Untitled

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Green Bay Division

THOMAS LECHNIR,

Plaintiff,
Case No.14-cv-1020
vs.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM BOARD OF
REGENTS, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-OSHKOSH,
RICHARD WELLS, DARRYL SIMS,
and PETRA ROTER,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Thomas Lechnir, by his attorneys, The Menn Law Firm, Ltd., Attorney Jason G.
Wied, complains against the above-named defendants as follows:
PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Thomas Lechnir (hereinafter Lechnir) is an adult resident of the State
of Wisconsin.
2. Defendant University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents is a Wisconsin
governmental entity with its principal offices at 1860 Van Hise Hall, 1220 Linden Drive,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706 and, upon information and belief, operates the University of
Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Both defendants are collectively referenced herein as UW-Oshkosh.
3. Defendant Richard Wells is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin and is
named in his individual capacity.
Case 1:14-cv-01020-WCG Filed 08/20/14 Page 1 of 20 Document 1

2

4. Defendant Darryl Sims is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin and is named
in his individual capacity.
5. Defendant Petra Roter is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsin and is named
in her individual capacity.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1331.
7. Venue is proper in this action because the conduct alleged in this action occurred
in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Alumni Stadium Construction

1. Lechnir served as the head baseball coach for the University of Wisconsin-
Oshkosh for 25 years and was commended for the programs success and dedication to the
community.
2. In approximately 2002, UW-Oshkosh launched a campaign to renovate its sports
complex. The UW-Oshkosh administration did not include plans for renovation of the baseball
field in its sports complex renovation project.
3. Lechnir proposed to then UW-Oshkosh Chancellor Richard Wells (Wells) that
UW-Oshkosh contract for a new baseball stadium.
4. Lechnir had secured a major donor to initiate the fundraising that would be
required. Wells agreed to the construction of the baseball stadium.
5. Additionally, Lechnir and Wells agreed that there would be no commingling of
the baseball stadium donations and the general sports complex renovation donations.

3

6. Further, Lechnir and Wells agreed that the only financial contribution from UW-
Oshkosh on the baseball stadium would be UW-Oshkosh Foundations assistance with certain
carrying costs which were estimated to be relatively nominal.
7. After securing the major donor, Lechnir continued to assist with fundraising.
During the course of the campaign, Lechnir raised at least $419,393.00 in cash contributions to
the baseball stadium project and at least another $248,871.00 in gift-in-kind contributions.
8. According to the information provided to Lechnir during the construction and
afterward, the construction on the baseball stadium generally proceeded only as far as there were
then fundraising dollars to support that construction.
9. UW-Oshkosh did not inform Lechnir that the baseball stadium project was
operating in the red during its construction. To Lechnirs knowledge the total project cost for the
baseball stadium was $553,835.76 all of which has been paid.
Personnel Evaluations and Debt

10. Lechnir consistently enjoyed positive personnel evaluations throughout decades
of service at UW-Oshkosh.
11. As recently as December of 2010, Darryl Sims, UW-Oshkoshs Athletic Director
(Sims) wrote in Lechnirs evaluation, Tom has had a productive career in the (22) years he
has been the head coach. He also praised Lechnirs handling of administrative matters, stating
that Toms organizational structure and administrative expectations have been in line with the
overall goals of the department. I feel he has met that criteria and is encouraged to continue in
that fashion. In addition, Sims complimented Lechnirs recruiting of student athletes, stating
that he has had a great deal of success recognizing talent.

4

12. For the first time, in 2010, UW-Oshkosh officials advised Lechnir, without
documentation, that the baseball stadium project had incurred a debt of more than
$250,000.00.
13. This came as a surprise to Lechnir as this was the first time he was informed of an
alleged debt.
14. UW-Oshkosh provided to Lechnir a break-down of the alleged debt that listed a
number of invoices allegedly paid to contractors, but the document did not specify what work
each contractor allegedly provided or the date of the alleged work.
15. The only reasonable explanation for the belated appearance of a document
retroactively charging the baseball program with additional construction costs is that the UW-
Oshkosh apparently co-mingled baseball stadium funds with sports complex funds.
16. UW-Oshkosh has never presented back-up documentation to Lechnir in support
of the alleged debt, such as copies of invoices, project sources and uses documentation, etc.,
although he requested detail for this alleged debt numerous times.
17. UW-Oshkoshs most recent breakdown also shows that approximately one-third
of the alleged debt supposedly consists of interest for a bank loan. UW-Oshkosh never explained
how or why this interest accrued. Moreover, the interest charges make no sense because UW-
Oshkosh representatives have asserted that payments to contractors were only recently made
from the UW-Oshkoshs central fund.
18. Despite the fact that UW-Oshkosh did not provide specifics as to why or how the
alleged debt arose, Lechnir worked with Sims to find ways that the baseball program could help
contribute to the supposed debt. An addendum to Lechnirs December 2010 evaluation included
a fundraising plan that was described as:

5

#2-Fundraising Plan
1. Continue to have a phone-a-thon in the Spring of 2011-2014.

