This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps are teachers employed by the Maple School District. Each teacher is married; each teacher's spouse is employed; and each spouse's employer offers health insurance benefits to the spouse. The 1986-87 collective bargaining agreement between the P and the Maple Board of Education provides as follows:... c. A married employee is entitled to family coverage. d. A married teacher whose spouse is eligible for family coverage at his/her place of work shall have the option of carrying either the district's policy or the spouse's policy but not both. If the spouse carries a single plan, the employee of the district shall be eligible for a single plan through the district. Duplicate coverage will be allowed if the employee's other insurance policy provides significantly less coverage than the School District of Maple's policy. D describes this condition of employment as simply a 'health insurance non-duplication policy.' This policy is applicable only to married employees. Married employees, with employed spouses who are covered by comparable employer-provided health insurance, are forced to elect the district's policy or the spouse's policy. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from 'discriminating against any individual in promotion, compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment' on the basis of marital status. D determined that this discrimination against married couples did not violate the WFEA. Ps sued D and the district court found for Ps. The appeals court affirmed. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.