Two Attorneys, One Defensive Architecture

Comparing Boardman & Clark’s narratives in two pending disability-discrimination matters

By Bradley J. Burt | Outpost 422 | July 23, 2026

Editor’s note: The author is the complainant in the two administrative matters discussed below. Both respondents deny discrimination and retaliation. No final merits determination is reported here. This analysis compares litigation strategies; it does not allege professional misconduct by either attorney.

Two employment disputes. Two clients. Two attorneys from the same Madison law firm. And two submissions asking government investigators to view the same complainant through a remarkably similar lens.

Robert Gregg represents Frank Productions LLC. Storm Larson represents Camp Createability LLC. Gregg submitted an initial response to the Madison Equal Opportunities Division on Jan. 30, 2026. Larson submitted Camp Createability’s position statement to the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division on May 19, 2026.

Reading the documents side by side reveals a shared defensive architecture. It does not prove Gregg personally coached Larson, drafted his submission or shared confidential information between clients.

That distinction matters. Journalism eDiscovery™ identifies patterns without converting inference into fact. Similar arguments may result from direct consultation, ordinary supervision, common law-firm templates, shared legal research or two attorneys independently using familiar employment-defense strategies.

Placing the complainant on trial

Gregg attacks the adequacy and coherence of my Frank Productions complaint. His response calls it “rambling,” “disjointed” and difficult to understand. Elsewhere, he characterizes my reactions as an “extreme and irrational overreaction,” “bizarre,” and a “fabrication.”

Larson’s language is more controlled, but the sequence is familiar. He begins with burden and sufficiency, calling my Camp Createability allegations vague and unsubstantiated. He then assembles an escalating description of my alleged conduct: “disrespectfully hostile,” “lambast,” “stormed,” “visibly agitated,” “highly emotional” and “aggressive.”

Larson’s narrative culminates in allegations that a child was frightened, an employee was afraid to return, staff felt anxious and parents threatened to withdraw clients.

In both submissions, my reliability and emotional proportionality become part of the defense before the underlying evidence can be tested through examination.

The common structure

Both responses employ several recurring techniques:

• Challenge the clarity or legal sufficiency of the complaint.
• Separate the decisionmaker from knowledge of disability or protected activity.
• Recast disputed events as routine operational or performance matters.
• Accumulate statements attributed to coworkers, parents or management.
• Construct a workplace-safety narrative.
• Conclude that legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons defeat any inference of discrimination or retaliation.

Gregg advances an explicit dangerousness theory. His response alleges statements about harming a patron, describes a firearm image as intimidating, invokes workplace-violence policies and defends both termination and a venue ban as necessary to protect the public.

Larson does not call me dangerous. Instead, he leads the reader toward that inference through reports of fear, anxiety, aggression and perceived danger. It is a more restrained presentation of a related theme: the employee as a supposed safety risk.

Important differences remain

The two cases are not interchangeable.

Frank Productions’ stated defense centers on alleged statements involving violence. Camp Createability’s termination reasons include performance, workplace communication, client interactions and confidentiality.

Camp’s counsel has also confirmed in writing that a pre-employment Wisconsin Department of Justice background report did not factor into my discharge. Camp obtained the report, reviewed it and hired me afterward. The present record therefore does not support claiming that the old background report supplied Camp’s later safety narrative.

The documents also do not establish common authorship. Larson’s PDF metadata identifies Larson as the author. A textual comparison found no meaningful long, identical passages beyond law-firm formatting and conventional legal language.

The strongest resemblance exists at the level of strategy—not copied text.

Questions the evidence must answer

Administrative investigators should now examine:

• What contemporaneous evidence supports each employer’s safety characterization?
• Which witnesses supplied written statements, and when were they created?
• What did each decisionmaker know about protected activity and disability-related needs?
• Were the asserted reasons documented before litigation counsel entered the matter?
• Do the later legal narratives match the original emails, messages and investigation notes?
• Did either respondent rely on information originating outside its own employment relationship with me?

The disciplined conclusion

I believe Gregg may have influenced Larson’s approach. Belief, however, is not evidence.

The record presently supports a narrower conclusion: the two Boardman & Clark submissions use a substantially similar defensive architecture while retaining distinct voices.

Gregg writes expansively and confrontationally, repeatedly judging my interpretation and character. Larson writes more compactly, relies more heavily on attributed fear and organizes his defense around knowledge, causation and accommodation.

That strategic resemblance is newsworthy because administrative cases should be decided from evidence—not narrative momentum.

When two respondents ask government agencies to interpret the same complainant through parallel themes of exaggeration, hostility and perceived danger, the proper response is neither automatic acceptance nor an unsupported conspiracy claim.

It is disciplined comparison of the narratives against the contemporaneous record.

Next in the Record in Rebuttal series: Was Camp Createability’s two-ring telephone requirement merely a flexible “guideline,” or a mandatory expectation that management said “can not happen” and should “never” result in voicemail?