2. Sell outfield signage.

3. Sell the naming rights to Alumni Stadium.

4. Sell the batters-eye.

5. Tom and his student athletes have and will continue to maintain Alumni
Stadium and Tiedemann Field to the highest standard. These efforts have lead
[sic] to this facility being recognized as one of the class facilities in Division
III Baseball. Work duties include picking up garbage up after games,
cleaning/mopping/vacuuming/washing windows in the stadium, shoveling in
winter months, daily mowing/water/grooming of the field, putting up and
taking down the outfield screening fence, and preparing the batters cage for
winter. All of these tasks result in a substantial cost savings to the athletic
department and the university. These efforts simply save on continued
maintenance-work-words and-manpower that are required to maintain a
facility.

19. Lechnir explained to Sims that the values related to the goals set forth in the first
four items above were unrealistic and not attainable.
20. The fundraising plan developed by Sims was attempted with limited success.
21. Lechnir then worked with Sims, UW-Oshkosh Vice Chancellor Thomas
Sonnleitner, and Foundation Director Art Rathjen to identify ways that the baseball program
could help offset some of the alleged debt.
22. The fundraising plan developed by this group was then presented to Vice
Chancellor Petra Roter (Roter). The plan required $33,763.00 to be raised each year; however,
Roter rejected the plan and demanded $75,000.00 per year in order for Lechnir to keep his job.
Later, Roter increased her demand to $250,000.00 to be delivered by June, 2013.
23. Nonetheless, Lechnir raised $38,797.70 in 2009/2010; $39,693.00 in 2010/2011;
$51,734.49 in 2011/2012; and $31,626.00 in 2012 through 01/09/2013.

6

24. Maintenance work by the baseball team was expressly included as part of the
fundraising plan to retire the stadium debt.
25. However, in future calculations of subsequent fundraising attributable to Lechnir
and the baseball program, UW-Oshkosh and the individual defendants never provided any credit
for this work towards its supposed debt.
26. UW-Oshkosh and the defendants credit to Lechnir approximately $30,000.00 in
funds raised through camps, phone-a-thons, donations, and other events.
27. Also in 2010, Roter, who had by then become Director of Student Affairs with
oversight over the Athletic Department, began to interject herself into UW-Oshkoshs
relationship with Lechnir.
28. Roter has since been hired as Wells successor as Chancellor of UW-Oshkosh.
Roter appeared from the outset to be the driving force behind the mission to collect the newly-
discovered unsubstantiated debt.
29. Roter told Lechnir at one point that if he did not find a way to pay back her
money, she would have him fired.
30. Although Lechnir worked to raise funds toward the alleged debt and even applied
the proceeds of baseball camps that historically went toward the baseball program budget, Roter
continually and arbitrarily demanded more.
31. As relations soured with Roter, Lechnirs personnel evaluations began to take on
a different tone, as well.
32. As a stark departure from his December 2010 evaluation, Lechnirs 2011
evaluation, performed in January 2012, included sharply worded pretextual criticisms concerning
virtually every aspect of Lechnirs work in the baseball program.

7

33. The evaluation also asserted for the first time that Lechnir did not do paperwork
in a timely manner and claimed that he missed two staff meetings. In the evaluation, UW-
Oshkosh also criticized Lechnir for failing to meet fundraising goals that it described as set in
2010.
Contract Communications

34. Also between 2010 and 2013, UW-Oshkosh issued a series of bewildering and
contradictory communications to Lechnir that purported to advise him of changes in his contract
status with UW-Oshkosh.
35. First, in late April 2010, Wells wrote to Lechnir and advised him that his three-
year rolling-horizons contract would be terminated as of June 30, 2013. Wells also stated that
Lechnir would thereafter be subject to contract renewal in the May 2012 renewal cycle.
36. According to Wells, Lechnir would be informed about the details for the one-year
contract renewal during the January 2012 evaluation process with his supervisor.
37. The reason Wells cited for the termination of Lechnirs three-year rolling horizon
contract was significant debt created in the expansion and renovation of Alumni Stadium.
Since then, UW-Oshkosh representatives have claimed in formal statements that the real reason
for the April 2010 termination of the three-year contract was not the debt.
38. Instead, they claimed that UW-Oshkosh was moving away from three-year
contracts in general and that this was merely a department-wide shift which UW-Oshkosh was
implementing with all staff contracts.
39. In Lechnirs December 2010 personnel evaluation, which was issued several
months after the 2010 contract termination letter, Sims marked the box for renewal and wrote
one-year renewal on Lechnirs evaluation form.

