On October 6, 2026, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a landmark ruling in Bartelt Custom Automotive v. LIRC that fundamentally reshapes how injured workers pursue claims when a former employer refuses to bring them back after a workplace injury. The National Law Review spotlighted the decision on October 22, 2026 — exactly today — calling it the first comprehensive clarification in decades of Wisconsin’s unreasonable refusal to rehire law. For workers across manufacturing, construction, healthcare, and virtually every other industry in the state, the ruling arrives at a critical moment: it strips away one of the most difficult evidentiary burdens injured employees have historically faced and places the weight of justification squarely on employers.
This article breaks down what the court decided, why it matters, and how the shift in the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof changes the legal landscape for Wisconsin workers and employers alike in 2026.
What Happened in Bartelt Custom Automotive v. LIRC
The facts of the case are straightforward. Kevin Warlow, a welder employed by Bartelt Custom Automotive, suffered a workplace injury and subsequently sought to return to his position. The company refused to rehire him, citing a claimed work slowdown as justification. At the same time, Bartelt filled Warlow’s position with a newly hired worker — a detail that proved fatal to the employer’s defense. The Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) awarded Warlow compensation under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3), and the Court of Appeals affirmed that award in its October 6, 2026 decision.
What makes the ruling genuinely landmark is not just the outcome for Warlow, but the legal framework the court used to reach it. The decision resolves a long-standing split in Wisconsin published decisions by applying the first-in-time rule, anchoring the controlling precedent to a 1983 foundational case. That resolution eliminates conflicting interpretations that had made outcomes unpredictable for injured workers and employers alike throughout the state.
The Three-Element Prima Facie Case: What Workers Must Now Show
The most significant practical effect of Bartelt is the clarification of the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof that falls on employees. Under the court’s 2026 ruling, an injured worker must establish only three basic facts to trigger employer liability under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3):
- Employment — The worker was employed by the company at the time of injury.
- Work injury — The worker sustained a workplace injury covered under Wisconsin workers’ compensation law.
- Denial of rehire — The employer subsequently refused to rehire or reinstate the worker after the injury.
That is the complete prima facie case. Workers are no longer required to prove that the refusal occurred because of the injury, and they are no longer required to demonstrate that they submitted a formal job application. The elimination of any motive-requirement burden on employees is a dramatic departure from how many courts and employers had previously interpreted the statute. For workers navigating an already difficult recovery period, removing the obligation to prove discriminatory intent is a substantial and practical relief. If you have suffered injuries in a workplace accident and want to understand the broader financial picture of your claim, a personal injury settlement calculator can provide a useful starting point for estimating potential compensation.
Employer Burden Shifts: Proving Reasonable Cause
Once a worker establishes those three elements, the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof shifts entirely to the employer. The employer must affirmatively prove that it had reasonable cause for not rehiring the worker. In Bartelt, the company attempted to satisfy this burden by pointing to a business slowdown — but that argument collapsed because the employer simultaneously hired a new worker to fill the exact position Warlow had held. The court found this sequence of events fatal to the employer’s reasonable-cause defense.
This employer-side burden has real teeth. Acceptable reasonable cause defenses could include documented elimination of the position, a legitimate reduction in force affecting all employees in a classification, or a worker’s inability to perform essential job functions even with reasonable accommodation. What employers cannot do under the Bartelt framework is offer a pretextual justification while their actual hiring activity tells a contradictory story. The ruling applies statewide to all Wisconsin employers, meaning every business in manufacturing, construction, healthcare, retail, and beyond must recalibrate how they document and justify post-injury rehire decisions in 2026 and going forward.
Wage Loss Exposure and Financial Stakes for Employers
The financial consequences of an unreasonable refusal to rehire finding are significant. Under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3), employers found liable are responsible for the injured worker’s lost wages for up to one year. Depending on the worker’s pre-injury earnings, this exposure can reach tens of thousands of dollars per claim. The Bartelt ruling amplifies this risk by making it easier for workers to establish a prima facie case, meaning more claims are likely to survive initial review and proceed to adjudication — or motivate settlement before a hearing.
The table below illustrates the scope of workplace injury claims and wage-loss exposure in Wisconsin and nationally, contextualizing why the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof question carries such high financial stakes:
| Metric | Figure | Source |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. nonfatal workplace injuries and illnesses (private sector, 2023) | 2.6 million cases | U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 |
| Median days away from work per injury (all industries) | 12 days | U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 |
| Manufacturing injury rate per 100 full-time workers | 2.4 cases | U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2026 |
| Maximum wage-loss liability under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3) | Up to 1 year of lost wages | Wisconsin Legislature, 2026 |
| Workers’ compensation costs as % of payroll (U.S. average) | Approximately 1.5% | Insurance Information Institute, 2026 |
For construction workers, who face some of the highest injury rates of any sector, the Bartelt decision is particularly consequential. Severe construction accidents can involve traumatic brain injuries, and workers in those situations may face extended recovery periods that make the rehire question especially fraught. If a workplace accident involves a TBI, a brain injury calculator can help injured workers begin to understand the long-term financial dimensions of their recovery alongside any workers’ compensation or rehire claim.
