Brown v. Wisconsin
| Decision Date | 25 January 2017 |
| Docket Number | 16-cv-346-bbc |
| Parties | SHANNON BROWN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN, SCOTT WALKER DR. CATHY SANDEEN, JASON BEIER, DR. RICHARD M. KLEMME, Dean, University of Wisconsin Extension, MATTHEW HANSON, GRANT COUNTY, WISCONSIN, ROBERT KEENEY, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1-25 ROBIN VOS, Speaker of Assembly, and SENATOR MARY LAZICH, Senate President, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
SHANNON BROWN, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WISCONSIN, SCOTT WALKER DR. CATHY SANDEEN, JASON BEIER,
DR. RICHARD M. KLEMME, Dean, University of Wisconsin Extension, MATTHEW HANSON,
GRANT COUNTY, WISCONSIN, ROBERT KEENEY, JOHN OR JANE DOES 1-25 ROBIN VOS,
Speaker of Assembly, and SENATOR MARY LAZICH, Senate President, Defendants.
16-cv-346-bbc1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
January 25, 2017
OPINION & ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Shannon Brown was an assistant professor for the University of Wisconsin-Extension in Grant County in 2015 and 2016 in a tenure-track position. He alleges that, after he objected to "the use of faculty resources for non-educational programming," he was subjected to harassment and attempts to fire him. Dkt. 14, at ¶ 32. Ultimately, Brown gave notice that he "could no longer continue providing services" and left his employment with UW-Extension. Id. at ¶ 55.
In his amended complaint, Brown raises eleven claims: (1) "due process," (2) "ex post facto law," (3) "state impairment of the obligation of contracts," (4) "hostile work environment," (5) "whistle-blower retaliation," (6) "speech retaliation," (7) "defamation," (8) "tortious interference with a contract," (9) "breach of contract," (10) "fraud," and (11) "privileges and immunities clause." Because Brown filed his amended complaint before any of
Page 2
the defendants filed an answer, he was entitled to amend without leave of court, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), so I have ignored the original complaint. Anderson v. Donahoe, 699 F.3d 989, 997 (7th Cir. 2012).
The court has jurisdiction to hear Brown's federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (relating to federal questions) and his state law claims under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Brown also cites the diversity jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, but he does not include any allegations about the parties' citizenship in his amended complaint, so he has not satisfied the requirements for diversity jurisdiction.
In two separate motions, all of the defendants have moved to dismiss all of Brown's claims. One motion was filed by individuals and entities associated with the state of Wisconsin ("the state defendants"), Dkt. 18, and one was filed by defendants Grant County and Robert Keeney ("the county defendants"), Dkt. 24. The state defendants later filed what they called an "amended" motion to dismiss, Dkt. 35, but it is more accurately called a notice because it does not change the scope of the original motion. Rather, defendants simply wish to clarify that their motion applies to defendants Robin Vos and Mary Lazich because their original motion was ambiguous on that point.
In response to defendants' motions, Brown has abandoned his claim for "ex post facto law," so I need not consider that claim. For the reasons discussed below, I conclude that Brown has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to any of his other claims. The common problem with many of Brown's claims is that the allegations of wrongdoing are so vague that it is impossible to tell exactly what each defendant did to harm him. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." I will give Brown a final opportunity
Page 3
to replead those claims that could be fixed with additional facts. If Brown chooses to amend his complaint, he must tell a simple, clear story about what each defendant did to violate his rights.
Brown alleges the following facts in his amended complaint. Dkt. 14.
In 2015, plaintiff Shannon Brown moved from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin to take a job as an assistant professor for the University of Wisconsin-Extension in Grant County.2
Page 4
Brown was "on a statutory-tenure track with a five-year, renewable contract pending tenure." Dkt. 14, at ¶ 21. (Brown does not describe any of the terms of the contract.)
In July 2015, less than two weeks after Brown started his job, the Wisconsin legislature and the governor passed 2015 Wisconsin Act 55, which imposed new budget cuts and repealed Wis. Stat. § 36.13, the statute governing tenure for state faculty.
After the repeal, defendant Cathy Sandeen, the chancellor of UW-Extension, visited Grant County, expressing the desire to "regionalize" the functions of UW-Extension. Around the same time, defendant Richard Klemme, the dean of UW-Extension, informed the faculty of "the need to re-focus educational programming in light of the recent budget reductions." Dkt. 14, at ¶ 28. (Brown does not provide any details in his amended complaint about the way that educational programming was changed.) In response to the changes, Brown complained to "supervisors and administrators" that his job "involved substantial, non-educational, administrative tasks for Grant County and significant County budget administrative oversight rather than educational programming." Id. at ¶ 29.
In mid-August 2015, Brown "was notified" (by whom he does not say) that individuals "from Grant County" wanted to terminate his employment. Id. at ¶ 30. Brown was later notified (again, by whom he does not say) that the county cannot "summarily fire" a faculty member. Id. at ¶ 31. In response, Brown "provided discrete, written notice of the use of faculty resources for non-educational programming to supervisors." Id. at ¶ 32.
"Grant County continued [the] abuse, harassment, bullying, and intimidation of Plaintiff through September and October including statements at public meetings." Id. at ¶ 34. (Brown does not provide any additional description of the alleged conduct. His use of
Page 5
the word 'continued' suggests the existence of earlier harassment, but he does not provide any examples.) The "Administration" for UW-Extension was "fully aware" of this conduct, but it "took no apparent curative or prophylactic action." Id. at ¶ 35.
In late November 2015, Brown asked the "Administration" for reassignment because of "the hostile work environment" and because of "continuing demands to support significant, non-educational programming, in apparent conflict with law and policy, with threats of job loss for 'non-cooperation.'" Id. at ¶ 35. When no reassignment was available, Brown asked for severance pay instead. Defendant Matthew Hanson, the southwest regional director, informed Brown "that no mechanism was available to him to permit severance," but directed Brown to contact defendant Jason Beier, assistant vice chancellor for human resources. Id. at ¶ 37. However, Beier stated that "no mechanism existed for severance without a lawsuit." Id. at ¶ 38.
In January 2016, defendant Hanson admitted to Brown that he "knew of the pending reorganization plan and faculty regionalization" before Brown was hired. Id. at ¶ 40.
At an unspecified time, "Grant County made comments about only hiring 'locals' in the future." Id. at ¶ 41. In January 2016, the county "worked directly" with defendant Hanson "to re-hire a 'local' staff member" after a staff member from out-of-state left. Id.
On March 16, 2016, Brown was scheduled for an annual faculty review. Ten minutes before the review was scheduled to begin, Brown "was notified" in a "closed-door meeting" that "the County" was going to attend the review, that "the County" was "claiming issues" with Brown, and that the "University of Wisconsin Extension Administration" was threatening the possibility that Brown could lose his appointment under the "60 day clause" of his contract. Id. at ¶ 44. (Brown does not explain what the "60-day clause" is.) Brown
Page 6
chose not to proceed with the faculty review, but he asked to be present at any meeting if he was going to be discussed.
Two hours later, "supervisory faculty" told Brown that his "continuing with the County and Extension" would be discussed. Id. at ¶ 46. The "Administration" and defendant Robert Keeney "immediately" held a hearing about the "issues" raised by unknown individuals. Id. (Brown does not provide Keeney's title or otherwise explain who he is. The county defendants say that Keeney is the Grant County board chairman.)
At the "hearing," defendant Hanson began questioning Brown, but Brown stated that he would not answer any questions. Defendant Keeney "admitt[ed] that no material issues existed with the Plaintiff" and that there were "challenges posed by the recent budget cuts" that required "changes." Id. at ¶ 49. However, Keeney "insinuated" that Brown had submitted an "improper" invoice to the county, even though he knew the allegation to be false. Id. at ¶¶ 49-51. Staff members attending the hearing objected to the insinuation.
Brown discussed "the situation" with "faculty representatives." Id. at ¶ 53. After that discussion, Brown determined that using the faculty grievance process would be "futil[e]." Id.
Two days later, Brown left for a vacation. When he returned, he submitted a written notice to the "Administration" that he "could no longer continue providing services." Id. at ¶ 55. Defendant Hanson accepted the notice.
A. Due process
In his amended complaint, Brown identifies two ways that his due process rights were violated: (1) the repeal of Wis. Stat. § 36.13, a statue governing tenure and granting other
Page 7
rights to state faculty members; and (2) the failure to provide adequate notice before a hearing regarding Brown's employment on March 16, 2016. Brown's amended complaint does not state a claim under either theory.
Much of Brown's argument that he was denied due process seems to rest on an assumption that the due process clause is a general entitlement to be treated fairly by all government officials in every circumstance. Although it is certainly true that fairness is a primary goal of the due process clause, Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of Durham Cty., N. C., 452 U.S. 18, 24 (1981), a claim under that clause has particular elements that Brown largely ignores. In particular, a Brown must show two things to...
To continue reading
Request your trial