8

40. In January 2012, Lechnir again met with Sims for the annual evaluation. This
appeared to be consistent with Wells representation in his April 2010 letter that as part of the
January 2012 evaluation, Sims would discuss the potential one-year extension of Lechnirs
contract for a term to begin after the June 2013 expiration of the three-year contract.
41. In the 2012 evaluation form, as provided to Lechnir, Sims selected the box
marked next to renewal recommended. Sims and Lechnir signed the form.
42. However, at the conclusion of a meeting with Lechnir regarding his evaluation,
Sims ripped up a copy of the evaluation form and put it in his waste basket.
43. Sims told Lechnir that he would print out another copy of the form and give it to
Lechnir.
44. Lechnir said that he wanted to have another copy of it at that time rather than
later. Sims then printed a copy and indicated that it was the same as the copy that was in the
waste basket.
45. After leaving Sims office, Lechnir reviewed the newly printed form, which
differed significantly from the form that Lechnir had reviewed with Sims prior to Sims
depositing it in the wastebasket. Significantly, in the reprinted version of the form, the box
marked next to renewal recommended was not selected.
46. Sims subsequently claimed that it was merely due to a clerical error that he
originally checked the box for renewal recommended. Sims claimed that if he had checked
renewal recommended at that time, then, for reasons that are not clear, Lechnirs three-year
contract would have renewed, even though UW-Oshkosh intended only to consider a one-year
renewal.

9

47. This is despite a handwritten notation on the 2011 renewal form indicating that a
one-year renewal was recommended, demonstrating that the same clarification could have been
added to the 2012 form as well.
48. Roter and Wells both subsequently claimed to have made the same clerical
error as Sims on the January 2012 evaluation form.
49. Roter and Wells both initially checked boxes marked renewal recommended,
then each one apparently selected renewal not recommended and wrote their respective initials
alternately next to the original selection or the new selection. Roter and Wells signed the form at
some point, though it is not clear whether they signed it before or after the modifications to the
renewal recommendations.
50. In March 2012, barely two months after their odd behavior with respect to
Lechnirs 2012 evaluation, Roter stated in a memorandum to Lechnir that UW-Oshkoshs rules
required her to advise Lechnir one year in advance if she would be non-renewing his
employment.
51. Roter also claimed that UW-Oshkosh could not consider renewal for the year
beginning after June 30, 2013, the end of the three-year contract, until January of 2013. Roter
stated that her primary concern in making decisions regarding Lechnirs contract renewal was
the alleged stadium debt.
52. Roter further represented to Lechnir, [k]now that we want you to succeed.
More recently, Roter admitted that in fact, she pretty much had [her] mind made up that she
was going to non-renew Lechnir by that time.
53. Presumably in an attempt to appear to comply with the one-year-in-advance rule
that Roter cited, Wells again wrote Lechnir in May 2012 advising him that UW-Oshkosh would

10

not be offering him employment beyond the 2012-13 season and that Lechnirs employment
would therefore terminate June 30, 2013.
54. Wells stated that the reasons for the nonrenewal were derived from a review by
[Coach Lechnirs] supervisor. Wells also advised Lechnir that pursuant to UW-Oshkosh
rules, Wells would be obligated to provide further explanation for the non-renewal if Lechnir
requested it within 14 days.
55. After Lechnir requested further clarification on the reasons for non-renewal,
Wells wrote in a June 8, 2012 letter to Lechnir that the specific reasons for non-renewal
consisted of performance concerns in the following areas:
Fundraising. You did not achieve three of the four fundraising goals set for you.
There is still over $250,000 of debt on the baseball stadium for which you have
not made substantive progress to reduce.

Student Athlete Retention and Academic Success. The academic performance for
athletes in your program is well under the average for UWO student athletes. The
graduation rate for athletes in your program is under 40 percent which is the
second lowest in the department.

