The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday made it easier for workers who are transferred from one job to another against their will to pursue job discrimination claims under federal civil rights law, even when they are not demoted or docked pay.

Workers only have to show that the transfer resulted in some, but not necessarily significant, harm to prove their claims, Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

The justices unanimously revived a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a St. Louis police sergeant after she was forcibly transferred, but retained her rank and pay. Sgt. Jaytonya Muldrow had worked for nine years in a plainclothes position in the department’s intelligence division before a new commander reassigned her to a uniformed position in which she supervised patrol officers.

Muldrow sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and national origin. Lower courts had dismissed Muldrow’s claim, concluding that she had not suffered a significant job disadvantage.

“Today, we disapprove that approach,” Kagan wrote. “Although an employee must show some harm from a forced transfer to prevail in a Title VII suit, she need not show that the injury satisfies a significance test.”

Kagan noted that many cases will come out differently under the lower bar the Supreme Court adopted Wednesday. She pointed to cases in which people lost discrimination suits, including those of an engineer whose new job site was a 14-by-22-foot wind tunnel, a shipping worker reassigned to exclusively nighttime work and a school principal who was forced into a new administrative role that was not based in a school.

The state of Wisconsin’s debt has continued to fall from its height during the Great Recession, and when adjusted for inflation is lower than at any point in at least 25 years. That’s according to a new report from the Wisconsin Policy Forum.

As of December 2023, the state had $11.14 billion in total outstanding debt, according to a state Department of Administration report. That’s down 2.6 percent, or more than $296.3 million, from the prior year before adjusting for inflation.

“On an inflation-adjusted basis, that represents the lowest debt level for the state in at least a quarter-century,” the report states.

The share of the state’s main tax revenue going to debt payments fell below 2.7 percent in both 2021 and 2022, its smallest share since 1984 excluding years when the state skipped making debt payments because of budget challenges. The state has long sought to keep annual debt payments lower than 4 percent.

The share of state transportation fund revenues going to debt payments climbed from 7 percent in 2002 to 18.9 percent in 2019. The state projects that share to fall to 16.2 percent by 2025, due to increases in vehicle registration and other fees, as well as a decrease in new transportation borrowing.

“Going forward, transportation debt will likely remain an ongoing concern for Wisconsin unless lawmakers and Gov. Tony Evers identify additional revenues for the transportation fund, make the general fund transfers permanent, or sharply scale back road projects,” the report says. “None of these options are politically appealing, making this an issue to watch in the next state budget.”

A case argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court this week could have a major impact on future operations of state government.

The court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging the Republican-controlled Legislature’s ability to block land conservation purchases in perpetuity. Attorneys representing both Democrat Governor Tony Evers and Republican lawmakers say the court’s ruling could have far-reaching implications for state government.

The lawsuit filed by Governor Evers in October argues GOP-controlled committees like the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee and Joint Committee on Employee Relations are violating the Wisconsin Constitution’s separation of powers through “legislative vetoes.” The committees have used those vetoes over the last year to block the release of state funds, including shutting down Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program purchases and and denying pay raises for state university employees that had been approved in the state budget.

Assistant Attorney General Colin Roth, who is representing Governor Evers, told justices the committee vetoes are usurping the governor’s ability to execute legislation and funding passed by the Legislature. “Put more simply, may the legislative branch both make the law and then control its execution?” Roth asked. “Of course not.”

Roth said a ruling in the governor’s favor would have impacts well beyond the Knowles Nelson fund. “The rules we’re adopting, I believe, will invalidate many, if not most, legislative committee vetoes that are on the books,” Roth said.

Conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley asked Roth how the Wisconsin Constitution doesn’t authorize lawmakers to delegate power to legislative committees, but does authorize the Legislature to cede power to state agencies.

“Doesn’t your argument jeopardize the entire administrative state in the state of Wisconsin?” Bradley said.

Attorney Misha Tseytlin, who is representing GOP leaders like Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and State Sen. Howard Marklein, R-Spring Green, urged justices to proceed with caution.

“They (Evers) would have this court overturn how our state government has functioned for almost a century, ever since the beginning of the modern administrative state,” Tseytlin said.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued a final rule to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), providing important clarity that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.

The PWFA requires most employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations,” or changes at work, for a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an undue hardship.

The final rule will be published in the Federal Register on April 19 and becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Highlights from the final regulation include:

·       Numerous examples of reasonable accommodations such as additional breaks to drink water, eat, or use the restroom; a stool to sit on while working; time off for health care appointments; temporary reassignment; temporary suspension of certain job duties; telework; or time off to recover from childbirth or a miscarriage, among others.

