Rounds-Rheaume, June v. Univ. of Wisc. State Laboratory of Hygiene et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting Defendant University of Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene's 10 Motion to Dismiss. Defendant University of Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene is DISMISSED from this case. The clerk's office is directed to amend the c aption of this case to include the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System as a defendant. By July 27, 2016, counsel for defendants must indicate whether the Attorney General's office will accept service on behalf of the Board of Regents. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/20/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

JUNE E. ROUNDS-RHEAUME,

v.

Plaintiff,

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN
STATE LABORATORY OF HYGIENE,
ATTORNEY JOHN C. DOWLING,
ATTORNEY BRIAN D. VAUGHAN,
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR SANDRA K. PRISBE,
PERSONNEL DIRECTOR CYNDA DEMONTIGNY,
and SUPERVISOR BARB WOEHRL,

OPINION & ORDER
16-cv-146-jdp

Defendants.
Pro se plaintiff June Rounds-Rheaume used to work at defendant University of
Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (the Lab). She alleges that after she quit, the Lab and
other individual defendants prevented her from finding other employment by refusing to give
prospective employers an accurate description of her position with the Lab. I granted plaintiff
leave to proceed against the Lab with a Title VII retaliation claim. Dkt. 4. I also granted
plaintiff leave to proceed against the individual defendants with First Amendment retaliation
claims. Id.
The Lab has now moved to dismiss plaintiff’s Title VII claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dkt. 10. The Lab contends that it is not a suable entity, and so
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against it upon which relief can be granted. Id. I will grant
the Lab’s motion to dismiss. But I will add the Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System—the proper defendant for plaintiff’s Title VII claim—to this case.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
I draw the following facts from plaintiff’s amended complaint, accepting them as true
for purposes of reviewing the Lab’s motion to dismiss. Bonte v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 624 F.3d
461, 463 (7th Cir. 2010). I summarized plaintiff’s allegations in my screening order, Dkt. 4,
and so I will repeat only the pertinent allegations here.
Plaintiff worked for the Lab from 1978 to 2004. The individual defendants are all
current or former employees of the Lab.
In 2004, while plaintiff was still working for the Lab, she filed a written grievance with
her union. Plaintiff asked “for a non-hostile, non-discriminatory work place.” Dkt. 1, at 3. 1 In
retaliation for filing the grievance, two of the individual defendants issued plaintiff a
suspension without pay “based on falsified performance statements of [plaintiff’s] work
duties, and character.” Id. Plaintiff quit her job later that year.
In 2007, plaintiff filed a charge of retaliation with the Wisconsin Department of
Workforce Development—Equal Rights Division (ERD) and with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The charge related to the retaliation that
plaintiff had experienced in 2004. Plaintiff dropped her charge because she “believed
obstruction of justice could be involved.” Id. at 2. But the Lab continued to retaliate against
plaintiff by refusing to provide an accurate description of plaintiff’s position, experience, or
character to plaintiff’s prospective employers. Plaintiff eventually stopped interviewing for
work because she could not accurately describe the duties of her position with the Lab to
prospective employers without getting into the conflict that led her to leave her job.
1

In different parts of her complaint, plaintiff alleged that she complained about “two
younger male employees,” Dkt. 1, at 3, and that she complained about “crimes and
corruption at the” Lab, id. at 2.

2

At some point, plaintiff filed another charge with the ERD and with the EEOC. The
case progressed far enough that an administrative law judge recommended that the Lab
correct plaintiff’s position description, which it did in October 2015. Plaintiff received a
“reference letter” from the Lab with an accurate description of her job duties, and she now
alleges that the Lab should have provided this description when she filed her initial
complaint. Id. at 3.

ANALYSIS
The Lab moves to dismiss plaintiff’s Title VII retaliation claim against it pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6). In reviewing the Lab’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, I construe
the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, accepting her well-pleaded facts as true
and drawing all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. Burke v. 401 N. Wabash Venture,
LLC, 714 F.3d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain enough facts to state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face.” Id.
The Lab contends that it is not a suable entity. Pursuant to Rule 17(b), I must look to
state law to determine whether the Lab has the capacity to be sued. 2 Under Wisconsin law,
the Lab is not an independent entity; it is a “special program” that is “attached to the
University of Wisconsin-Madison.” Wis. Stat. § 36.25(11)(a). UW-Madison itself is not a
suable entity. Alawiye v. Univ. of Wis.-Madison, No. 06-cv-233, 2006 WL 1941999, at *1

2

Based on the allegations in the complaint and on the relevant Wisconsin statutes, the Lab
does not appear to be “a partnership or other unincorporated association” which plaintiff
could sue in its common name pursuant to Rule 17(b)(3)(A) to enforcer her substantive
rights under federal law.

3

(W.D. Wis. July 11, 2006). This means that plaintiff cannot sue the Lab directly. See also
Edwards v. Wis. Dep’t of Corr., No. 04-cv-664, 2004 WL 2473259, at *4 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 1,
2004) (concluding that the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene is “not capable of being
sued”). Instead, the proper defendant for plaintiff’s Title VII claim is the Board of Regents of
the University of Wisconsin System, which governs the schools and programs within the
university. Wis. Stat. § 36.09.
Pursuant to Rule 21, I will substitute the Board of Regents as a defendant, in place of
the Lab. Although the Board of Regents is entitled to formal service of plaintiff’s summons
and complaint, it may be efficient for all parties to avoid that formality. The Attorney
General’s office—which is already representing the other defendants—will presumably also
represent the Board of Regents. By July 27, 2016, counsel for defendants should indicate
whether they will accept service for the Board of Regents. If counsel accepts service, then the
Board of Regents may have until August 10, 2016, to answer or otherwise respond to
plaintiff’s complaint.
Plaintiff should be aware that her Title VII claim has other potential problems. As I
noted in my screening order, plaintiff’s Title VII claim might not be timely. Dkt. 4, at 6-7.
Once the Board of Regents has appeared, it may pursue this defense as appropriate.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendant University of Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene’s motion to
dismiss, Dkt. 10, is GRANTED. Defendant University of Wisconsin State
Laboratory of Hygiene is DISMISSED from this case.
2. The clerk’s office is directed to amend the caption of this case to include the Board
of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System as a defendant.

4

3. By July 27, 2016, counsel for defendants must indicate whether the Attorney
General’s office will accept service on behalf of the Board of Regents.
Entered July 20, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5