Sands v. Menard, Inc.
Wisconsin Supreme Court
787 N.W.2d 384 (2010)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Through a family member, lawyer Dawn Sands (plaintiff) knew John Menard (John), the founder and president of Menard, Inc. (Menard) (defendant). John recruited Sands to take over the position of David Coriden, Menard’s general counsel. In June 1999, Sands began her employment with Menard as executive general counsel. Sands oversaw the legal department, performed legal duties, handled media inquiries, and served as a public liaison. A few months after Sands started, Coriden was terminated. Coriden had earned nearly $105,000 annually. For the next several years, Sands repeatedly made requests for a higher salary, and her requests were mostly denied. As of July 2001, she was making an hourly wage of $30.92 per hour, or less than $65,000 annually. In 2006, still making the same hourly wage, Sands pressed the chief operating officer (COO) for a raise. The COO made demeaning gender-based comments to her (“Why don’t you get married like every other girl?”). Sands countered that she was entitled to a raise under the Equal Pay Act. Not long thereafter, John and Sands had a heated encounter in which John repeatedly cursed at Sands and abruptly fired her, ordering her to leave the office while pounding his fist on her desk. Sands believed she had been a victim of gender discrimination and terminated in violation of Title VII. Sands and Menard agreed to submit their dispute to binding arbitration before a three-attorney panel that could order any available remedies under state and federal law. The panel found in favor of Sands, awarded compensatory and punitive damages, and ordered her reinstatement. Menard was prepared to pay the damages but refused to reinstate Sands. Sands had testified that John was “monstrous and reprehensible” but claimed she could continue representing Menard if she could be assured of her personal safety. The trial and intermediate appellate courts confirmed the arbitral award. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed to review the matter to consider the arbitration panel’s authority to order reinstatement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gableman, J.)
Dissent (Abrahamson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.