## Facts

- Karen Hartberg worked for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services and held a trainee position as a Public Health Educator (PHE).
- On September 25, 1980, the agency issued a letter stating its intent to terminate Hartberg’s PHE trainee position for alleged misconduct (failure to follow procedures, absence from station, and ignoring supervisory instructions) and offered a hearing opportunity.
- After a meeting on October 7, 1980, the agency issued a letter on October 23, 1980 stating Hartberg had not refuted the allegations and terminating the PHE position effective October 26, 1980.
- Termination from the trainee position was expected to result in Hartberg returning to her prior state position, but that position had been eliminated; she was ultimately separated from state employment.
- Hartberg and her union alleged the termination was motivated in part by retaliation for protected activity, including filing personnel-related complaints and supporting a co-worker’s sexual-harassment complaint.
- The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) found the termination was motivated in part by hostility toward protected activity and ordered remedial relief; the circuit court and court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. What causation standard governs a public-sector unfair labor practice claim alleging discipline or discharge was motivated in part by protected activity under SELRA?
2. Whether Wisconsin should replace the Muskego-Norway motivating-factor standard with a federal NLRB mixed-motive, burden-shifting framework.
3. Whether WERC’s findings of unlawful motive were supported by substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, leaving in place the circuit court judgment and WERC’s unfair-labor-practice order.
- The court held the Muskego-Norway standard controls under SELRA for mixed-motive claims.
- The court declined to adopt the federal NLRB mixed-motive burden-shifting framework urged by the State.
- The court upheld WERC’s findings as supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- In Wisconsin public-sector labor cases, an employer commits an unfair labor practice if hostility toward protected activity is a substantial or motivating factor in discipline or discharge, even if other legitimate reasons also contributed to the decision.
- The complainant must prove protected activity was a motivating or significant factor in the adverse action; protected activity need not be the sole cause.
- Judicial review of WERC factfinding applies a substantial-evidence standard, and supported inferences regarding unlawful motive will be sustained.
- Wisconsin precedent (Muskego-Norway) governs SELRA mixed-motive analysis absent a statutory directive to apply later federal NLRB standards.

## Conclusion

The court upheld WERC’s determination that the State unlawfully terminated Hartberg because retaliatory hostility toward protected activity was a substantial motivating factor, reaffirming that such a motive establishes a SELRA violation even when legitimate reasons are also asserted.


Wis. Dep’t of Emp. Rels. v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Comm’n, 122 Wis. 2d 132, 361 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1985)