with the various insurance companies involved in this matter, the matter settled for $147,500 which were the applicable policy limits less a small reduction.

 

Many clients ask us, why should we hire you when we can get an offer on our own?  The answer to that question is simple.  In the hands of an experienced personal injury attorney a case that may have been settled early on for a lower number can, under certain circumstances, result in a much more favorable outcome for the client as evidenced by the above matter.  While this was a drastic example of an extremely favorable outcome, it demonstrates that there are certain jobs that need professional assistance and in most cases, car accidents fit that bill.

Court rulings on WFEA can make missteps costly

Wisconsin employers need to be aware that the Wisconsin courts are interpreting the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act ("WFEA") very liberally. The WFEA was put into place to accomplish the worthy goal of preventing workplace discrimination.

This act applies to any employer in Wisconsin that employs at least one person. Therefore, if you have one or more employees working for you, this is an area of the law that you should be aware of.  The WFEA prevents discrimination based on many different characteristics. Recently, the interpretation of this act in the area of accommodations for employees with disabilities has put Wisconsin employers on notice. In the words of one Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Wisconsin is undergoing a "sea change" in employment law.

One recent case that places a high burden on employers is Hutchinson Technology v. Labor and Industry Review Commission. The case involved Hutchinson Technology Incorporated "11-11"), a manufacturing plant in Eau Claire. The management of HTI decided that it would implement 12 hour shifts to improve efficiency and to meet the preferences of HTI employees. FITI did not routinely allow its employees to work less than a twelve hour shift. Susan Royek was an employee at HTI who worked in the production department. When she was hired, Royek understood that she was required to work twelve hour shifts per company policy.

While employed at HTI, Royek was diagnosed by her personal physician with lower back problems in the form of disk problems. HTI requested that she undergo a fitness for work evaluation and based on that evaluation, it was determined she could steadily work eight hour shifts five days a week. Royek was unable to work 12 hour shifts per company policy.

Because she could not work the 12 hour shifts required of HTI employees, the company terminated her employment. Royek filed a complaint with the Equal Rights Division of the Wisconsin Workforce Development Department and alleged that her termination was discriminatory. More specifically, that she was discriminated against because she had a disability.  Royek's case eventually found its way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. That court decided  that HTI discriminated against Royek based on her disability when it terminated her.

In coming to this conclusion, the court relied on another of its fairly recent opinions entitled Crystal Lake. Cheese Factory v. LIRC. In that case, the court held that an employer had to make accommodations for an employee that was rendered a quadriplegic in a non-work-related accident. The Crystal Lake employee could no longer meet the pre-injury job requirements and the court held that a change in job duties was a reasonable accommodation. In other words, the employer had to retain an employee that could no longer complete all of the tasks that she was hired to perform.  In Royek's case, the court decided that it was not unreasonable for HTI to allow her to work eight hour shifts instead of the company policy that required twelve hour shifts The court stated that in disability accommodation cases there are three steps. First, the employee must prove that he or she has a disability. A disability is a condition that "makes achievement unusually difficult or limits the capacity to work." Second, the employee must demonstrate that an accommodation for the disability exists. Third, if the employee proves the fast two steps, the employer can argue that the requested accommodation imposes a hardship on the company. In determining whether a requested accommodation imposes a hardship, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has imposed a very high hurdle for employers to clear.

The court recognized that employers have a right to set their own employment rules. However, those rules must "bend to the requirements of the WFEA." One of the Wisconsin Supreme Court judges that disagreed with the opinion stated that the WFEA in certain cases now requires Wisconsin employers to "forego valid business decisions."

While I am certainly not condoning any blatantly discriminatory practices in Wisconsin workplaces, I do believe that the recent decisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in this area of the law have placed a heavy burden on Wisconsin

employers that need to be taken to heart.

Employers may now be required to retain employees that cannot fully perform their jobs or cannot meet workplace rules. It is clear that one wrong decision by an employer in how an employee with a disability is treated can become a costly mistake.