Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections

Citation153 F.3d 681
Decision Date17 August 1998
Docket NumberNos. 97-3309,97-3956,s. 97-3309
Parties8 A.D. Cases 1012, 13 NDLR P 171 Craig P. WALLIN, Appellant, v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Dennis Benson, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer (Warden) of the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; David Corbo, individually and in his official capacity as Personnel Director and Associate Warden; Elizabeth A. Binkley, individually and in her official capacity as a Correctional Officer; John & Jane Does, individually and in their official capacities as Correctional Officers at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; Terry Bath, individually and in his official capacity as a Correctional Officer, Appellees. Craig P. WALLIN, Appellant, v. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Dennis Benson, individually and in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer (Warden) of the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; David Corbo, individually and in his official capacity as Personnel Director and Associate Warden; Elizabeth A. Binkley, individually and in her official capacity as a Correctional Officer; John Doe, individually and in their official capacity as Correctional Officer at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; Jane Doe, individually and in their official capacity as Correctional Officer at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater; Terry Bath, individually and in his official capacity as a Correctional Officer, Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Stephen Charles Fiebiger, Stephen C. Fiebiger & Associates, Minneapolis, MN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Margaret Eileen Hendriksen, Steven M. Gunn, Kurt J. Erickson, Attorney General's Office, St. Paul, MN, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before BEAM, ROSS, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

Craig Wallin was twice discharged from his position as a corrections officer at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Stillwater (MCF-Stillwater) and twice reinstated after grievance proceedings. After his second discharge and subsequent reinstatement, Wallin sued the Minnesota Department of Corrections, warden David Benson, human resources director David Corbo, and coworkers Terry Bath and Elizabeth Hughes, claiming they discriminated against him on the basis of his disabilities of alcoholism and depression in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and failed to provide him due process or equal protection of the laws in connection with his terminations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and Wallin appeals. We affirm.

I.

Wallin began working as a corrections officer at MCF-Stillwater in 1980. Eleven years later, in 1991, Wallin was diagnosed with depression and, in July 1991, MCF-Stillwater gave Wallin two weeks of leave on account of his depression. According to Wallin, after he returned, coworker Bath said: " 'I think I'm going to get ahold of a psych so I can get a week off work. I understand that's how you got time off.' " Wallin Dep. (Mar. 6, 1996) at 80-81, reprinted in J.A. at 87-88. Wallin also noticed that someone had drawn pictures on his calendar on each of the days he was absent from work that appeared to be psychiatrist beds. Wallin reported the bed incident, but not Bath's comment, to his supervisor. It was around this time that Wallin began abusing alcohol.

In March 1992, Wallin was arrested and charged with assaulting his girlfriend. Pending trial, MCF-Stillwater permitted Wallin to return to work if he completed a chemical dependency program and remained chemical-free for three years. In August 1992, Wallin pled guilty to one count of gross misdemeanor assault in connection with the assault and received a fifteen-day workhouse sentence. On August 25, 1992, MCF-Stillwater discharged Wallin because of the conviction.

Wallin's union, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), represented Wallin in grievance proceedings under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) covering Wallin's employment. The grievance proceedings resulted in a settlement between AFSCME and MCF- Stillwater that reinstated Wallin with a demotion of one rank, but without reducing his pay (Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement, dated December 11, 1992, settled all claims between the parties. 1 AFSCME and MCF-Stillwater signed the agreement, and Wallin acknowledged that he "underst[oo]d and voluntarily accept[ed] the terms of this Settlement." Settlement Agreement (Dec. 11, 1992) at 2, reprinted in J.A. at 26.

After Wallin returned to work in January 1993, he claims he was subjected to discrimination when, on January 31, 1993, he overheard coworker Bath say the following to another employee: "It's just like these alcoholic fuckers that--around here that go to treatment, go serve a jail sentence, and the institution allows them to come back; this is a bunch of bullshit." Bath Dep. (Feb. 7, 1997) at 40, reprinted in J.A. at 3172. Bath later apologized for this comment, and received a verbal reprimand after MCF-Stillwater investigated the incident. In the spring of 1993, Wallin requested to be transferred to certain other prison facilities, but never suggested that a transfer was necessary to accommodate his disabilities. In fact, there is no evidence that Wallin gave any reason for requesting the transfers. His requests were denied by the transferee prisons.

In late March, Wallin began a dangerous pattern of misconduct and misbehavior. On March 28, 1993, Wallin administered an overly aggressive and unusually lengthy shakedown of an inmate even though a fellow officer could not discern the inmate doing anything wrong. Wallin smiled and told the fellow officer that that was how a shakedown was done. On April 3, 1993, Wallin intentionally left the cell doors in an entire cell block unbolted, creating a security breach. In a memo admitting to the incident, Wallin would not admit that what he had done was wrong, instead explaining that he sought to test a fellow officer who was assigned to check Wallin's work. Wallin would not assure MCF-Stillwater that such unauthorized conduct would not be repeated, instead saying that "it more than likely won't happen again." Wallin Mem. (Apr. 4, 1993), reprinted in J.A. at 2394. On April 20, 1993, Wallin threatened coworker Hughes in front of inmates, while the two were alone doing a nighttime check of the cells. Wallin became very agitated, held the keys needed to get through a gate, backed Hughes up against a railing, cornering her, and refused to give her the key she needed to get through the gate. According to Hughes, Wallin told her: " 'Don't you be telling me what to do.... You really think you're something around here but you ain't shit.' " Hughes Interview (Apr. 21, 1993) at 4, reprinted in J.A. at 2358. Wallin finally opened the door, saying that he did not care if she reported him.

