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

Under Wisconsin's unemployment compensation scheme, 'base period' wages count towards unemployment compensation eligibility. Base period wages include wages earned during employment, and 'employment' is defined as 'any service . . . performed by an individual for pay.' However, in applying the Cannery Rule, the definition of employment does not include services by an individual for an employer that is engaged in the processing of fresh perishable fruits or vegetables within a given calendar year if the individual has been employed by the employer solely within the active-processing season or seasons, as determined by the department [of workforce development], of the establishment in which the individual has been employed by the employer, and the individual's base period wages with the employer are less than the wages required to start a benefit year under § 108.04(4)(a), unless the individual was paid wages of $200 or more for services performed in employment or other work covered by the unemployment insurance law of any state or the federal government, other than work performed for the processing employer, during the 4 most recently completed quarters preceding the individual's first week of employment by the processing employer within that year. For a seasonal fruit or vegetable processing worker to meet the definition of 'employment,' and thus be eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits, he must have 1) been employed with the processor outside the 'active processing season'; 2) been separately eligible under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(4)(a); or 3) earned over $ 200 in another job during the time period outlined in the statute. P provided seasonal labor for Seneca Foods, Inc. from June 11 to October 7, 1999, earning $ 10,290.98. On April 4, 2000, P filed for unemployment compensation in Wisconsin. The Department for Workforce Development (DWD) noted that his claim for unemployment compensation fell under the purview of the Cannery Rule and thus found that Zambrano was ineligible to receive benefits. P concedes that he did not work for Seneca outside the active processing season. The amount of wages that he earned during this time period was $1,159.81, and this amount was less than four times his weekly benefit rate of $305 (i.e., 4 x $ 305 = $ 1,200). DWD concluded that P did not meet the second condition under § 108.04(4)(a) to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits under the Cannery Rule. P's only income from Wisconsin employers other than Seneca that year was $1,250 he earned for work performed for Lifestyle Staffing during May and June 1999. These wages were earned in the same quarter as the start of his employment with Seneca. DWD concluded that P was not eligible to receive benefits because he did not meet the requirements of the Other Employment provision of the Cannery Rule. P sued D alleging that the Cannery Rule ran afoul of two federal statutes and that it violated principles of equal protection. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of D upholding the Cannery Rule. P 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.