Administrative Duties. You have not performed the administrative duties as listed
in your job description to expectations. This includes accuracy and timeliness of
paperwork, adherence to departmental and University policies, and procedures
and meeting attendance.

Community Relations and Engagement. This area encompasses service on and
off campus by the coach and the athletes. The departmental learning outcome
rubrics for students have not been developed and implemented for program.

56. Despite this list of obviously performance-based reasons for non-renewal,
defendants later again changed position when Lechnir attempted to seek review of the 2012 non-
renewal decision.
57. Wells stated that review was not available to Lechnir at the time because the
decision was merely a confirmation of termination of the three-year contract that was made to be

11

consistent with the method all contracts were being processed at the time, and that no decision
had been yet made as to whether to offer a one-year contract for 2013-14. Roter advised Lechnir
that UW-Oshkosh would instead wait until the end of the 2012-13 season to issue a decision as
to whether to offer Lechnir a new contract.
58. In this way the defendants apparently believed that they could appear to
technically comply with the UW-Oshkoshs acknowledged one year notice of non-renewal
rule while at the same time delaying Lechnirs ability to seek review of any alleged substantive
reasons for non-renewal until termination of his employment was imminent.
59. This strategy was confirmed in an e-mail message dated February 7, 2012 which
Roter sent to another UW-Oshkosh representative in response to a reminder that UW-Oshkosh
rules required 12 months notice of non-renewal. In response, Roter stated, Oh joy... We will
have to notify him of non-renewal this year, May. I am recommending we proceed with non-
renewal and stall that decision/notification as long as possible-mid-April.
60. Consistent with this scheme, UW-Oshkosh did not again formally advise Lechnir
of his contract status until May 2013. By that time, UW-Oshkosh had an opportunity to load
Lechnirs December 2012 evaluation with numerous additional responsibilities.
61. The 2012 evaluation also included points worded in non-specific terms and
without dates for completion, with the exception of an August 2012 date for completion that had
already passed by the time of the evaluation.
62. The defendants used new claims of infractions of onerous goals and directives
imposed during 2012-13 to retroactively justify the May 2012 non-renewal decision that they
had characterized as nonsubstantive and therefore non-reviewable.

12

63. Among the criticisms of Lechnir that the defendants added during the 2012-2013
year as alleged retroactive support for its 2012 nonrenewal decision were factually baseless and
inflammatory accounts of alleged incidents that they claim demonstrated Lechnirs failure to
exonerate himself of the previously alleged deficiencies.
64. For example, defendants claimed that Lechnir was involved in a violation of
purchasing regulations and that he also allegedly offended a student by making a racist
statement.
65. The defendants knew that the supposed purchasing violation was refuted by
statements made to them by witnesses. Additionally, defendants knew that the allegations of
racism were based on Roters own distorted and inaccurate re-characterization of the alleged
events.
66. Roter also argued that Lechnirs non-renewal was justified because of his
allegedly uncooperative attitude, as demonstrated by the fact that he considered filing a formal
whistleblower complaint regarding the defendants misallocation of construction-related gifts.
Administrative Appeal and Review

67. In her May 2013 correspondence to Lechnir, Roter conceded that because UW-
Oshkosh thwarted Lechnirs efforts to substantively appeal the May 2012 non-renewal by
retroactively characterizing it as primarily based on a change in UW-Oshkosh practices
regarding athletic department academic staff contracts, Roter acknowledged that Lechnir had
never been afforded a peer review of the performance-based reasons for the decision.
68. Defendants therefore belatedly extended Lechnir an ad hoc process allowing for
a peer review of the May 2013 decision using the framework of the established rules for an

13

appeal of a non-renewal, as outlined in University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh faculty and academic
staff handbook ACS 8.4.
69. The ACS rules referenced in Roters correspondence prohibit any decision that
was based in any significant degree upon one or more of the following facts, with material
prejudice to the individual:
(a) Conduct, expressions, or beliefs which are Constitutionally protected, or actions
which are consistent with an appropriate professional code of ethics;

(b) Employment practices proscribed by applicable state or federal law; or

(c) Improper consideration of qualifications for reappointment or renewal. For
purposes of this section, improper consideration shall be deemed to have been
given to the qualifications of a staff member in question if material prejudice
resulted because of any of the following:

1. The procedures required by the Chancellor or Board of Regents were not
followed; or

2. Available data bearing materially on the quality of performance were not
considered; or

3. Unfounded, arbitrary, or irrelevant assumptions of fact were made about
work or conduct.

70. Lechnir followed the appeal process as outlined.
71. Defendants assembled a Committee consisting of three academic staff members to
review his appeal.
72. The Committee determined after initial review of Lechnirs appeal that a hearing
was warranted.
73. At the hearing, Lechnir made a statement and presented numerous exhibits
supporting his position. Roter and Sims made statements for UW-Oshkosh.
74. Defendants denied Lechnirs request for a full due process hearing.
75. The Committee took the matter under advisement.