Thereafter, Wallin was interviewed regarding the security breach, the shakedown, and the Hughes incident. Wallin would not admit to much of what others claimed he had done, and often claimed that he could not remember important details. Wallin was suspended without pay pending further investigation. 2 On April 30, 1993, at a meeting between Wallin, Benson, Corbo, Wallin's attorney, and Wallin's union representative, Wallin was terminated. At the meeting, Wallin explained that he was having problems with his medication. Wallin received a termination letter at the meeting that explained that Wallin's termination was due to the three above-described incidents, along with numerous other minor incidents of misconduct.

AFSCME again represented Wallin in a grievance challenging his termination. The grievance was submitted to arbitration. An arbitrator concluded that the security breach and shakedown warranted discipline, but that the incident between Wallin and Hughes was not harassment and did not constitute punishable wrongdoing. According to the arbitrator, the two incidents of misconduct were not extreme and did not constitute just cause for terminating Wallin. Therefore, the arbitrator ordered that Wallin be reinstated, and that the period between Wallin's termination and his reinstatement be treated as an unpaid disciplinary suspension. The discharge letter remained in his file, but was renamed a "suspension" letter.

On November 11, 1993, while the arbitration was pending, Wallin filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charging that he was the subject of disability discrimination between January 14, 1993 and April 30, 1993. On August 3, 1995, the EEOC issued a right to sue letter.

Wallin then filed the instant suit, claiming that MCF-Stillwater violated the ADA under a variety of theories. Wallin also claimed, under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, that Benson, Corbo, Hughes, and Bath denied him due process and equal protection of the laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of Wallin's claims. The district court also awarded partial attorneys' fees of $330.67 to the defendants. Wallin appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment. 3

II.

We review the district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Miners v. Cargill Communications, Inc., 113 F.3d 820, 822 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 441, 139 L.Ed.2d 378 (1997). Summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In determining whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, we "resolve all controversies in favor of the non-moving party, take the non-movant's evidence as true, and draw all justifiable inferences in favor of that party." Miners, 113 F.3d at 823. However, "the non-movant may not rest on allegations or denials in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
170 cases
  • Nagel v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of North Dakota
    • August 25, 2005
    ...his disability be accommodated." Lowery v. Hazelwood School Dist., 244 F.3d 654, 660 (8th Cir.2001) (citing Wallin v. Minnesota Dep't of Corr., 153 F.3d 681, 689 (8th Cir.1998)). However, "the employer is not obligated to provide the accommodation requested or preferred by the employee." Cr......
  • Hill v. Hamilton County Public Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • April 26, 1999
    ...what process is due? Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982); Wallin v. Minnesota Dep't of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681, 690 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 1141, 143 L.Ed.2d 209 (1999); Sanders v. Woodruff, 908 F.2d 310, 312 (8t......
  • Martinez v. Cole Sewell Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • December 6, 2002
    ...F.3d 723, 727 (8th Cir.1999); Mole v. Buckhorn Rubber Prods., Inc., 165 F.3d 1212, 1217 (8th Cir. 1999); Wallin v. Minnesota Dep't of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681, 689 (8th Cir.1998)). The court is unwilling to make such a leap. Rather, as this court explained in Barnes, the plaintiff's notice......
  • Walsted v. Woodbury County, Ia
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa
    • September 25, 2000
    ...the disability to inform the employer that an accommodation is needed." Mole, 165 F.3d at 1217 (quoting Wallin v. Minnesota Dept. of Corrections, 153 F.3d 681, 689 (8th Cir.1998) quotations in Wallin omitted). The court is also mindful that the ADA "does not require clairvoyance." See Hedbe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2014 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 16, 2014
    ..., No. 97 C 7696, 1999 WL20925 at *5 (N.D. 111. Jan. 7,1999) (national origin). See also Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections , 153 F.3d 681, 687 (8th Cir. 1998) (assuming without deciding that ADA hostile environment claims are modeled after Title VII claims), cert. denied, 119 S. ......
  • Summary Judgment Practice and Procedure
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Litigating Employment Discrimination Cases. Volume 1-2 Volume 2 - Practice
    • May 1, 2023
    ...established in those cases apply with equal force to this case of racial harassment”); Wallin v. Minnesota Dep’t of Corrections , 153 F.3d 681, 687-88 (8th Cir. 1998) (applying Faragher to a ADA harassment claim). See also Bowles v. Osmose Utils. Servs. , 443 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2006) (impli......
  • Sexual harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • May 5, 2018
    ..., No. 97 C 7696, 1999 WL20925 at *5 (N.D. 111. Jan. 7,1999) (national origin). See also Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections , 153 F.3d 681, 687 (8th Cir. 1998) (assuming without deciding that ADA hostile environment claims are modeled after Title VII claims), cert. denied, 119 S. ......
  • Sexual Harassment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • August 9, 2017
    ..., No. 97 C 7696, 1999 WL20925 at *5 (N.D. 111. Jan. 7,1999) (national origin). See also Wallin v. Minnesota Department of Corrections , 153 F.3d 681, 687 (8th Cir. 1998) (assuming without deciding that ADA hostile environment claims are modeled after Title VII claims), cert. denied, 119 S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT