Myron L. Gordon

This case concerns Michael Piaskowski's federal habeas corpus petition challenging his state conviction for being a party to the first-degree murder of coworker Thomas Monfils at a Wisconsin paper mill, where Monfils was beaten, weighted, and drowned in a pulp vat. The court granted the writ, ordering Piaskowski's release, because the evidence was constitutionally insufficient to support the conviction under Jackson v. Virginia. No physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, or confession tied Piaskowski to the crime; the state's case rested solely on his report that Monfils was missing and his presence with the other defendants before and after the incident. The Wisconsin appellate court's decision upholding the conviction amounted to an unreasonable application of the Jackson standard, as the evidence could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Piaskowski conspired or aided and abetted the murder.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved nearly 1900 current and former Milwaukee police officers who sued the City of Milwaukee under the Fair Labor Standards Act, claiming that the city improperly denied their requests to use accrued compensatory time off. The officers argued that the city rejected requests whenever granting them would require paying overtime to replacements or calling in officers from other shifts or precincts, even when no undue disruption to operations would occur. The court denied the city's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion, declaring that the city's practices violated 29 U.S.C. § 207(o)(5). The core reasoning was that the FLSA requires employers to permit use of comp time within a reasonable period after a request unless it would unduly disrupt agency operations, and the city's policy of denying specific requested dates (while offering alternatives within a week) did not satisfy this standard when no undue disruption was shown. The court also addressed a separate issue by granting the city's motion to join the Milwaukee Police Association as a third-party defendant regarding a 1990 settlement agreement.

labor & employment

Plaintiff Euleeta White sued her employer, Milwaukee Wire Products, under Title VII, alleging that her supervisor sexually harassed her on three occasions between 1997 and 1998 through unwanted physical contact. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. Two of the incidents fell outside the 300-day statute of limitations for filing an EEOC charge and could not be saved by the continuing violation doctrine, as the plaintiff acknowledged the second incident was independently actionable. The remaining incident, though offensive, was an isolated event insufficient by itself to create an objectively hostile work environment under precedents requiring severe or pervasive conduct.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved the estate and family of a young child who died in foster care, alleging that Milwaukee County and its social workers negligently failed to warn the foster parents about the child's medical condition that caused seizures, and that the foster parents were negligent in not seeking prompt hospital care on the day of her death. The county sought partial judgment on the pleadings to dismiss the claim seeking to hold it vicariously liable for the foster parents' negligence. The court granted the motion and dismissed that claim, ruling that the county could not be held vicariously liable because foster parents do not have a master-servant relationship with the county under Wisconsin common law. The court further held that a state statute providing conditional immunity for placement agencies does not create vicarious liability or abrogate common law agency principles, even when the statutory conditions for immunity are not met.

torts & liabilityfamily law

The case involved Cedarhurst Air Charter challenging Waukesha County's airport rules that required aircraft owners to purchase fuel exclusively from a designated fixed base operator, alleging violations of federal antitrust law under the Sherman Act through monopolization and illegal tying, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act, FAA regulations, and the Commerce Clause. The county moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing state action immunity for the antitrust claims and that it acted as a market participant under the Commerce Clause. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that Wisconsin's airport statutes did not clearly articulate a policy authorizing anticompetitive conduct in light of the state's own antitrust laws, which favor competition, and that the fueling restrictions differed from mere fees or surcharges such that the market participant doctrine did not apply to bar the Commerce Clause claim; the court dismissed only the AAIA/FAA-based § 1983 claim for failure to state a private right of action.

business & regulatoryfederal power

This case originated as a divorce proceeding in Wisconsin state court, which the pro se defendant attempted to remove to federal district court on grounds including federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, and civil rights removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The plaintiff moved to remand the action. The court granted the motion to remand, holding that the divorce action did not arise under federal law, that diversity was lacking because the defendant resided in Wisconsin when the suit began, and that the defendant had not shown she would be denied enforcement of her federal civil rights in state court. The court awarded the plaintiff his reasonable costs but denied attorney fees in light of the defendant's pro se status.

family lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

In this case, plaintiff Jeffery Simpson sued his employer Ha-Lo Industries for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act by allegedly discriminating against him due to a genetic bone disease that affected his appearance, including by reassigning him from a major account and restricting him to local accounts; he also brought related claims for tortious interference with prospective business relations (in the event he was deemed an independent contractor) and quantum meruit. The defendant moved to dismiss the ADA claim to the extent it covered periods when Simpson was classified as a contractor, as well as the tortious interference and quantum meruit counts. The court denied the motion in full, reasoning that the complaint's allegations permitted proof that Simpson was actually an employee at all relevant times despite the company's classification, that his minimal allegations of a prospective relationship with Pillsbury were sufficient to avoid dismissal under the Conley standard, and that the quantum meruit claim had merit on its face.

civil rightslabor & employmenttorts & liability

The case involved a plaintiff with AIDS, proceeding anonymously as John Doe, who sued the owners of the Oseo drug store chain after they reprinted without permission a letter he had written praising their pharmacists for helping him obtain Norvir, an AIDS medication; the letter alluded to his terminal illness and many prescriptions, and its publication led to emotional distress, threats, and vandalism. The plaintiff brought claims under Wisconsin statutes for invasion of privacy and unauthorized disclosure of HIV test results, plus a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the first three claims, holding that Wisconsin law could not apply. Under Wisconsin's three-step choice-of-law analysis for tort cases, the contacts with Wisconsin were too minimal compared to Illinois and Florida, where the plaintiff resided part-time, the letter originated and was published, and the injuries occurred, making application of Wisconsin statutes inappropriate.

torts & liabilityprocedurehealthcare

This case involved a lawsuit by a German exchange student and her parents against ASSE International, the organization running the student exchange program, and its insurer, alleging that ASSE's negligent supervision caused the student severe psychological injuries from a coercive sexual relationship with her host father in Wisconsin. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, attributing 59% of the causal negligence to ASSE and awarding damages of $649,000 to the student and $10,030 to her parents after apportionment. The court denied the defendants' post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and amendment of the judgment. The core reasoning was that sufficient evidence supported the jury's causation finding, as ASSE's numerous failures—including minimal contact with the student, lack of private communications with the host family, failure to provide guidance on sexual jeopardy, and inadequate training—created a probability that the harm could have been avoided.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Teamsters Local Union No. 75 seeking to compel Schreiber Foods, Inc. to arbitrate a grievance under their collective bargaining agreement regarding the company's decision to reschedule a carpal tunnel prevention exercise program, which eliminated overtime pay opportunities for participating employees. The court granted the union's motion for summary judgment and ordered the company to arbitrate, finding that the dispute arose under provisions of the CBA, including the memorandum of agreement on pay-for-performance programs that requires scheduling at reasonable times. The reasoning was based on the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor disputes and that the exclusion for company discretion in program administration was not specific enough to remove this grievance from arbitration.

labor & employment

The case involves German exchange student Kristin Beul and her parents suing ASSE International, a student exchange program organizer, and its insurer for negligence after Kristin was sexually abused by her host father during her 1995-96 placement in Wisconsin. ASSE moved for summary judgment on causation grounds regarding multiple alleged breaches of duty, including screening the host family, monitoring the placement, providing counseling, notifying authorities, and complying with federal regulations. The court granted the motion and dismissed claims related to screening the family, failing to notify parents or authorities, failing to arrange medical or psychological care, and failing to fulfill in loco parentis obligations, finding no evidence that these breaches caused the harm. It denied summary judgment on the remaining claims, including regulatory violations where factual issues on causation remained for a jury, and allowed the parents' derivative loss of consortium claim to proceed.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved Michael Rowsey's 1999 petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242 and 2254, challenging the constitutionality of his 1993 Wisconsin state court conviction for first-degree reckless homicide. The court granted the respondent's motion to dismiss the petition. The core reasoning was that the AEDPA imposed a one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A) that began running when Rowsey's conviction became final in 1993, expiring in 1994; his later state post-conviction filings did not toll the period in time to make the federal petition timely, and even alternative calculations under Seventh Circuit precedent regarding the AEDPA's effective date confirmed it was filed too late.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiff Donald Mentzel, owner of The Lagoon strip club, who sued Fond du Lac County officials, the Town of Friendship, and related defendants under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985. He alleged that they conspired to violate his constitutional rights by denying cabaret licenses and enforcing ordinances against semi-nude dancing in an effort to shut down his business. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the claims for damages and declaratory relief with prejudice and the claim for injunctive relief without prejudice. The decision rested primarily on the preclusive effect of a prior Wisconsin Court of Appeals ruling in Fond du Lac County v. Mentzel, which upheld the constitutionality of the relevant ordinance under the First Amendment, along with the plaintiff's failure to raise any genuine issue of material fact supported by evidence.

free speechcivil rightscriminal lawbusiness & regulatory

In Webster v. Wisconsin Power & Light Co., plaintiff Sherman Webster, a Native American line truck operator, alleged that the company denied him a promotion to heavy duty earth borer operator on the basis of race, instead selecting a less senior Caucasian applicant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that Webster failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas framework because he was less qualified, and that its stated reason—poorer performance on safety interview questions—was not pretextual. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Webster's relative qualifications, including his safety record and seniority, as well as evidence suggesting the company's explanation could be pretextual, such as discrepancies in interview notes, unequal access to training, shorter interview time, and evaluators' comments. The court also denied related motions to strike evidence, including affidavits and expert testimony, as they did not alter the outcome. This evidence, viewed as a whole, was sufficient to allow a reasonable jury to infer intentional discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this case, Wisconsin Title, Inc. sued Title One, Inc. under the Lanham Act for unfair competition, claiming infringement of its unregistered trademarks "Title 1" and "Title I". The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the dispute involved only intrastate commerce. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, holding that the plaintiff failed to produce any evidence, such as affidavits or documents, showing the parties engaged in interstate commerce. It reasoned that mere allegations in the complaint are insufficient under Rule 56 to raise a genuine issue of material fact when challenged on summary judgment.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

In Harris v. Huston, plaintiff Keith Harris claimed that defendant Kathleen Huston, a city librarian, violated his right to procedural due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to provide an adequate pre-termination hearing before terminating his employment as a custodial worker. A jury found in favor of Harris and awarded him compensatory damages for lost wages and benefits. The court denied the defendant's post-verdict motion for judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, reasoning that even if advance notice of the hearing was not clearly required, the jury could have found the hearing inadequate on other grounds, such as insufficient explanation of the charges and evidence against him.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a dispute over marine insurance coverage for a sailboat owned by Jeffrey and Christie Garrison that ran aground off Rhode Island. The insurers sought a declaration that the policy had terminated due to an unauthorized transfer of interest in the boat or should be rescinded based on misrepresentations, along with indemnification for resecuring costs. The court granted partial summary judgment to the insurers, holding that the policy automatically terminated on October 18, 1996, under its transfer of interest clause when the Garrisons assigned an interest without prior written consent, so there was no coverage for the loss. It dismissed the Garrisons' counterclaims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment, and negligent salvage but denied summary judgment on the misrepresentation counterclaim and the indemnification request.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure

This case involves Keith Harris, a custodial worker for the Milwaukee Public Library, who was terminated (later reduced to a 90-day suspension) after being accused of making death threats to a coworker. He sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that defendant Kathleen Huston violated his right to procedural due process by failing to provide an adequate pre-termination hearing. The court had previously dismissed other claims and defendants, leaving only the procedural due process claim against Huston. On her motion for summary judgment, the court found that the undisputed facts showed Harris received no advance notice of the meeting's purpose, was unprepared to respond, and the hearing lacked witnesses or other supportive elements. The court denied the motion, holding that it could not conclude as a matter of law that the hearing satisfied constitutional standards under precedents like Loudermill.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involves Walter Blanck's pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), challenging Waukesha County's plan to prosecute him for kidnapping and sexual assault after he had already been convicted and imprisoned in Illinois for the same conduct. Blanck argued that the double jeopardy clause barred the Wisconsin trial, along with violations of his speedy trial rights and due process. The court denied the petition, holding that Blanck had not exhausted available state remedies by appealing the denial of his double jeopardy motion in state court, and that even on the merits the claim failed under the dual sovereignty doctrine established in Heath v. Alabama, which permits successive prosecutions by different states for the same acts. The court further declined to address the speedy trial and due process claims prior to trial, as they could be raised and resolved in the state proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rightsfederal power

This case is a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by an HIV-positive plaintiff against the City of Milwaukee, alleging that police officers violated his constitutional rights to privacy, liberty, due process, equal protection, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment by disclosing his HIV status during booking at a police station and failing to train or supervise officers on such disclosures. The only remaining claims are the federal claims against the City after earlier dismissals and remands. The plaintiff moved to proceed anonymously under a pseudonym, for a protective order regarding his notice of claim, and to seal his certificate of interest. The court granted the motions to proceed anonymously and to seal the certificate of interest, finding exceptional circumstances due to the ongoing stigma associated with HIV status, but denied the protective order because the notice of claim is a public record under Wisconsin law with no compelling justification to override that status or the city's record-keeping interests. The defendant did not object to anonymity or sealing the certificate.

civil rightsprocedurehealthcare