A Journalism eDiscovery review of September 2024 emails has clarified the chronology behind my pending employment-discrimination matters involving Frank Productions LLC.
The documents do not establish that discrimination or retaliation occurred. They do, however, establish a paper trail connecting my internal workplace report, DVR-supported employment documentation, Frank Productions’ investigation, and the company’s disability interactive process.
That sequence now begins earlier—and is more precise—than previously presented.
September 16–17: The reporting foundation
On September 16, 2024, I emailed Frank Productions CEO Joel Plant concerning what I perceived as scheduling bias and unfavorable treatment by management. I sent the same material to my Wisconsin Division of Vocational Rehabilitation counselor.
Plant acknowledged receiving and preliminarily reviewing the correspondence. He copied Chief Operating Officer Sarah Reiter and stated that company leadership would discuss the situation and provide next steps.
On September 17, I sent Plant and DVR Director Jennifer Klein my 12-month DVR employment report. The report described my concerns about scheduling practices, management communication, disability inclusion, and the effectiveness of the company’s open-door process.
Plant requested an accessible copy after reporting that he could not open the original link. This exchange establishes executive-level receipt of my report and its connection to DVR.
September 19: The knowledge-and-process nexus
September 19 is the central junction in the paper trail.
Plant wrote that, after reviewing my communications from the preceding week, Frank Productions had retained Jennifer Lindberg of Lake Effect HR & Law to investigate my concerns.
In the same email, Plant announced that the company was initiating an Americans with Disabilities Act interactive-dialogue process because my communications referenced health conditions and workplace restrictions. He attached an Interactive Dialogue Questionnaire for my healthcare provider.
My replies identified:
- the Department of Veterans Affairs as my healthcare provider;
- DVR as the agency supporting my employment;
- my disability status;
- the disabled-veteran context of the requested documentation; and
- my concerns about how VA medical information should be handled.
These communications establish employer knowledge of the disability and veteran context. They do not, standing alone, prove discriminatory intent.
September 22–27: Express opposition and evidence intake
On September 22, I sent Lindberg and Plant additional reports concerning what I perceived as unfavorable treatment. I described my concerns as opposition to discrimination and requested an effective open-door reporting process.
On September 23, Lindberg clarified her assignment:
“I am asking to meet with you to explore and investigate the concerns you have raised.”
She also stated that she was not serving as a conflict-resolution mediator.
That morning, I responded that I had exhausted my internal avenues for opposing discrimination. A three-hour Zoom interview was scheduled for September 25.
The subsequent correspondence confirms that the meeting occurred. Afterward, I identified another potential witness concerning disability-related workplace treatment.
On September 27, Lindberg invited me to submit selected excerpts from my employment diaries. She declined to serve as custodian of the complete collection but expressly confirmed that she would review the diary entry I supplied.
The PDF metadata presents an important qualification: although the submitted entry memorialized events dated September 17, the particular PDF was created on September 27. It should therefore be described as a September 17 entry exported or memorialized as a PDF on September 27—not automatically as a file created contemporaneously on September 17.
The disability-documentation track
A separate email chain shows that I informed Human Resources Manager Haley Davis of my September 26 VA appointment and supplied medical documentation afterward.
On September 27, I expressly raised concerns about ableism, disabled-veteran onboarding, management treatment, and the amount of medical information requested. Davis responded that FPC would review the healthcare documentation and offered additional time if necessary.
On October 3, Davis confirmed that FPC had received the information. Although she described it as incomplete and “self-reported,” the company agreed to proceed with the requested accommodations.
This evidence establishes notice, receipt, and an active accommodation process. It does not prove that the medical information was later used to classify me as dangerous.
November 5–8: The disputed threat allegation
The controversy escalated after the November 5 election-night event at the Orpheum Theatre.
I maintain that I reported a foreseeable encounter with a patron with whom I had a difficult history, requested separation or reassignment, and used “hands-on” terminology drawn from event-security training. I deny threatening violence.
Respondent contends that three employees heard statements about physically harming the patron. Its own witness materials also acknowledge that I asked to be kept away from the patron so that no confrontation would occur.
The written statements raise an important timing question:
- Jadon Bower’s written statement was emailed after my reported November 8 termination time.
- Cozy Rost’s written account was supplied November 11.
- Erik Mittelstaedt’s signed declaration is dated January 16, 2026.
Respondent maintains that the witnesses orally confirmed the allegations before termination. The next evidentiary question is therefore not simply what the later statements say. It is what each witness reported before Plant made the termination and ban decisions, who conducted those interviews, and whether contemporaneous notes exist.
What the Initial Determination decided
The Equal Rights Division’s Initial Determination found no probable cause on the military-service claim. The investigator accepted FPC’s safety explanation as sufficiently supported and found that I had not provided enough evidence connecting the adverse action to military service.
That was not a judicial finding that I threatened anyone. It was an investigative determination that the record then presented did not establish the required military-service connection.
The related disability and retaliation allegations remain procedurally distinct. The military-service appeal has been placed in abeyance while the transferred complaint proceeds through investigation.
The next steps
The record now supports a disciplined evidence plan:
- Obtain the original September 16 attachment and September 19 IDPQ.
- Preserve the native emails and complete headers.
- Identify the diary excerpt Lindberg actually reviewed.
- Request any Lindberg interview notes and final investigative report.
- Determine what witness information existed before termination.
- Obtain the applicable “hands-on” security-training materials.
- Separate military-service, disability, and retaliation theories.
- Present only the limited exhibits necessary to establish each link.
The central question remains unresolved:
Did Frank Productions terminate an employee for making a genuine threat, or did it interpret a disputed safety communication as threatening after the employee reported discrimination and entered a disability-documentation process?
The paper trail does not answer that question by itself. It shows why the question warrants careful evidence examination rather than a one-sided summary.
Editorial notice: This article reports the author’s allegations, documentary analysis, and pending administrative proceedings. Frank Productions disputes the allegations and maintains that it acted for legitimate safety reasons. No tribunal has made a final finding that discrimination or retaliation occurred.