Koehler v. Sara Lee Corporation

Filing 36

ORDER signed by Chief Judge William C Griesbach on 2-6-14 denying 28 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 28 Motion to Reopen Case. (cc: all counsel via CM/ECF, USCA via e-mail) (Griesbach, William)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
JOHN KOEHLER,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-C-372

SARA LEE CORP.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiff John Koehler brought this action alleging retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). This Court granted the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The
Plaintiff now moves for reconsideration.1 The principal impetus of his motion is his assertion that
this Court erred by finding that, in the proposed findings of fact, he had stipulated to the fact that
both assistant human resources managers had sought counseling in order to deal with stress resulting
from interactions with the Plaintiff. This was error, he asserts, because he had merely stipulated to
the fact that they had “stated” that such was the case; whether that was true was disputed by the
other facts the Plaintiff cited to in his response to that proposed finding of fact. But in my Decision
and Order I explained why the facts Plaintiff cited in response do not undermine the suggestion that
he was the source of significant stress for his employees. In short, the fact that certain other

1

He has also filed a notice of appeal after no response was received from the Defendant.
Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v), the notice of appeal was filed early but will become effective as
of this date. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

employees had observed various good qualities in him says nothing about whether he drove his
direct reports to seek counseling. Most people have good qualities in addition to their bad qualities,
and (particularly in the workplace setting) they often do not balance out. Plaintiff also suggests that,
as underlings, the two employees had a motive to lie about their boss in order to get him fired and
steal his job. Although that seems implausible under these circumstances—people do not generally
seek mental health counseling in order to get their boss fired—it is also irrelevant. The key question
is what the employer thought, and here the employer was entitled to believe the employees’ perfectly
plausible story that Koehler had driven them to seek counseling.
The other points Plaintiff raises in the motion are ancillary ones (such as whether the
employees Koehler cited were actually discriminated against) that do not change the fact that the
employer had a bona fide, and even compelling, reason to terminate Koehler’s employment. The
motion for reconsideration is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2014.

/s William C. Griesbach
William C. Griesbach, Chief Judge
United States District Court

2