DOC recommends denial of this claim. On 4/27/11, the claimant hurt his back at work and was sent to HSU for treatment. HSU issued him a Medical Classification document proscribing all but light activity. DOC states that the claimant violated DOC 313.08 (7), Adm. Code when he failed to inform his supervisor of his “light duty” restriction when he returned to work on 4/27/11. DOC states that the claimant was terminated for failure to follow this rule. DOC does not deny that the claimant received conflicting Medical Classification forms from HSU. Although the claimant’s conduct report complaint was upheld, the decision stated “if the basis of [the claimant’s] termination was because of the conduct report…” DOC states that the clamant was not terminated due to the conduct report but because he failed to inform his supervisor of any medical restrictions on his work duties issued by HSU on 4/27/11. DOC notes that Prison Industries are intended to be rehabilitative for inmates. DOC states that inmates employed by BSI are not employees of the state and have no right to employment at BSI, and that the claimant therefore cannot claim that he was “wrongfully discharged” from his position.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
15. Da Vang of Stanley, Wisconsin claims $5,309.60 for lost wages incurred because the claimant was not rehired for a Badger State Industries (BSI) job at Columbia Correctional Institution (CCI). The claimant states that he worked in the BSI print shop from 11/7/04 to 8/3/07. The claimant states that he gave two-week’s notice on 7/23/07 that he was quitting his job because he needed to focus on legal matters. The claimant alleges that the BSI shop supervisor at the time, Dave Ditter, twice asked him not to quit. The claimant also alleges that he was told by several BSI workers that Mr. Ditter was very upset that the claimant was quitting. The claimant states that he had received good work reviews from Mr. Ditter during his time in the BSI shop. The claimant states that on 8/12/07, six days after his last day at work, Mr. Ditter completed a poor work evaluation of the claimant, stating that he “would not rehire” him. The claimant believes this bad work review was retaliatory because Mr. Ditter was angry at the claimant for quitting. In July 2009, the claimant reapplied for a job at the BSI print shop but was not rehired. The claimant alleges that the current shop supervisor, Ed Sawyer, was influenced by BSI workers to hire their friends, who were less qualified than the claimant. The claimant also believes that Mr. Sawyer relied on Mr. Ditter’s final work evaluation, which was retaliatory and unfair. Finally, the claimant notes that there are no Asian workers at BSI and he believes this is discriminatory and contrary to BSI’s affirmative action policies. The claimant requests reimbursement for the wages he would have earned if he had been rehired at BSI.
DOC recommends denial of this claim. DOC disputes the claimant’s allegation that Mr. Sawyer’s hiring decisions are influenced by other inmates working at BSI. DOC states that inmates are hired based on their experience (both before and during incarceration) and on recommendations by staff from other jobs the inmates have held while at CCI. DOC notes that the claimant worked under the former shop supervisor, Dave Ditter, who is now retired. When the claimant reapplied for a job at BSI, Mr. Sawyer reviewed the claimant’s past evaluation and termination records, which showed that the claimant repeatedly failed to follow instructions and failed to complete jobs in a timely manner. Mr. Ditter specifically noted on the termination report that the claimant should not be rehired. Based on this information, Mr. Sawyer decided not to rehire the claimant. DOC believes this claim has no merit and recommends it be denied.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one with the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following identified claimants are denied:
Casimir Borsowski
J&L Steel and Electrical Services
Clear Channel Outdoors, Inc.
Wisconsin & Southern Railroad
Progressive Universal Insurance Company
Elbert Compton
David Jessick
Mario A. Martinez, Jr.
Anthony J. Machicote
Terrance J. Shaw
Timothy Talley
Da Vang
That payment of the amounts below to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats: Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 31st day of June, 2013.
STEVE MEANS
Chair, Representative of the Attorney General
GREGORY D. MURRAY
Secretary, Representative of the Secretary of Administration
BRIAN HAGEDORN
Representative of the Governor
JOSEPH LEIBHAM
Senate Finance Committee
HOWARD MARKLEIN
Assembly Finance Committee
