Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin

February 28, 2018

PATRICIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, DELORA NEWTON, ENID GLENN, KARL DAHLEN, SHERI POLLOCK, JOSEPH LEDGER and ANDRE SMALL, Defendants. PATRICIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, JOSEPH LEDGER and ANDRE SMALL, Defendants. PATRICIA WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, KARL DAHLEN, SHERRI POLLOCK, MEREDITH DRESSEL, NICHOLAS LAMPONE, ENID GLENN and DELORI NEWTON, Defendants.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          BARBARA B. CRABB, District Judge

         In these three consolidated cases, pro se plaintiff Patricia Williams is suing the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development and several of its employees for discriminating and retaliating against her in various ways. Now before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. #42. (Citations are to docket numbers in case number 17-cv-253-bbc, unless otherwise specified.) For the reasons below, I am granting the motion in full. Because I am granting defendants' motion, I will deny their earlier filed motion to compel as moot.

         From defendants' proposed findings of fact and plaintiff's responses, I find the following facts to be material and undisputed. Notably, plaintiff did not submit her own proposed findings of fact. Although she made several factual assertions in her brief, she did not cite admissible evidence to support those assertions. Additionally, plaintiff submitted several documents as exhibits to the declaration of “Shameeah Flowers, ” but plaintiff never identifies Shameeah Flowers or explains how she would have foundation or personal knowledge to authenticate the documents. Therefore, none of these documents are admissible evidence.

         UNDISPUTED FACTS

         A. Division of Vocational Rehabilitation Cancels Contract with Plaintiff's Business

         For several years, plaintiff Patricia Williams has received vocational rehabilitation services from defendant Department of Workforce Development, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. In 2010, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation entered into a service provider agreement with plaintiff, under which plaintiff's business, Williams Career Placement, would provide job development and coaching services to other individuals receiving services from the Division. Dkt. #49-3. On July 10, 2012, the Division sent plaintiff a letter giving her 90-days notice of the termination of the service agreement. Dkt. #49-4. The letter stated that Williams Career Placements was not meeting “expectations in providing equitable and quality services to all [Division] consumers.” The letter went on to state that plaintiff had engaged in the “unethical business practice” of contacting consumers directly on a regular basis, as well as calling staff too frequently. Id.

         In April of 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint with Wisconsin's Equal Rights Division, contending that the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation ended her service provider contract because of her disability, race and color, and in retaliation for protected activity. The Equal Rights Division dismissed her complaint without a hearing on the grounds that plaintiff's business, Williams Career Placement, was an “independent contractor” not protected by the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act. Plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Labor and Industry Review Commission, which remanded the matter for a hearing on the question of jurisdiction. On November 7, 2017, the Equal Rights Division held a hearing on the issue whether Williams Career Placement was an employee or an independent contractor. The parties filed posthearing briefs in January 2018, and the case remains pending.

         B. Plaintiff is Hired for a Limited Term Position with the Department of Workforce Development

         In 2015, defendant Andre Small was the Section Chief of Job Service for the Department of Workforce Development's Division of Employment and Training-Bureau of Job Service. He was responsible for managing the department's call center, among other duties. During the summer and fall of 2015, there was an opening for a limited term employee in the call center. The limited term positions are for a term of 1, 400 work hours. Small worked with the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation to recruit a person for the position. Plaintiff expressed her interest in the position and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation forwarded her resume to Small. Small then interviewed plaintiff and offered her the limited term position, making clear to plaintiff that the position would last only 1, 400 hours.

         Defendant Small acted as plaintiff's supervisor at the call center and set up training for her. In Small's opinion, plaintiff did not retain the training information as well as the other limited term employees. However, Small did not terminate plaintiff, but allowed her to complete the 1, 400 hours by answering calls and then transferring the constituents to call center staff members who could better assist them.

         C. Defendant Sheri Pollack Files Record of Administrative Proceedings with Court

         On May 4, 2015, plaintiff requested a hearing with the Department of Administration regarding a dispute (unrelated to this case) she was having with the Department of Workforce Development. After the Department of Administration, Division of Hearing and Appeals, reached a decision unfavorable to plaintiff, she petitioned for judicial review in the Circuit Court for Dane County, Case No. 15-CV-2095. On October 19, 2015, defendant Sheri Pollock, the deputy chief legal counsel for the Department of Workforce Development, filed the certified record of the administrative proceeding with the circuit court on behalf of the department. The court ultimately affirmed the decision of the Division of Hearing and Appeals.

         On March 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter with the Circuit Court for Dane County in case 15-CV-2095, requesting an appeal and an investigation into what she believed was an unlawful disclosure of her records from her consumer file, specifically, the administrative record of the proceeding. On April 8, 2016, the circuit court denied plaintiff's motion for an investigation, concluding that the records were necessary because the court “needed to know what the DWD relied on in reaching its decision.” The court further stated, “How else can I decide?” Dkt. #49-2.

         D. Plaintiff Seeks Investigation into ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.