UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. JOHN J. URBAN, Plaintiff, vs. Case No, SUE BRINKMAN, Human Resources Director Town of Grand Chute In Her Official Capacity, Defendant. COMPLAINT. Now comes Plaintiff, above captioned, by and through his attorneys Eminent Domain Services, LLC, by Attomey Erik Olsen, and for his Complaint states and alleges as follows: Parties and is the 1) Plaintiff John J. Urban (“Urban”) is an adult resident of the State of Wisconsi Utility Foreman of the Town of Grand Chute where he has been employed in the Utilities Department for over 29 years. 2) Defendant Sue Brinkman (“Brinkman”) is the Human Resources Director of the Town of Grand Chute, At all times relevant hereto she acted under color of state law. She is sued in her official capacity. Her professional address is the Grand Chute Municipal Building in Grand Chute. 1 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 1 of 12 Document 1Facts 3) Urban is employed by the Town of Grand Chute (“Town”) as a Utility Foreman. His job involves, among other things, overseeing and completing the maintenance and repair of the ‘Town’s sewer, water, and storm sewer facilities, as well as street department work such as plowing snow. 4) Urban has been employed by the Town for over 29 years on an hourly basis during which time hhe has been an exemplary employee, he has never been disciplined, and has always performed his job duties to the highest degree of excellence and professionalism. 5) Urban is the only employee of the Town who holds the water distribution license from the State of Wisconsin. Urban’s employer requires him to be available 24 hours per day, seven days per week by cell phone on a cell phone called the foreman phone that belongs to Urban’s employer which Urban is required to have with him and on at all times. Urban was not paid on call time for the 24/7 work he was required to do carrying the foreman phone, both by virtue of being required by employer policy and by lack of hiring any other licensee, to be present to answer the employer issued phone and respond to emergencies 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 6) Around January of 2023, Urban became aware that he and the other employees of the Utility Department of the Town were being underpaid in relation to other municipalities. 7) Urban approached Brinkman about the fact that in his opinion he and the other employees of the Utility Department were being underpaid in relation to other municipal 8) Brinkman denied that Urban and the other employees of the Utilities Department were being underpaid and offered, as a basis, data relating to the pay of employees in other municipalities but whose duties were not similar to the duties of Urban and the other employees of the Town's Utilities Department. 2 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 2 of 12 Document 19) Urban then told Brinkman that he still believed that he and the other employees of the Utilities Department were being underpaid, and that he was going to complain to his elected representatives or to the Town Board about the situation. 10) Brinkman then became irritated and told Urban that if he would complain to his elected representatives or to the Town Board about his opinion that he and the other employees of the Utilities Department were being underpaid in relation to other municipalities, then it would be “disrespectful” to her. 11) Urban then complained to his elected representatives, and the Town Board eventually overruled Brinkman and granted a raise in pay to Urban and the other employees of the Utilities Department around February of 2023. 12) Around October 19th of 2023, Brinkman informed Urban that he was being investigated by the Town’s HR department, 13) Urban asked Brinkman what the investigation was about, but she declined to provide any specifics other than it was “violation of Town policies” but without providing any specifics beyond that. 14) On October 26th of 2023 at approximately 9:00 a.m., Greg Koch, Deputy Director of Public ‘Works, handed Urban a letter (“the Letter”) dated October 26th, 2023, while Urban was alone at a job site. Greg Koch approached Urban and handed him the Letter while Urban was in the midst of a job of placing cones and barricades in the road for safety purposes. 15) Greg Koch told Urban that the Letter was in regard to an investigation of some sort. Urban asked Koch what it was about, and Koch responded by telling Urban that he, Koch, did not know mn was about. any specifies of what the investig. 3 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 3 of 12 Document 116) The Letter commanded Urban to appear at 10:00 a.m. that day in the community room of the municipal building to meet with Brinkman, and also with Police Captain Collette Jager to “gather facts” and “respond to accusations.” 