14

76. In a written summary of its conclusions, the Committee reviewed the four specific
reasons cited in the May 2012 de facto non-renewal letter. The Committee found that Lechnir
successfully met his burden of persuasion to establish that UW-Oshkosh made unfounded,
arbitrary and irrelevant assumptions with respect to its rationales for non-renewal based on (a)
student athlete retention and academic success, and (b) community relations and engagement.
77. However, the Committee stated that its members were not convinced that Lechnir
met his burden of persuasion as to the inaccuracy of the UW-Oshkoshs (c) fundraising, and
(d) administrative duties claims.
78. Both of those claims were based on defendants false, malicious, and pretextual
allegations.
79. The ACS rules require the Committee to select one of three options in cases in
which it conducts a hearing: (1) determine that the appeal was without merit, forwarding that
recommendation to the Chancellor; (2) determine that certain aspects of the review process were
flawed and a recommendation for the process to be followed to address the deficiency, such as
remand for reconsiderations to the supervisor making the decision; or (3) determine that the non-
renewal be rescinded.
80. However, in this case, the Committee did not select any of the options provided
for in the review process.
81. Instead, the Committee forwarded a summary of its conclusions to Wells and
requested that he determine the appropriate recommendation.
82. Wells conceded that the Committee did not make a specific recommendation.
Unsurprisingly, Wells affirmed the decision essentially as communicated in his 2012 de facto
non-renewal letter.

15

83. Wells correspondence claimed that the two criteria on which the Committee did
not find the burden of persuasion justified that outcome.
84. Wells final decision also articulated for the first time as a formal basis for non-
renewal alleged evidence of . . . unwillingness or inability to work cooperatively and effectively
with your colleagues in the Division and evidence of an instance of poor judgment . . . relating
to a student athlete.
85. Wells informed Lechnir that the decision was final and could be judicially
reviewed through Wisconsin Statutes Chapter 227.
86. Lechnir petitioned for judicial review before the Winnebago County Circuit Court
in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
87. In those proceedings, attorneys for defendants took the position that the
defendants representation to Lechnir that he had a right to review under Chapter 227 was merely
a false representation that the defendants made to cover themselves in the event Lechnir was
found to have such a right, even though they never truly believed that he had such a right.
88. Ultimately, the Circuit Court refused to set aside or remand UW-Oshkoshs
decision, citing the deferential standard of review under Chapter 227.
89. Lechnirs appeal of that decision is pending before the Wisconsin Court of
Appeals.
Constitutional Violations
90. Wisconsin law requires that due process must be afforded a public employee prior
to terminating employment when the government has given the employee assurances of
continued employment or when it has conditioned dismissal on specific reasons. Marder v.
Board of Regents, 2004 WI App 177, 276 Wis. 2d 186, 202, 687 N.W.2d 832. The defendants

16

letters and evaluations set forth representations, agreements and understandings that Lechnirs
ability to obtain continued employment was not at the UW-Oshkoshs sole discretion, but rather,
depended on his performance.
91. By setting these purported criteria and informing Lechnir that his own
performance would determine his future continued employment, the defendants invested Lechnir
with a property interest in his contract renewal.
92. The defendants failed and refused to provide Lechnir with a full due process
hearing before depriving Lechnir of this proprietary interest, providing instead only a limited
review that deprived Lechnir of the opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses or to
examine the documents and records against him, and that allowed the defendants to submit
material that failed to satisfy basic principles of evidence, such as the prohibitions against
hearsay.
93. The defendants actions and decision with respect to Lechnirs employment
further failed to comply with UW-Oshkoshs own rules, customs, and policies, in that their
decisions were made in retaliation for conduct, expressions, or beliefs which are Constitutionally
protected and/or for actions which are consistent with an appropriate professional code of ethics;
their decisions amounted to employment practices proscribed by applicable state and federal law
protecting whistleblowers; their decisions were based on improper consideration of qualifications
for reappointment or renewal in that the procedures required by the Board of Regents were not
followed; available data bearing materially on the quality of performance were not considered;
and, as the reviewing Committee determined, unfounded, arbitrary, or irrelevant assumptions of
fact were made about Lechnirs work or conduct.