·       Guidance regarding limitations and medical conditions for which employees or applicants may seek reasonable accommodation, including miscarriage or still birth; migraines; lactation; and pregnancy-related conditions that are episodic, such as morning sickness. This guidance is based on Congress’s PWFA statutory language, the EEOC’s longstanding definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions” from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and court decisions interpreting the term “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions from Title VII.

·       Guidance encouraging early and frequent communication between employers and workers to raise and resolve requests for reasonable accommodation in a timely manner.

·       Clarification that an employer is not required to seek supporting documentation when an employee asks for a reasonable accommodation and should only do so when it is reasonable under the circumstances.

·       Explanation of when an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer and its business.

·       Information on how employers may assert defenses or exemptions, including those based on religion, as early as possible in charge processing.

More information about the PWFA and the EEOC’s final rule, including resources for employers and workers, is available on the EEOC’s “What You Should Know about the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act” webpage.

Two of Wisconsin’s largest utility companies are asking for about $800 million in rate increases over the next two years.

Last Friday, We Energies and Wisconsin Public Service — both owned by WEC Energy Group — filed applications with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin to increase electric and gas rates in 2025 and 2026.

We Energies hopes to increase electric rates by 6.9 percent in 2025 and 4.6 percent in 2026, according to the utility’s application with the PSC. It also requested increases for both of the gas utilities it owns. We Energies’ gas utilities would increase rates by 15 percent and 11.8 percent by 2026. We Energies’ steam utility in downtown Milwaukee also asked for an 8.4 percent rate hike in 2025, but no increase in 2026.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Public Service is requesting an 8.5 percent electric rate increase in 2025 and a 4.9 percent increase in 2026, according to the utility’s application. WPS also requested gas rate increases of 6.8 percent next year and 3.9 percent in 2026.

WEC Energy Group spokesperson Brendan Conway said much of the proposed electric rate increases are tied to construction costs from renewable energy and natural gas projects that have already been approved by the Public Service Commission.

“They approve the project and then years later, once those projects go into service, then that’s when they go into rates,” he said.

Consumer groups like the Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group are calling on the Public Service Commission to look for all possible savings as it works through the rate increase process.

Todd Stuart, executive director for the nonprofit Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, said the state’s largest manufacturers pay more for electricity than their peers in other Midwestern states. He said the average monthly electric bill for a large manufacturer in Wisconsin exceeds $1 million.

A 2023 survey of more than 400 Wisconsin manufacturing executives by the Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity found 26 percent listed energy costs among their top concerns. “It’s tough for me when we’re competing in world markets, and energy is one of their top three costs of doing business,” Stuart said. “We think it acts like a tax. If you want to move the needle on jobs and economic development, then I think addressing those rates — getting them under control — should be a public policy priority.”

The Public Service Commission will hold public hearings on the rate cases later this year, and could make a decision by November or December.

Rising inflation in March didn’t deter consumers, who continued shopping at a more rapid pace than anticipated, the Commerce Department reported Monday. Retail sales increased 0.7% for the month, according to Census Bureau data that is adjusted for seasonality but not for inflation.

Excluding auto-related receipts, retail sales jumped 1.1%, also well ahead of the estimate for a 0.5% advance.

A rise in gas prices helped push the headline retail sales number higher, with sales up 2.1% on the month at service stations. However, the biggest growth area for the month was online sales, up 2.7%, while miscellaneous retailers saw an increase of 2.1%.

Multiple categories did report declines in sales for the month: Sporting goods, hobbies, musical instruments and books posted a 1.8% decrease, while clothing stores were off 1.6%, and electronics and appliances saw a 1.2% drop.

Consumer spending accounts for nearly 70% of U.S. economic output so it is critical to continued growth in gross domestic product.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Ann Walsh Bradley announced Thursday she won’t run for reelection in 2025.

Bradley, 73, has served on the state’s highest court since 1995 and has been reelected twice during that time. In a statement, Bradley said while her time as justice will end in July 2025, “my dedication to public service remains unwavering.”

“I know I can win re-election, should I run,” Bradley said. “But, it’s just time to pass the torch, bringing fresh perspectives to the court. Upon completion of my third term, I look forward to embarking upon a new chapter in my life, which will include public service that is guided by the same principles of justice, fairness and dedication that have defined my tenure on the court.”

Bradley’s announcement comes as a surprise. A year ago, she had indicated that she would run again after Justice Janet Protaziewicz, a fellow liberal, won an open seat on the court. That election gave liberals a majority on the court for the first time in 15 years.