17) The Letter stated that allegations had been made against Urban regarding “possible violations” of five different sections of the Employee Policy Handbook but the Letter did not provide any specifics whatsoever in regards to times, dates, persons involved, or the nature of the alleged 18) The Letter provided only vague categories of violations that appeared to be copied out of the employee handbook and included such categories of potential violations as “Destructive gossip, rumors, or innuendos” and “Insubordination” including “eye rolling or mocking a Supervisor; or speaking loudly or argumentatively to a Supervisor” but also including categories that could conceivably be criminal in nature such as “Any form of dishonesty; untruthfulness and deceptive behavior including falsifying records or information; making false statements, accusations or reports; or withholding relevant information.” 19) After receiving the Letter, Urban had to finish his work at the job site and then drive approximately eight miles to the municipal building through traffic. Accordingly, Urban had minimal time to review the Letter and insufficient time to retain legal counsel. 20) Urban went to the community room of the municipal building at 10:00 a.m, on October 26th, 2023 and found Brinkman and Police Captain Colette Jager waiting for him there 21) Urban asked why Police Captain Colette Jager was present at the meeting, to which Brinkman responded that Police Captain Colette Jager was present at the meeting to take notes. 22) Urban then stated that he did not want to answer questions without a lawyer being present, and that because of the one hour notice of the meeting, he did not have time to obtain a lawyer. 4 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 4 of 12 Document 123) Brinkman then attempted to persuade Urban to submit to questioning by repeatedly telling Urban that it was “just an investigation” but then stating that if Urban would “refuse to answer questions” there would be “consequences.” 24) Urban continued to refuse to submit to questioning without having legal representation present, 25) Brinkman then left the room, but then returned after approximately 10-15 minutes, During these 10-15 minutes, Police Captain Colette Jager instructed Urban to read the Letter. Urban did read the Letter and then noticed that while he was reading the Letter, Police Captain Colette Jager appeared to be observing him and was taking notes, 26) Brinkman then returned to the community room and told Urban that he was not allowed to have a lawyer present for the questioning “because we are non-union and you are not represented,” 27) Urban observed that during the entire meeting Police Captain Colette Jager was taking extensive notes. 28) Urban then asked if he was free to leave, to which Brinkman replied that if Urban left without submitting to questioning there would be “consequences” for him, 29) Urban then stated that he was going to take some time off so that he could talk to a lawyer. 30) Brinkman then stated, “It will do you no good to find an attomey because you can’t have representation,” to which Urban replied that until he could find an attorney to help him understand the Letter and the situation, he did not feel comfortable answering questions. 31) Urban then requested at least twice that he be allowed to leave the meeting, 5 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 5 of 12 Document 132) Brinkman then stated, “If you walk out there will be consequences for refiusing to do the interview.” 33) At that point Urban received a telephone call related to a failure in the sewage system that needed to be addressed immediately, so he stated that he had to take the call and left the meeting at around 10:35 a.m. or 10:40 a.m, 34) Then Urban went to Greg Koch, Deputy Director of Public Works, and formally requested time off until November 1, 2023, which was granted. Damages 35) Urban is suffering from severe emotional distress including extreme stress and being unable to sleep because of being concerned that the job that he has held for 29 years is in jeopardy due to being targeted and put under the microscope by a supervisor who is upset about the resolution of a wage issue. Jurisdiction & Jury Demand 36) This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) in that the controversy arises under the United States Constitution and under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S. this district, and her professional address is in Grand Chute, Wisconsin. 