Ealy v. Fladhammer
| Decision Date | 27 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | 17-cv-718-wmc |
| Parties | LAMONTE ALTON EALY, Plaintiff, v. DIANE FLADHAMMER, DONALD STRAHOTA, DARRELL JANZEN, TRACI NAVIS, TIMOTHY CRAPSER, SALLY WESS, LARRY FUCHS, TIMOTHY THOMAS, TARA MILLER, and EMILY DAVIDSON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Pro se plaintiff Lamonte Alton Ealy was granted leave to proceed on a First Amendment retaliation claim against certain employees of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, all of whom are named as defendants above, as well as on a state law claim for defamation against defendant Darrell Janzen alone. Before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #42.) For the reasons that follow, the court will grant in part defendants' motion, granting summary judgment in favor of all defendants except for Darrell Janzen. As to the latter, the court will deny defendants' motion with respect to plaintiff's claims for both First Amendment retaliation and defamation.
Plaintiff Lamont Alton Ealy is an inmate in the custody of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections ("DOC"), and he was incarcerated at New Lisbon Correctional Institution ("NLCI") at all times relevant to his complaint.3 All of the defendants are or were employees of the DOC, most of whom were employed at New Lisbon at all times material to plaintiff's complaint. As relevant, the court describes individual defendant's specific role or position in the facts below.
At all times relevant to Ealy's claims, defendant Darrell Janzen was the first shift sergeant on the A-Unit. On February 13, 2017, Ely was transferred from a second shift A-Unit janitor to a second shift A-Unit laundry worker. The transfer was approved by the sergeant for the second shift, Sergeant Mattke, and another DOC employee, J. Trepes.4 The laundry room has three main inmate workers: one full-time worker on first shift; one full-time worker on second shift; and a part-time worker that flexes between both shifts.
The two supervisors of the laundry room, Sergeants Janzen and Mattke, worked collaboratively to make sure that all laundry workers, regardless of their shifts, worked efficiently. As such, Janzen was one of Ealy's supervisors, even though Janzen worked first shift and Ealy worked second shift. At minimum, Janzen was able to observe Ealy's performance during any overlap.
Shortly after he started as a laundry worker, Sergeant Janzen represents that he heard complaints from other inmate workers about Ealy. Specifically, Janzen avers he received complaints from janitors on third shift that Early was not washing their rags in a timely manner, which defendants maintain was one of Ealy's assigned tasks. In response to this proposed finding, Ealy contends that he did not "disregard washing the rags," but also directs the court to a sign in the laundry room that "no mops, rags are to be washed - dried in these machines." (Pl.'s Resp. to Defs.' PFOFS (dkt. #50) ¶ 18; see also Ealy Decl., Ex. 1 (dkt. #52-1) (note from Fladhammer acknowledging the sign).)5 Janzen also avers other inmate workers complained that Ealy was: not completing his work in a timely manner; pushing his work onto other shifts; and attempting to change how the laundry room was run and set up. In response to this proposed finding, Ealy contends that other inmates were provided access to the laundry room to wash rags in violation of the inmate handbook, and any attempt on his part to try to change laundry room procedures was an attempt to enforce institutional rules. (Early Decl., Ex. 2 (dkt. #52-2) (inmate handbookstating that "[o]nly the unit laundry worker(s) may operate the washers and dryers" and "are permitted in the laundry room").) Consistent with Ealy's account, defendants acknowledge that janitors were allowed access to the laundry room to wash their rags, despite this violating written rules, in an effort to make sure that the rags were cleaned in a timely manner. Ealy also complained to Sergeant Janzen about non-laundry workers having access to the laundry room.
Defendant Traci Navis, a NLCI Unit Manager, also represents that she received complaints about Ealy's job performance on multiple occasions. Navis recalls complaints from staff about Ealy not doing his job as indicated in the job description, complaining about his job, and attempting to make changes without staff approval. Navis also recalls hearing complaints from inmates who worked with Ealy.6 Navis further avers that she personally witnessed Ealy's job performance, noting that he complained frequently, had a poor attitude about his job and coworkers, and would not accept direction from any supervisor. Specifically, Navis observed that Ealy would ignore staff and often became confrontational when was given direction. Ealy purports to dispute these observations on the basis that Navis would "spend most of her time in her office." (Pl.'s PFOFs (dkt. #50) ¶ 25.)
