An Act to amend 111.322 (2m) (a) and 111.322 (2m) (b); to create 103.09, 106.54 (11) and 111.91 (2) (gp) of the statutes; Relating to: requiring an employer to provide reasonable break time and accommodations for an employee who is breastfeeding the employeeâs child to express breast milk for the child. (FE)
AB1166 would create a new state-law requirement that employers provide reasonable break time and suitable accommodations for employees who are breastfeeding and need to express breast milk for a child under one year of age. The bill requires a private, non-bathroom space shielded from view and free from intrusion, and it also requires access to an electrical outlet, running water, and a refrigerator for milk storage. Break time generally would be unpaid, but it must be treated as paid work time if the employee is not fully relieved from duty during the break.
The bill also protects employees from interference, retaliation, discharge, or discrimination for using or enforcing these rights. Complaints would be handled by the Department of Workforce Development in the same manner as employment discrimination complaints, with possible remedies including reinstatement, back pay, compensation in lieu of reinstatement, and attorney fees. The bill would apply to all employers, including state and local government employers, but employers with fewer than 50 employees could claim an undue hardship exemption if compliance would cause significant difficulty or expense.
In terms of state law, AB1166 largely codifies and expands protections that already exist under federal law by placing them directly into Wisconsin statutes and extending them to all employers with at least one employee, rather than only those covered by federal law. It also adds related anti-retaliation protections to Wisconsin’s fair employment laws and creates a complaint-processing role for the Department of Workforce Development. The bill further clarifies that unpaid pumping time counts as paid time for purposes of determining eligibility for employer health care contributions when eligibility depends on hours worked.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of workplace accommodations for nursing employees, with the measure framed as a labor and family-support policy. There is no committee transcript or vote record provided showing active debate, but the bill’s introduction by a broad group of Assembly and Senate cosponsors suggests a coalition of support. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not complete the legislative process despite its sponsorship.
The main point of potential contention is the scope of the mandate, especially the requirement that all employers, including very small employers and public employers, provide specific lactation accommodations. Small employers are given an undue hardship exemption, but only if they can show significant difficulty or expense, which may still be viewed as burdensome by some businesses. Another possible issue is the bill’s interaction with collective bargaining agreements, since it delays application to covered employees until an inconsistent agreement expires, is extended, modified, or renewed.
AB1166 would create new Wisconsin statutory protections for breastfeeding employees by adding a standalone requirement for reasonable break time and lactation accommodations, expanding coverage to all employers with at least one employee, including state and local government. It would also amend Wisconsin’s anti-retaliation and fair employment provisions to protect employees who request or enforce these rights, and it would assign complaint handling to the Department of Workforce Development under existing discrimination procedures. The bill would affect employers’ workplace policies, break-time practices, and, in some cases, health coverage eligibility calculations tied to hours worked.
The bill appears generally favorable toward employee workplace accommodations and family health needs, with broad introductory sponsorship suggesting support for the policy. No committee testimony or recorded votes are provided, so there is no direct evidence of organized opposition in the available materials. The final legislative outcome was negative, however, because the bill failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not secure enactment despite its supportive framing.
The most likely areas of contention are the breadth of the mandate and its compliance costs for employers, especially small businesses and public employers that would need to provide private space, refrigeration, water, and break-time accommodations. Although the bill includes an undue hardship exemption for employers with fewer than 50 employees, the standard still requires a showing of significant difficulty or expense, which could be disputed. Another possible issue is how the new requirements would interact with existing collective bargaining agreements and workplace scheduling practices, since the bill delays applicability for certain union-covered employees until contract changes occur.