While the next Supreme Court election won’t be for another year, former Republican Attorney General and Waukesha County Judge Brad Schimel has been campaigning since November.

Shortly after Bradley’s announcement, Wisconsin Appeals Court Judge Chris Taylor, a former Democratic state lawmaker and lobbyist for Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, said she’s considering running for the seat. Last year, she was elected to an open seat on the District IV Court of Appeals.

The Biden administration is urging a federal appeals court to reverse a lower court order that would shut down an oil and gas pipeline crossing the Bad River tribe’s reservation within three years.

Attorneys with the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in for the first time as the northern Wisconsin tribe and Canadian energy firm Enbridge have been locked in a years-long legal battle over the fate of the company’s Line 5 pipeline. In 2019, Bad River sued Enbridge in federal court to shut down and remove the pipeline from its reservation.

Last year, U.S. District Judge William Conley ordered the company to pay $5.1 million for trespassing where its pipeline easements expired and shut down Line 5 there by mid-2026. Both Enbridge and Bad River appealed the ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a brief made public Wednesday, the federal government argued Conley was right to find that Enbridge has been trespassing on tribal lands for more than 10 years. Even so, U.S. attorneys said the case should be sent back for the lower court to reconsider both the tribe’s treaty rights and the consequences of shutting down the pipeline on relations between the U.S. and Canada.

“The operation of that pipeline has implications for the trade and diplomatic relationship between the two countries, as well as economic and energy-supply implications,” attorneys wrote in a court filing.

U.S. attorneys also argued a federal judge was wrong in awarding only $5 million to the tribe for Enbridge’s trespass. They note the company has made more than $1 billion in profits tied to Line 5 since its right-of-way easements expired in 2013 on a dozen parcels of the tribe’s land. They say the award does nothing to discourage trespassing and encourages delaying the pipeline’s relocation.

Juli Kellner, an Enbridge spokesperson, said in a statement the company has valid easements under a 1992 agreement to operate Line 5 on the vast majority of land where it crosses the reservation. She said shutting down Line 5 would violate a 1977 treaty between the U.S. and Canada, adding it would negatively impact businesses, communities and millions of people who rely on the pipeline.

Inflation ticked higher in March, according to new Labor Department data released Wednesday. The consumer price index (CPI), a popular measure of inflation, rose 0.4 percent last month and 3.5 percent annually.

The latest numbers come after two months of hotter than expected inflation data. Consumers prices were up 3.2 percent year-over-year in February and 3.1 percent in January.

More than half of the March increase in inflation came from gasoline and shelter prices, two areas with heavy influence on consumer sentiment.

Food prices, however, appear to be flatlining after years of steady increases. Food prices overall rose 0.1 percent in March after staying flat in February. While food bought away from home was 0.3 percent more expensive, groceries prices have been flat for two months and are up just 1.2 percent in the past year.

“This marks the third consecutive strong reading and means that the stalled disinflationary narrative can no longer be called a blip,” said Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, in an analysis.

Democratic Gov. Tony Evers has rejected a bill that would have allowed 14- and 15-year-olds to work in Wisconsin without a permit.

Currently, workers younger than 16 need a permit from Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development to hold most types of jobs, with the exception of agriculture and domestic work. The application can be filled out online with the sign-off of a parent or guardian.

Republican backers say the bill would have sped up hiring by cutting red tape and making it easier for kids to work.

They noted the bill would not have repealed any workforce safety standards for children. Other regulations such as a limit on how many hours kids under 16 can work, a ban on minors working during school hours and a prohibition on children doing “hazardous” work would remain in place.

“This is a simple bill that takes away a bureaucratic step in our youth working,” Sponsor Rep. Amy Binsfeld, R-Sheboygan, said earlier this year, just before Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled Assembly voted to approve the proposal.

But, Democrats and union leaders have argued the change would take away oversight. Evers cited concerns about safety when he vetoed the bill Monday morning during a conference in Madison for Machinists Union District 10.

The proposal had the backing of the National Federation of Independent Business and  Wisconsin Independent Businesses, Inc. The Wisconsin State AFL-CIO opposed it.

In 2017, then- Republican Gov. Scott Walker signed a bill into law that repealed work permit requirements for 16- and 17-year-olds.

A child work permit is $10, and the cost must be covered by an employer. Over the past five years, permit fees have brought in approximately in $288,000 in annual revenue, according to a nonpartisan fiscal analysis. Part of that revenue has paid for one full-time equal rights officer, tasked with investigating labor law violations.