Background
In 2011, Wisconsin enacted Act 10, a law that significantly curtailed collective bargaining rights for most public sector employees. However, the law created a carve-out for a group defined as “public safety employees,” allowing them to retain most of their prior bargaining rights. The law’s classifications resulted in some employees with law enforcement and public safety duties (like university police, capitol police, and prison correctional officers) being excluded from the protected “public safety” group and instead treated as “general employees” with limited bargaining rights.
A coalition of unions and public employees filed a lawsuit arguing that this classification scheme violated the equal protection guarantee of the Wisconsin Constitution. They contended there was no rational basis for the legislature to include some public safety workers in the protected group while excluding others who performed similar critical functions. A Dane County circuit court agreed, finding the distinctions within the public safety category to be irrational and unconstitutional. The circuit court struck down numerous provisions of Act 10 and a related law, Act 55.
The Court’s Holding
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s decision and upheld the constitutionality of Act 10. The appellate court stated that its review was guided by prior major rulings on Act 10 from the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Walker (2014) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in WEAC v. Walker (2013), which had rejected similar constitutional challenges.
Applying the highly deferential “rational basis” standard of review, the court held that legislative classifications must be upheld if there is any conceivable reason for them. The court is obligated to construct a rationale if one exists, and the law must be upheld unless the challenger proves its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the legislature could have rationally decided that maintaining labor peace with certain public safety unions was more critical than with others to prevent strikes or work stoppages. Even if these lines seemed imperfect, the court concluded it was a policy choice for the legislature to make, not a constitutional violation for a court to second-guess. The court explicitly noted that a nearly identical challenge was considered and rejected in the prior federal case.
Key Takeaways
- Wisconsin’s Act 10, which limited collective bargaining for most public employees while exempting others, does not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Wisconsin Constitution.
- Under the “rational basis” test, a legislative classification will be upheld if the court can conceive of any facts upon which the legislation could reasonably be based. The government’s actual motivation is irrelevant.
- The legislature is permitted to draw lines between different groups of employees, even if those lines appear imperfect, as long as there is a rational justification. Preventing labor unrest among employees deemed most critical to public safety is a valid rational basis.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms the legal foundation of Act 10, one of the most significant and controversial pieces of legislation in Wisconsin’s recent history. It solidifies the dramatic changes to public sector labor relations that have been in place for over a decade. The ruling also serves as a strong reminder of the high bar that plaintiffs face when challenging economic and social legislation on equal protection grounds. So long as the government can provide a rational basis for its policy choices, courts are required to defer to the legislature’s judgment, effectively insulating such laws from constitutional attack.