17

94. Further, the defendants actions and decisions with respect to Lechnirs
employment were arbitrary and capricious. Defendants decision-making with respect to
Lechnir was predicated wholly on assumptions based on factual inaccuracies and on pretextual
and baseless criticisms that were intended to further defendants malicious personal animus
against Lechnir.
95. Defendants actions and decisions with respect to Lechnirs employment
constituted retaliation against him to punish him for his public comments regarding the manner
in which the fundraising gifts were allocated within the athletic program and the accounting
mismanagement by UW-Oshkosh which are matters of public interest and concern. Therefore,
defendants actions and decisions violated Lechnirs First Amendment rights.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 / DUE PROCESS

96. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein
each and every allegation contained in paragraphs numbers 1 through 95 of this Complaint.
97. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in part,
protection against governmental actions that deprive an individual of his or her constitutional
property rights without fundamental procedural fairness and substantive due process of law.
98. The understandings and agreements between Lechnir and UW-Oshkosh created a
constitutional property right in Lechnirs continued employment with UW-Oshkosh for a time
certain and with clearly defined economic benefits of which he could be deprived only on certain
conditions that were never met.
99. The defendants decision to non-renew Lechnir was purportedly accomplished
under color of law.

18

100. The defendants decision to non-renew Lechnir was the product of a
constitutionally defective process which included:
(a) Denial of procedural due process;
(b) Denial of substantive due process;
(c) Arbitrary and irrational action;
(d) Interference with Lechnirs liberty interests, including his interests in his
reputation and employability; and
(e) Interference with Lechnirs State-law rights as a whistleblower through
retaliation against Lechnir for the exercise of the rights.
101. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants conduct, Lechnir suffered
injury, including, but not limited to, loss of salary, fringe benefits, health insurance, retirement
health and life insurance, inability to obtain other employment as a baseball coach, and other
damages, all to his detriment, in an amount to be determined at trial.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
42 U.S.C. 1983 / FIRST AMENDMENT (RETALIATION)

103. Lechnir engaged in protected speech and petition by reporting, disclosing and
engaging in the following activities, each of which is protected under the law:
(a) Pursuing verbal and written complaints concerning the manner of accounting
and allocating gifts in the athletic complex and baseball stadium construction;
(b) Speaking publicly about the manner of accounting and allocating gifts in the
athletic complex and baseball stadium construction; and
(c) Invoking his administrative rights.

19

104. Defendant UW-Oshkosh interfered with Plaintiffs rights by taking employment
actions against him, harassing him, making false accusations against him, and taking other
actions intended to retaliate against him for his constitutionally protected activities.
105. Defendants Wells, Sims and Roter conspired, agreed and aided in the denial of
Plaintiffs rights.
106. As a result of defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost earnings and benefits,
physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life.
107. As a result of defendants actions, Plaintiff is entitled to back pay and benefits, an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, an award of attorneys
fees and costs, and such other relief as may be appropriate.
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT AND 42 U.S.C. 1985 CONSPIRACY CLAIM
109. Defendants conspired, agreed and aided to deprive Plaintiff of his civil rights by
taking the actions described above, and, furtherance of said conspiracy, defendants took those
actions as they had conspired, planned and agreed.
110. As a result of defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost earnings and benefits,
physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life.
111. As a result of defendants actions, Plaintiff is entitled to back pay and benefits, an
award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, an award of attorneys
fees and costs, and such other relief as may be appropriate.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and
severally, as follows:

20

A. For compensatory damages in a sum to be determined by the finder of fact;
B. For punitive damages in a sum to be determined by the finder of fact;
C. For costs, disbursements, and attorneys' fees; and
D. For such other relief as the court deems proper.
A TRIAL BY JURY IS HEREBY DEMANDED
Dated this 20th day of July, 2013.
MENN LAW FIRM, LTD.
Attorneys for the Plaintiff,
Forest River, Inc.

BY: /s/ William P. McKinley

Jason G. Wied
State Bar No. 1031433
William P. McKinley
BY: State Bar No. 1072959
2501 East Enterprise Avenue
P.O. Box 785
Appleton, WI 54912-0785
PHONE: 920.731.6631
FAX: 920.734.0981
william-mckinley@mennlaw.com
jason-wied@mennlaw.com


Untitled

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Untitled

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Вам также может понравиться