Dengel v. Waukesha County
16 F. Supp. 3d 983
E.D. Wis.2014Background
- Dengel, employed by Waukesha County from May 1999 to November 2010 as a Radio Services Technician, alleged ADA violations against the County.
- County moved for summary judgment; briefing completed (Docket #24, #25, #34, #44).
- Dengel’s work involved installing and maintaining county radio systems used by police, fire, and EMS; his performance was generally strong until 2008-2009 when timeliness and task completion issues appeared.
- Beginning in August 2009, Dengel exhibited a series of concerning behaviors (e.g., threatening email about a Sharpie, safety concerns about a van, persistent radio-inhibition allegations, and other disruptive acts).
- From May–June 2010, additional incidents occurred (paper towel key dispute, alleged keyboard/mouse damage, mood swings reported by coworkers, and a questionable bug-placing episode).
- County referred Dengel to EAP, scheduled a fitness-for-duty evaluation, and required a return-to-work release; Dengel resisted waivers and documentation, leading to leave exhaustion and termination treatment as voluntary surrender; unemployment benefits were denied and later reinstated/denied on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical evaluation violation under ADA | Dengel asserts County required medical evaluation without business necessity. | County contends evaluations were job-related and necessary for safety and performance. | County's medical evaluations were job-related and lawfully permitted. |
| Discrimination based on perceived disability | Dengel claims County regarded him as disabled and treated him adversely due to that perception. | County asserts actions were for nondiscriminatory safety/behavioral concerns, not disability-based. | No evidence of disability-based discrimination; summary judgment for County on discrimination claim. |
| Retaliation for protected activity under ADA | Dengel contends termination was retaliation for engaging in protected ADA-related activity. | County asserts termination was due to failure to provide medical documentation and noncompliance with EAP/return-to-work requirements. | No causal link shown; summary judgment for County on retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dickerson v. Bd. of Trustees of Community College Dist. No. 522, 657 F.3d 595 (7th Cir.2011) (disability discrimination proof framework; direct/indirect methods)
- Hoppe v. Lewis University, 692 F.3d 833 (7th Cir.2012) (prima facie test for ADA discrimination; notes on causation)
- Teruggi v. CIT Group/Capital Finance, Inc., 709 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.2013) (prima facie elements under indirect method; causation discussion)
- Hobgood v. Illinois Gaming Bd., 731 F.3d 635 (7th Cir.2013) (four prima facie factors for discrimination claims)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S.1960) (establishing prima facie case framework (pretext/switching burdens))