28 U.S. Code § 1391(a)(1) ("a judi the State in which the district is located"). This Court has authority to award attorneys fees and 1§ 2201 and 2202. Venue is proper in this Court because the Defendant resides in district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiff further invokes the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) to hear and adjudicate state law claims to the extent that any are intertwined with the questions presented in this case, Each and all of the acts alleged herein were done by Defendant, or their officers, agents, and employees, under color and 6 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 6 of 12 Document 1pretense of the statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of state law. At this juncture, in order to avoid waiver, the Plaintiff requests a jury. 7 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 7 of 12 Document 1COUNT I 42. U.S.C. § 1983 (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment — Due Process Violation) 37) All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 38) Plaintiff makes a claim under 42 USC § 1983 for violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. 39) As pled above, using her authority, the Defendant confined the Plaintiff to the community room, on one hour's notice, and attempted to interrogate him on a wide range of subjects without providing him any facts whatsoever about any of the specifies of the allegations against him, 40) The Defendant also denied the Plain retain legal counsel, and stated that if the Plaintiff did not immediately submit to questioning in ’s reasonable and lawful request for an opportunity to the presence of a police officer, and without legal counsel, then there would be “consequences” against Plaintiff. 41) Wherefore, as a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendant as pled herein, tiff suffered a violation of his constitutional right to due process, 42) As a result of the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff was damaged. 43) The Defendant acted under color of law. 8 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 8 of 12 Document 1COUNT II 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (First and Fourteenth Amendment — lation of Free Speech) 44) All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 45) Plaintiff makes a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the First Amendment to the 46) As pled above, PI iff exercised his right to free speech by addressing his wage-related complaints to elected officials and the Town Board. 47) As pled above, the Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for this exercise of free speech. The retaliation included, but was not d to, informing the Plaintiff that he was under investigation for unspecified and vague allegations, ordering the Plaintiff to attend an investigative meeting on one hour’s notice, and attempting to confine the Plaintiff against his will by threatening “consequences” if he left the meeting. 48) As a result of the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff was damaged. 49) The Defendant acted under color of law. 9 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 9 of 12 Document 1COUNT III Fair Labor Standards Act, as codified, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 209 50) All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 51) Plaintiff makes a claim under 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 to 209, and 29 U.S. Code § 215(a)(3) for declaratory relief and injunctive relief. 52) As pled above, Plaintiff complained about the wages that he and the other employees in his, department were receiving because they were too low and not in keeping with what employees in other municipalities were being paid for the responsibilities of Urban and the other employees in the department. Furthermore, Plaintiff is not compensated for the on call time that he works by virtue of having to carry the foreman phone and being the only licensee. 53) When Brinkman denied Plaintiff's complaint for higher wages, Urban complained to elected officials and the Town Board which then overruled Brinkman and granted higher wages to Urban and the other employees in the department. 54) In retaliation, the investigation and October 26th, 2023 investigatory meeting were launched against Urban, 55) Asa result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was damaged. 56) The Defendant acted under color of law. 10 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 10 of 12 Document 1COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (False Arrest) 57) All previous paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth 58) Plaintiff makes a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 59) The Defendant arrested the Plaintiff by using her authority to confine the Plaintiff in the community room. 60) The Defendant did not have probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff. 61) As a result of the Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was damaged. 