The Wisconsin Court of Appeals recently upheld a decision that awarded worker’s compensation benefits to Kevin Warlow after he was unreasonably refused rehire by Bartelt Custom Automotive, Inc. The ruling, issued on October 6, 2026, clarifies the legal standards for employees seeking to claim benefits under Wisconsin’s worker’s compensation laws. This decision affects not only Warlow but also sets a precedent for other employees in similar situations.
Warlow, who had previously worked as a welder at Bartelt, sustained a workplace injury in January 2017. After recovering, he was informed that he would not be rehired, despite a suitable position being available. The court’s ruling emphasizes the responsibilities of employers regarding rehiring employees who have been injured on the job.
Background
In the case of Bartelt Custom Automotive, Inc. v. Labor and Industry Review Commission, docket number 2024AP000133, the dispute began when Kevin Warlow filed a complaint with the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC). Warlow had worked at Bartelt Custom Automotive as a welder but was injured on the job, leading to a compensable workplace injury under Wisconsin law.
After his recovery, Warlow returned to Bartelt, only to find that his position had been filled. Although a press brake operator position was available, he was not offered that job. Warlow argued that Bartelt’s refusal to rehire him constituted an unreasonable refusal under Wisconsin’s worker’s compensation laws, specifically WIS. STAT. § 102.35(3).
The case went through administrative and judicial proceedings, ultimately leading to LIRC affirming an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) decision that Bartelt had unreasonably refused to rehire Warlow. The circuit court also affirmed LIRC’s decision, prompting Bartelt to appeal.
The Ruling
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Warlow, affirming LIRC’s decision. The court clarified the prima facie case that an employee must establish to claim unreasonable refusal to rehire under WIS. STAT. § 102.35(3). The court stated, “To establish a prima facie case for unreasonable failure to rehire under § 102.35(3), a claimant must show that they: (1) were an employee; (2) sustained an injury in the course of their employment; and (3) were subsequently denied rehire.”
The court rejected Bartelt’s argument that Warlow needed to prove he was denied rehire specifically because of his workplace injury and that he had applied for rehire. Instead, the court determined that the elements of the prima facie case did not require those additional burdens.
Judge Geenen, along with Chief Judge Donald and Judge Petrashek, ruled that LIRC’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. They found that Bartelt did not provide reasonable cause for failing to rehire Warlow, and that suitable work existed within Warlow’s physical and mental limitations.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for employees in Wisconsin who have suffered workplace injuries. It clarifies that employers cannot refuse to rehire injured employees without demonstrating reasonable cause. The decision reinforces the protections afforded to workers under Wisconsin’s worker’s compensation laws, ensuring that employees who sustain injuries at work have a clear path to seek benefits if they are not rehired.
Additionally, the ruling sets a precedent that may influence future cases regarding the interpretation of unreasonable refusal to rehire claims. Employers must now be more diligent in their hiring practices and consider the implications of not rehiring employees who have been injured on the job.
What’s Next
The ruling can be appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, and it remains to be seen whether Bartelt will pursue that option. There are no related cases pending that directly address the same issues, but this decision could influence similar cases in the future.