Why This Decision Resolves Decades of Conflicting Precedent
Wisconsin’s published appellate decisions on Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3) had generated conflicting interpretations over the years, leaving LIRC, employers, and workers’ compensation practitioners uncertain about how to evaluate claims and defenses. Some published decisions had suggested employees bore the burden of connecting the refusal to rehire to the workplace injury — essentially requiring proof of discriminatory motive. Other decisions pointed in a different direction, consistent with the simpler three-element framework that Bartelt now confirms.
The Court of Appeals resolved this split by applying the first-in-time rule: when two published decisions conflict, the earlier decision controls. The foundational 1983 case, which did not impose a motive-proof requirement on employees, now stands as the settled and binding interpretation of the statute. This resolution matters enormously for the predictability of unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof litigation going forward. Employers and their insurers can no longer point to an ambiguous body of law to justify resisting meritorious claims. The standard is now uniform statewide.
For a deeper understanding of how Wisconsin’s workers’ compensation framework operates within the broader structure of state labor law, the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute provides accessible background on workers’ compensation law principles that apply across jurisdictions.
What Wisconsin Injured Workers Should Know Right Now in 2026
If you were injured on the job in Wisconsin in 2026 and your employer has refused to rehire you, the Bartelt decision strengthens your legal position significantly. You do not need to prove that your employer refused to take you back because of your injury. You do not need to show that you formally applied for your old job. You need to establish that you worked there, that you were hurt at work, and that you were not rehired after the injury. The burden then shifts to your employer to justify that decision — and that justification must be genuine, not contradicted by simultaneous hiring of replacement workers.
The unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof framework confirmed in Bartelt applies regardless of your industry. Whether you work in a welding shop, a hospital, a warehouse, or a construction site, Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3) protects you. Document your injury, document any communications from your employer about your return to work, and be aware that employers who fill your position while claiming there is no work for you may face significant liability under the statute. For additional context on your rights under Wisconsin law, the Nolo workers’ compensation guide offers a helpful overview of state-specific protections.
Frequently Asked Questions About Unreasonable Refusal to Rehire in Wisconsin
What does an injured worker have to prove to win an unreasonable refusal to rehire claim in Wisconsin after the Bartelt decision?
Under the framework confirmed by the Wisconsin Court of Appeals on October 6, 2026, in Bartelt Custom Automotive v. LIRC, an injured worker must establish only three elements: that they were employed by the company, that they sustained a work injury, and that the employer subsequently refused to rehire them. The worker does not have to prove that the refusal was motivated by the workplace injury or that they filed a formal job application. Once those three facts are established, the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof shifts to the employer to demonstrate reasonable cause for its decision.
Can an employer avoid liability by claiming there was no available work?
A claimed work slowdown or lack of available positions can serve as reasonable cause — but only if the employer’s actual conduct supports that claim. In Bartelt, the employer’s defense failed precisely because the company hired a new worker to fill the injured employee’s position while claiming insufficient work. Courts and LIRC will look at whether the employer’s stated justification is consistent with its actual hiring activity. Employers who claim no available work while simultaneously filling positions with new hires are unlikely to satisfy the reasonable-cause standard under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3).
How much can an employer be required to pay if found liable for unreasonable refusal to rehire?
Under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3), an employer found liable for unreasonably refusing to rehire an injured worker can be required to pay the worker’s lost wages for up to one year. The precise dollar amount depends on the worker’s pre-injury earnings. For higher-wage workers in industries like manufacturing or construction, this exposure can reach substantial sums. The unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof framework established by Bartelt makes it easier for workers to reach the wage-loss stage of a claim, increasing the practical financial stakes for Wisconsin employers who mishandle post-injury rehire decisions in 2026.
Does the Bartelt ruling apply to all industries in Wisconsin?
Yes. The Bartelt Custom Automotive v. LIRC decision applies statewide under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3), which covers all Wisconsin employers subject to the state’s workers’ compensation laws. The ruling is not limited to automotive or manufacturing workplaces. Workers in construction, healthcare, retail, agriculture, hospitality, and all other industries are protected by the same three-element standard. The court’s resolution of the conflicting published decision precedent using the first-in-time rule means the unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof standard is now uniform and applies equally regardless of employer size or industry sector.
Do I need to formally reapply for my job to have a valid unreasonable refusal to rehire claim?
No. The Bartelt decision explicitly confirms that workers are not required to submit a formal job application to establish a prima facie case under Wis. Stat. § 102.35(3). The three-element standard — employment, work injury, and denial of rehire — does not include a formal application requirement. This is one of the most practically important aspects of the 2026 ruling, because injured workers recovering from serious injuries are often not in a position to navigate formal application processes. The unreasonable refusal to rehire workers compensation burden of proof confirmed in Bartelt is designed to protect workers during the vulnerable post-injury period without imposing procedural obstacles that could defeat otherwise valid claims.
Legal disclaimer: This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice; readers should consult a qualified attorney regarding their specific circumstances and rights under Wisconsin workers’ compensation law.
David Prescott is a Workers Rights and Injury Specialist with extensive knowledge of personal injury law and settlement values across the United States. With years of experience analyzing workplace injury claims only cases, David helps injury victims understand their legal rights and the potential value of their claims. David is not an attorney and the information provided is for educational purposes only.