Tadder v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys.
| Decision Date | 10 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 13–cv–105–wmc.,13–cv–105–wmc. |
| Citation | 15 F.Supp.3d 868 |
| Parties | Thomas J. TADDER, Plaintiff, v. The BOARD OF REGENTS OF the UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM, Michael J. Falbo and Aaron Bower, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Motion granted. Daniel P. Bach, Michael R. Bauer, Bauer & Bach, LLC, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff.
Steven Carl Kilpatrick, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Defendants.
Plaintiff Thomas J. Tadder worked for the University of Wisconsin system beginning in 1983 until his termination on April 10, 2008. In this lawsuit, Tadder now alleges that his termination was the product of employment discrimination based on disabilities, including diabetes and cognitive disabilities, as well as that his employer failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations. Following this court's initial ruling on defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Tadder was left with two claims: (1) a claim under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794, against the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System (“Board of Regents”); and (2) a claim for prospective relief under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12112, against Michael J. Falbo in his official capacity as the President of the Board of Regents and Aaron Bower in his official capacity as Chancellor of the UW Colleges.1
Currently before the court is defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. # 22), which challenges Tadder's remaining claims on multiple grounds, including that: (1) defendant Falbo lacks the authority to grant the injunctive relief Tadder requests; (2) Tadder was not disabled; (3) defendants lacked knowledge of his disability, even if disabled; and (4) no reasonable jury could find in Tadder's favor on his failure-to-accommodate and discrimination claims. The court finds no reasonable jury could conclude that defendants failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations, nor that his disabilities were the cause of his termination. Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment will be granted.
Plaintiff Thomas Tadder's personnel file has been maintained at the University of Wisconsin Colleges Central Office, located in Madison, Wisconsin, since June 2008; it is currently under the control of Pamela Dollard, the Director of Human Resources for the University of Wisconsin Colleges. The file includes a document dated August 13, 1982, from the Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (the “DVR Document”), indicating that Tadder “has a disability which results in a substantial vocational/occupational handicap based upon available documentation.” ( See Dollard Aff. Ex. 101 (dkt. # 26–1).) The document does not indicate what his disability is, how much it interferes with his ability to perform any specific functions or what accommodations would be appropriate.
There is also no evidence that the DVR Document was ever forwarded to UW–Rock County or to any employee thereof while Tadder worked there, nor is there evidence that the presence of the DVR Document in Tadder's file was disclosed to anyone on staff at UW–Rock County. On the contrary, the DVR Document does not appear in any personnel file maintained on the UW–Rock County campus. Neither Tadder's personnel file nor a separate file in which employees' disability-related accommodation requests are stored contain any documents in which Tadder identified himself as having a disability or requested accommodation.
Tadder was also diagnosed with diabetes in 1990 and began insulin treatments in 1993. Several of Tadder's coworkers were aware that he had diabetes. Moreover, he occasionally took medication for it while on the job. University administration became aware of his diabetes as early as 2002.
Tadder was hired as a Building Maintenance Helper II at the University of Wisconsin–Madison on or around March 8, 1983. He passed his probationary period there on September 7, 1983, with either “good” or “average” scores in each rating category. Tadder was also evaluated as “satisfactory” in 1985, '86 and '87, with his supervisor, Donald Philipp, noting in 1986 that he was “a very hard working employee.” (Bach Decl. Ex. 201 (dkt. # 35–2) 2–3.) He worked at UW–Madison until January 4, 1988, when he got a job as a second shift Building Maintenance Helper II (later changed to Custodian II) at University of Wisconsin–Rock County. In that capacity, Tadder performed duties including vacuuming, mopping floors and removing trash. His position's description also included duties like cutting grass, trimming bushes and trees, using a snowblower and snowplow, and making minor repairs to equipment. Tadder passed his probationary period at UW–Rock County on July 3, 1988.