Manager Navis also avers that staff, including herself, spoke with Ealy on multiple occasions about his work performance and attitude, including giving him "verbal warnings"about his performance, as well as providing direction and encouragement. (Defs.' PFOFs (dkt. #44) ¶ 26.) However, Ealy disputes that he was ever provided a verbal warning, in part by representing that if an inmate disobeys orders, staff would have written him up in a conduct report. (Pl.'s PFOFs (dkt. #50) ¶ 26.) Nevertheless, Navis avers that, despite this feedback and verbal warnings, Ealy did not show any improvement or signs of working to make improvements.
DAI Policy 309.00.01 establishes guidelines for inmate work placement. Specifically, inmates should be evaluated by a supervising staff at least once every six months using form DOC-780A. However, evaluations may be completed more frequently as determined by work supervisors or the department head.
Because of the complaints that he had received about Ealy's performance, Sergeant Janzen represents that he decided it would be appropriate to complete an early evaluation for Ealy. Specifically, on March 24, 2017, Janzen proceeded with a work performance evaluation. (Janzen Decl., Ex. 1011 (dkt. #46-2).) The evaluation form provides for rankings from 0 to 4 across nine categories, with 0 being the worst rating and 4 being the best. While a score of 36 is, therefore, the maximum score, any score below 19 is considered "unsatisfactory" and can lead to termination. After Ealy received an unsatisfactory score of 18, Janzen noted in the staff comments section, (Id.) Sergeant Janzen and Manager Navisboth signed and dated this document "3/24/17"; where the inmate signature is called for, the form instead states, "refused to sign," and the date of "3/25/17" appears. (Id.)
Among other things, Ealy challenges the ratings on this form. Specifically, for the attendance at work category, Janzen rated Ealy a "3," which corresponds with absent 1-2 days in the last 45 days. Ealy contends that this is false, pointing out that he received full payment of $15.20 in his trust account statement for that period, which corresponds with him not missing a single day during the roughly six-week period between the start of his employment as a laundry worker and the date of the evaluation. .) Ealy also challenges his ratings with respect to work performance based on Janzen not working second shift and, therefore, not observing Ealy's performance.
Moreover, Ealy points out that Sergeant Mattke hired him as an A-Unit full-time custodian on January 13, 2017, and completed a work evaluation for him on February 11, 2017, before his transfer to the laundry room. On that evaluation, Mattke gave him a rating of 27 out of the possible 36, and as Ealy points out, would have been in a better position to evaluate his work ethic as the supervisor of the laundry room during his shift. (Ealy Decl. (dkt. #52) ¶¶ 22-24; id., Ex. 8 (dkt. #52-8).) In response, defendants merely maintain that Janzen properly relied on the complaints he purportedly received in completing the form, and that he need not have personally observed Ealy's work.
On March 27, 2017, Ealy was officially terminated from his position as a laundry worker, though the "effective date" of the termination was either March 25 or 26. (Compare Early Decl., Ex. 9 (), with Janzen Decl., Ex. 1012 (dkt. #46-3) (showing effective date of 03/26/17, with the "6" hand-written over the 5 in theprior typed date).) The paperwork terminating Ealy is signed by Unit Manager Diane Fladhammer, J. Trepes (whose position is not identified and is not a defendant), and Janzen. (Janzen Decl., Ex. 1012 (dkt. #46-3).) Janzen and Fladhammer both signed the form on "3/27/17"; Trepes signed it on "4/6/17." Fladhammer represents that she signed the form because Manager Navis was on vacation. Defendants also represent, and plaintiff does not dispute, that it is not uncommon for inmates to be terminated because of an unsatisfactory performance evaluation.
Ealy contends that on March 23, 2017, the day before Sergeant Janzen initiated his early evaluation of Ealy, he followed the chain of command and complained to defendant Captain Timothy Crapser about Janzen's refusal to follow institutional rules. In particular, Ealy avers that he "complained about the [failure to follow the] rule that prohibit[s] washing and drying rags and mop heads." (Ealy's Decl. (dkt. #52) ¶ 8.)7 In his declaration, Ealy goes on to aver that despite his complaints directly to Sergeant Janzen, he continued to allow janitors to access the laundry room, and that decision was also contrary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial