134.02 Blacklisting and coercion of employees. (1) Any 2 or more persons, whether members of a partnership or company or stockholders in a corporation, who are employers of labor and who shall combine or agree to combine for any of the following purposes shall be fined not less than $100 nor more than $500, which fine shall be paid into the state treasury for the benefit of the school fund: (a) Preventing any person seeking employment from obtaining employment. (b) Procuring or causing the discharge of any employee by threats, promises, circulating blacklists or causing blacklists to be circulated. (c) After having discharged any employee, preventing or attempting to prevent the employee from obtaining employment with any other person, partnership, company or corporation by the means described in par. (a) or (b). (d) Authorizing, permitting or allowing any of their agents to blacklist any discharged employee or any employee who has voluntarily left the service of his or her employer. (e) Circulating a blacklist of an employee who has voluntarily left the service of an employer to prevent the employee’s obtaining employment under any other employer. (f) Coercing or compelling any person to enter into an agreement not to unite with or become a member of any labor organization as a condition of his or her securing employment or continuing therein. (2) (a) Nothing in this section shall prohibit any employer from giving any other employer, to whom a discharged employee
History: 1993 a. 482. A complaint alleging a conspiracy for the purpose of injuring another by means of perjury and resulting damage states a claim upon which relief can be granted. Radue v. Dill, 74 Wis. 2d 239, 246 N.W.2d 507 (1976). Malice is an integral element that must be proved under this section and must be proved in respect to both parties to the conspiracy. For conduct to be malicious under conspiracy law, it must be conduct intended to cause harm for harm’s sake. Maleki v. Fine-Lando Clinic Chartered, S.C., 162 Wis. 2d 73, 469 N.W.2d 629 (1991). A doctor’s personal service corporation was merely the alter ego of the doctor. The doctor and the corporation did not constitute “two or more persons” under this section. Wausau Medical Center, S.C. v. Asplund, 182 Wis. 2d 274, 514 N.W.2d 34 (Ct. App. 1994). An employee’s claim against fellow employees for injury to reputation and profession was preempted by s. 102.03. Mudrovich v. Soto, 2000 WI App 174, 238 Wis. 2d 162, 617 N.W.2d 242, 99-1410. Malicious injury to reputation and business claims do not require the existence of a contract in order to lie. The economic loss doctrine does not apply in the case of an independent tort based on allegations distinct from any contract allegations that seeks separate, non-economic damages. Brew City Redevelopment Group, LLC v. Ferchill Group, 2006 WI 128, 297 Wis. 2d 606, 724 N.W.2d 879, 04-3238. This section is a criminal statute, but Wisconsin courts have found an implied private right for victims of such conspiracies. To prove a claim under this section, a plaintiff must show that: 1) the defendants acted together; 2) with a common purpose to injure the plaintiff’s reputation or business; 3) with malice; and 4) the plaintiff suffered financial harm. Kuryakyn Holdings, LLC v. Ciro, LLC, 242 F. Supp. 3d 789 (2017).
134.90 134.91 134.93 134.95 134.96 134.97 134.98 134.99
Purchase and sale of certain scrap material. Poles and wires on private property without owner’s consent. Privacy and cable television. Contracts restricting days for exhibiting motion picture films; penalty. Exhibition of explicit sexual material at outdoor theater. Contracts for the display of free newspapers. Renewals and extensions of business contracts. Poultry dealing regulations. Shipment of chickens. Transportation and sale of cattle. Detectives, settlement with employees. Use of unauthorized persons as officers. Felons, burglar alarm installation. Cutting or transportation of evergreens. Nitrous oxide; restrictions on sales; records of certain sales; labeling. Cigarette, electronic vaping devices, and tobacco products retailer license. Restrictions on sale or gift of cigarettes or nicotine or tobacco products. Peddling finger alphabet cards prohibited. Antique dealers and recyclers. Pawnbrokers and secondhand article and jewelry dealers. Flea markets; proof of ownership, receipts, returns. Prohibition of certain unsolicited messages by facsimile machine. Identification of prisoner making telephone solicitation. Nondisclosure of information on receipts. Beverage container regulation. Home heating fuel dealers. Water heater thermostat settings. Automated teller machines; international charges. Repair, replacement and refund under new motorized wheelchair warranties. Uniform trade secrets act. Sale of dextromethorphan to a minor without prescription prohibited. Payment of commissions to independent sales representatives. Violations against elderly or disabled persons. Use of lodging establishments. Disposal of records containing personal information. Notice of unauthorized acquisition of personal information. Parties to a violation.
May 22, 2026, are designated by NOTES. (Published 5-22-26)
134.02
Updated 23-24 Wis. Stats.
MISCELLANEOUS TRADE REGULATIONS
has applied for employment, or to any bondsman or surety, a truthful statement of the reasons for the employee’s discharge, when requested to do so by any of the following: 1. The discharged employee. 2. The person to whom the discharged employee has applied for employment. 3. Any bondsman or surety. (b) It shall be a violation of this section to give a statement of the reasons for the employee’s discharge with the intent to blacklist, hinder or prevent the discharged employee from obtaining employment. (c) Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit any employer from keeping for the employer’s own information and protection a record showing the habits, character and competency of the employer’s employees and the cause of the discharge or voluntary quitting of any of them. History: 1993 a. 482; 1995 a. 225. To plead a claim for blacklisting, a plaintiff must allege that: 1) the defendants acted together; 2) with malice; and 3) with a common purpose to prevent the plaintiff from obtaining employment. Deeren v. Anderson, 518 F. Supp. 3d 1271 (2021).