Tadder's first performance review at UW–Rock County stated that he was devoted to his position, was eager to do the best job he could, and that he had to “work harder than most to achieve his goals,” also stating that he was a “very friendly person” and cared about what others thought of him. His next performance evaluation, for July 1, 1988, through June 30, 1989, was also generally favorable. That evaluation stated that he knew “that every day is a day to learn and a continual challenge” and that he had progressed in his job responsibilities and his personal life.
For the next period, July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991, Tadder's evaluation stated that he “ha[d] the knowledge and skills to perform his position responsibilities and ha[d] shown he can accomplish all assigned tasks.” The following year's evaluation was also generally favorable, indicating that he had improved in remaining composed and found advance planning and improved skills enabled him to better handle changes on short notice. It called him “an equal partner in the crew as well as an important member of the campus staff.” The evaluation went on to note that: “By discussing his problems, the reasons and the circumstances are more understandable thus can be more readily accepted.”
At some point following the 1991–1992 evaluation, Michael Connor, the Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, became Tadder's new supervisor.3 Connor completed his June 1993–June 1994 performance evaluation. That evaluation listed several new goals, including becoming more familiar with power equipment, working “smarter,” broadening knowledge of minor electrical repairs and machine maintenance, becoming more self-sufficient and avoiding reliance on coworkers. In 1994, Tadder submitted two requests for leave without pay, citing medical reasons. Tadder's 1995 evaluation, also signed by Connor, indicated that Tadder had been assigned to a new building, which caused him stress, and that he had not been trained to operate a snowblower, cut grass or make minor repairs beyond changing light bulbs.
In a memo to Tadder dated August 18, 1995, Connor informed him that he had failed to lock doors for the second time that week and threatened disciplinary action. His next performance evaluation, running from June 1995 to June 1996, stated that he needed to learn to deal with difficult persons and learn additional areas of the campus. It also repeated the statement that Tadder had not been trained to plow snow or cut grass, but that he could change light bulbs. Finally, it noted that he was often upset by small changes in his routine.
In a memo to Tadder dated October 10, 1996, Connor stated that Tadder had taken too long on his breaks at least six times during that year, and threatened to write a letter of reprimand. This memo and the memo from 1995 were the earliest reprimands found in Tadder's personnel file.
Tadder's performance evaluation for July 1, 1997, through June 30, 1998, again completed by Connor, stated that Tadder still had not been trained to plow snow or cut grass, but that he changed light bulbs, moved furniture, shoveled snow and emptied trash. The evaluation also stated that the custodial crew as a whole did “an acceptable job,” although the crew was often “not as productive as it need[ed] to be.” It stated that future building projects and a higher standard for building and ground care required working smarter and more productively.
In Tadder's February 11, 2000, performance evaluation, Connor again related that the custodial crew was not as productive as it needed to be and that there was a higher standard for building and grounds care, mandating greater productivity and smarter job performance. Connor also emphasized that Tadder needed to be more self-sufficient and aware of details and that he needed to think about work more.
Dorothy Kremm, Custodial Supervisor and Tadder's direct supervisor at the time, completed Tadder's next performance evaluation around August of 2000. In that evaluation, she noted Tadder's good effort and willingness to “try new methods with encouragement.” On June 26, 2002, in contrast, Connor gave Tadder a written reprimand for failing to lock doors at the end of his shift.
On or about February 2, 2004, Connor drafted an e-mail apparently memorializing a meeting between Tadder, Kremm and Connor regarding how Tadder's diabetes affected his work. The e-mail referred to the need for Tadder “to be responsible for his health and how it relates to his work and operation of equipment.” ( See Bach Decl. Ex. 220 (dkt. # 35–21).) The e- mail also stated that Tadder needed to be told how to operate all the equipment in his area, which was “unacceptable.” ( Id.) Tadder's next performance evaluation, dated February 27, 2004, echoed these concerns. For example, during the evaluation, Kremm observed that Tadder “seems to intentionally forget how to operate everything as instructed after about a week of not operating the piece.” Kremm also...
To continue reading
Request your trial