62) The Defendant acted under color of law. i Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 11 of 12 Document 1.WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court grant the following prospective equitable relief: (@) To enjoin the Defendant from any further retaliation against the Plaintiff and enjoin the Defendant from disciplining the Plaintiff for leaving the meeting on October 26, 2023; (b) Enjoin the Defendant from participating in any future disciplinary or investigatory proceedings of any type involving the Plaintiff; (©) order the Defendant to arrange for the payment of Plaintiffs uncompensated on call time as pled herein; (d) Award Plai pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 29 U.S. Code § 216 (b) and other relevant statutes; and, ff his costs, interest and reasonable attorneys’ fees for this action (c) Order such other and further injunctive relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. Dated this 28th day of October, 2023. AsLiik S. Olsen Erik S. Olsen SBN 1056276 [email protected] Eminent Domain Services, LLC 131 W. Wilson Street, Ste 800 Madison, WI 53703 (608) 535-6109 12 Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG Filed 10/28/23 Page 12 of 12 Document 11844 (Rev, 1020) CIVIL COVER SHEET ofc fm sper the asc Contre he Ute Sec Scere retro he Ci ot Cau pas oi ec ct es (SE [INSTRUCTIONS ON MENT PAGE OF THIS FORM) Place an "X” in the appropriate box (required) Tau ATRBARES TE Green Bay Division CJ Milwaukee Division SOEBENRANTS HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR TOWN OF GRAND CHUTE INHER OFFICIAL CAPACITY County of Residence of Fits Listed Defentant OUTAGAMIE (avs mane cases OLY TAREPEIS TREN mn soar (b) County of Residence of Fist Listed Paintitt OUTAGAMIE, (EXCEPT US. PLAINTPE CASES) Nore: Atomeys (on) (hud BEER Mor ts nt eon Member EMINENT DOMAINSERVICES, LLC 6515 GRND TETON PLAZA STE 241 MADISON WI 53719 TE BASIS OF JURISDICTION griavan Ow ancoxsy) IML CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES risa Om ose Poa (arias On) ‘ou On Bf etn 1! us.com Fee Quen re oer vr” one cai US Gomera Nata Pero) cienormiesue [JIC] 1 togantctrriniatice Ee Ce teeta 2 US Gna Deny Cima stheatesise [2] 2 tmopuntdonininimlsice 5 Os Go Defendant a (Andicate Citizenship of Parties in Item I) oa ‘of asiness In Another State oso Foreign Caimiry O20 has W._NATURE OF SUIT pian mow nu on Sik her fo (“commer Tors FORTE [wa ‘OnmensTaToTES TO mee Taagogarmny Tama nauny lastrgnindsane Fy azarae it [vst tose Lysine hiss tenoal gay = ect uses) 23 Ww MegatanGr Osc Soni sa 2 Aen Poattaany — FJemonee wos Sta one nen tiki hse {on 5et Reparoonen 150 Rocavery of Overpayment [7] 320 Assaul, Libel & Parmaccsstical 410 Antitrst ‘tiara gon Se Feeeitgey Tancoprake ‘tops nd aking tsi eae he Lifes tnptnen _ Redtity tora Socimnene, 18 Recrery of etaed tay Cis eat sta Abivtet Ff Sen neetin ‘a fae Hasse thay rsa Newting Apion [#0 Rie atc ad {Ereniervacuny [48a rae Cth so Tato Care rps Cissy etOrcgmat [tay rnsNAL FROFERTY rs ‘moc secnts scone aivecorsSeaia" []3soNewrvehie stoner not rahe Son fst (0s 1 veostua'sue— FJassvwarveee Fri thinning we 185 fens Comsat toot Conc ronctitiy — C}ss0ode tent C]notantmeoe | SSSR rowan A Issn ee aby [30 Poon every Dee ete et HAG wncatcsaty teach ey Cashepay dame roktey baat — sanity A] in seisstomnmadti Foe gay otttniy — FYsitanipadedsst — F] so biweibww sey [Excise Neca fee esup rues ‘20 e Samiy Actos ERC RORERTY—} aw 200 Ltr inion Fes sts) $51 hoa te otal Cesena —[] oor Cot [Ter Cp seme ee Ftc ae at rane Vig {ends came Sty a TRERIEEEIL 55 Facom oncrmtn aonow tone tctmen et Pope So aon ose [Trotmecosrant [a trata 3 Haug Sais ox etod) 136 Ain 8 Tats Lay eommedon [0am smitsctnataey Fy entree 20 Aertel Pope [45 Aer bits] ea Ry IMTCRATION ue Acero Arla Salome eter Tarren ge ‘nr Orci [71446 Amncr.wiDisabitces - [7] $40 Mandamus & Osher [7465 Other Immigration 7) 950 Consttuicnality of ier vcr ein ‘nsec, F sisi 5 unin Seach bese” Stam TORIGIN psn WO 1 Origin "C2 Removed oe”) 3. Reminded fom (4 Renedor [] $ Tamiemed fom ].6 Mukidisrit 8 Muti & Proceeding a ‘State Court Appellate Court a Reopened a ‘Another District Litigation Qo Litigation - (st) Tranter Dis Pt [Ce Se tah mae nl er 42 USC. § 1983,29 USC.88 VI CAUSE OF ACTION [5 7Fgesrintion of ease: DEFENDANT ALLL VII. REQUESTED IN [] CIlECK IF THIS ISA CLASS ACTION OBTAINED HIGHER 10 209 EGEDLY RETALIATED AGAINST PLAINTIFF WHO ASKED FOR AND {ES AND FAILED TO ENSURE PLAINTIFF WAS PAID ON CALLTIME ‘DEMANDS ‘CHECK YES oaly if demanded in compli COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, ERGW?. $1,000 SURY DEMAND: _QYes_LINo VIII, RELATED CASE() z MEANY) (ep src es ea TORATOREOFTTORNETOFREOORD POROMIEESENS. "Case 1:23-cv-01445-WCG, Filed 10/28/23 Page 1 of 2. Document 1-1. et —_ —— _———e