You are here

Opinions

Below is a list of opinions specially selected for public release by judges in the district.  For a detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Note:  This database does not contain all decisions issued by all judges and is not intended to replace PACER or other more comprehensive case law sites.  The PACER system provides a report of written opinions as defined by the Judicial Conference.  Access to both the report and the opinions is free.  In order to access court records via PACER you must have a PACER account.  For PACER access and online registration, please click here.

18-CV-1579 Lammers v. Pathways To A Better Life LLC

Decision And Order Denying Motion For Summary Judgment

Plaintiff James Lammers brought this action claiming that his former employer, Defendant Pathways To A Better Life, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by terminating his employment because he identifies as a transgender person, in light of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020).  The Court concluded Lammers presented evidence to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that Pathways fired him because he identifies as a transgender person.

Date:
Monday, July 19, 2021

20-CV-236 Schermitzler v. Swanson et al.

Decision and Order

Plaintiff Scott Schermitzler filed this action against his former employer, the Village of Ashwaubenon, and Allison Swanson (now Buckley), the former Village Manager, alleging claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Wisconsin Wage Payment and Collections statutes (WWPC), Wis. Stat. § 109.01, et seq., as well as a state common law claim of defamation and slander. The Court has jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s federal claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and his state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on his FMLA interference and ADA claims and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on all claims.  The Court granted Schermitzler’s motion as to his FMLA claim for the denial of sick pay benefits for the period between October 12 through November 2, 2018 and denied the motion in all other respects.  The Court also granted Defendants’ motion as to Schermitzler’s Section 1983 claim and common law defamation claim but denied the motion in all other respects.

Date:
Monday, July 12, 2021

21-CV-548 Faust et al. v. Vilsack et al.

Order Staying Plaintiffs’ Motion for A Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiffs, twelve farmers who reside in nine different states, including Wisconsin, brought this action against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), seeking to enjoin officials of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing a loan-forgiveness program for socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA).  The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction should be stayed in light of the decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granting the motion of a Florida farmer for the same preliminary injunction based on the same equal protection guarantee in Wynn v. Vilsack, No. 3:21-cv-514-MMH-JRK, 2021 WL 2580678 (M.D. Fla. June 23, 2021).  The temporary restraining order previously entered by the Court is dissolved since it is no longer needed to preserve the status quo.

Date:
Tuesday, July 6, 2021

20-CV-1563 Kohler Co v. Whistling Oak Apartments LLC

Decision and Order

Kohler Co., the owner of the Whistling Straits golf venue in Sheboygan County and the holder of trademarks regarding the “Whistling Straits” name, sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin Whistling Oak LLC from using the name “Whistling Oak” in relation to an apartment complex located less than six miles from Whistling Straits. Kohler demonstrated a better than negligible chance of success on its trademark infringement claim, as well as a risk of irreparable harm and a lack of an adequate remedy at law. However, the degree of harm that Kohler was likely to suffer during the pendency of the action was insufficient to tip the balance of harms in its favor and merit the extraordinary relief of a preliminary injunction. Therefore the court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.

Date:
Monday, June 14, 2021

21-CV-548 Faust, et al v. Vilsack, et al

Decision and Order

Twelve plaintiffs, who reside in nine different states, including Wisconsin, brought this action against the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency (FSA), seeking to enjoin officials of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing a loan-forgiveness program for farmers and ranchers under Section 1005 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA).  Plaintiffs assert that Section 1005 denies them equal protection of the law because eligibility to participate in the program is based solely on racial classifications.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining Defendants from forgiving any loans pursuant to Section 1005 until the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Date:
Thursday, June 10, 2021

Pages