United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin
D. PETERSON District Judge.
plaintiff Patricia Ann Williams has filed three documents in
both of the above cases: (1) a “Motion to Add DWD, The
Division of Employment & Training, to Cases and Attached
Documents”; (2) a “Motion to Add Defendants &
Witnesses to Plaintiff['s] Amended Complaint”; and
(3) a “Motion to Add DVR Investigation Questionnaire
and Email to Plaintiff['s] Complaint.” I construe
the first document as yet another motion by Williams for
leave to amend her complaint. Although Williams does not
clearly articulate the purpose of her motion, I understand
her to be attempting to raise a new claim that the division
and its staff violated the Rehabilitation Act by failing to
offer her a job. The purpose of the second document is even
less clear. Although Williams says she wants to “add
defendants [and] witnesses” to her complaint, the
document is almost entirely a list of “witnesses”
followed by a summary of possible testimony. In the third
document, Williams seems to be providing evidence in support
of a claim.
reasons explained below, I am denying all of Williams's
“Motion to Add DWD”
denying this motion for multiple reasons. First, Williams has
filed her motion in two separate cases. Although Williams
asked the court to consolidate these cases, I denied that
motion. She cannot raise the same claim in more than one
as to case no. 16-cv-475-bbc, it is too late for Williams to
amend her complaint. That case has been proceeding since July
1, 2016, and a motion for summary judgment filed by the
Department of Workforce Development is pending. Dkt. 24.
Williams should focus on preparing her response to that
motion rather than making another attempt to expand the scope
of her case.
as to both cases, the new claim Williams is trying to raise
is unrelated to the claims on which the court granted her
leave to proceed. Both cases relate to items in
Williams's “individual plan for employment”
that Williams believes the department must provide under the
Rehabilitation Act. Thus, an unrelated claim about a failure
to hire Williams for a job belongs in a separate case.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and 21.
even if the claim could be included in one of Williams's
pending cases, I would deny the motion because the proposed
claim does not state a claim upon which relief may be
granted. In the motion, Williams alleges that the she is
disabled and that the department declined to offer her a
particular job. However, she does not allege that the
department declined to hire her because she is
disabled, which is a critical element of her claim. 29 U.S.C.
§ 794(a) (prohibiting discrimination against an
individual “by reason of her or his disability”).
The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination, but it does
not require preferential treatment for disabled applicants or
entitle them to particular jobs. Filar v. Board of Educ.
of City of Chicago, 526 F.3d 1054, 1068 (7th Cir. 2008)
(“[A]n employer is not required to give the disabled
employee preferential treatment.”) (internal quotations
after Williams filed her motion, the department filed a
motion to “strike” Williams's motion in the
context of case no. 14-cv-475-bbc. Dkt. 33. I am denying this
motion as moot in light of my decision to deny the motion as
to both cases.
“Motion to Add Defendants and Witnesses”
noted above, most of this document is a list of proposed
witnesses and the potential testimony those witnesses will
give. Williams does not need to list witnesses in her
complaint and she does not need to provide a witness list to
the court at this time. Williams should refer to Rule 26 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the proper
time and form for disclosing witnesses.
Williams wanted to amend her complaint in either or both of
her cases to add new defendants, I will deny that motion.
Williams says nothing in this motion about the ...