Three Determinations, One DVR Paper Trail: Examining Wisconsin ERD Gatekeeping of a Pro Se Disabled Veteran

Three Wisconsin Equal Rights Division matters now present a common administrative-fairness question: Did ERD investigators apply consistent and neutral standards when identifying my claims, reviewing my exhibits, weighing disputed evidence, and preparing Initial Determinations?

The records do not yet prove intentional discrimination, conspiracy, or constitutional misconduct by ERD officials. They establish a basis for examining what evidence investigators received, what they recorded as considered, what evidence they omitted or rejected, and whether equivalent standards were applied to the employers’ submissions.

The DVR foundation

My employment history cannot be separated from my participation in Wisconsin’s Division of Vocational Rehabilitation. DVR was involved in documenting my disabilities, employment limitations, accommodation needs, and efforts to remain employed.

At Marcus Palace Cinema, I maintain that the employer knew I was a disabled veteran receiving DVR assistance. I reported safety concerns involving another employee and later opposed what I believed was discriminatory treatment. Marcus requested additional medical documentation through an employer questionnaire. The ERD Initial Determination ultimately characterized the accommodation dispute as a failure to provide adequate information or cooperate with the documentation process.

That characterization is disputed. My position is that I attempted to coordinate documentation through DVR and the Department of Veterans Affairs while raising legitimate privacy and accessibility concerns about the employer’s form.

At Frank Productions LLC, the documentary sequence began again.

On September 16 and 17, 2024, I reported perceived workplace bias and supplied a DVR employment report to company leadership. On September 19, FPC opened an outside workplace investigation and initiated an interactive-dialogue documentation process. I identified the VA as my healthcare provider and DVR as the agency supporting my employment.

Between September 25 and October 3, I participated in the investigation, supplied medical information, and expressly opposed perceived ableism and the treatment of disabled veterans. FPC acknowledged the documentation and agreed to proceed with accommodations, although it described portions of the information as incomplete or self-reported.

On November 5, I reported a foreseeable encounter with a patron with whom I had a difficult history. I maintain that I requested separation, attempted to prevent a confrontation, and used “hands-on” terminology in the context of event-security training. FPC maintains that coworkers heard statements threatening physical violence.

On November 8, FPC terminated me and issued an indefinite ban covering its venues in Wisconsin, Missouri, and South Carolina. The ban letter stated that the decision was based on communications involving threats of violence that others believed jeopardized venue safety.

I deny threatening violence.

On December 19, 2024, I provided DVR personnel with unemployment correspondence concerning the allegation and asked about outside disability-law training addressing employer medical questionnaires. DVR counselor Brock Hansen identified an ADA National Network training and an EEOC attorney associated with the presentation. Hansen expressly stated that his information was secondhand because he had not attended the training.

That exchange establishes contemporaneous notice and preservation of the IDPQ dispute. It does not independently prove that FPC’s questionnaire was unlawful.

The FPC Initial Determination

The ERD Initial Determination accepted FPC’s stated safety explanation and found no probable cause to believe that the company harassed or discharged me because of military service.

The investigator emphasized that FPC produced statements from three employees and that the incident correspondence did not expressly mention my military service. The determination concluded that I had not supplied sufficient information to dispute the employer’s account.

That analysis leaves material questions unresolved:

1. What did each witness report before the November 8 termination?
2. Were contemporaneous interview notes created?
3. When were the written statements requested and completed?
4. What information did CEO Joel Plant possess when he approved the termination and multi-venue ban?
5. Did the investigator examine the September and October correspondence establishing FPC’s prior knowledge of my disabled-veteran status, VA documentation, DVR participation, and protected opposition?
6. Did the investigator distinguish an employee’s request for separation from an intention to initiate violence?
7. Were FPC’s security-reporting instructions and “hands-on” training considered?

The existence of three statements does not automatically resolve when the statements were first made, what questions produced them, or whether the employer honestly relied on the same information before the discharge became final.

Marcus Palace Cinema

ERD’s June 20, 2025 Initial Determination in the Marcus matter rejected disability, age, military-status, retaliation, and related claims for lack of probable cause.

The determination acknowledged that I alleged DVR had notified Marcus of my disabilities and possible disability-related absences. It nevertheless concluded that I failed to provide adequate medical information or cooperate with the accommodation process.

The fairness question is not simply whether I disagreed with that conclusion. It is whether the determination accurately evaluated the DVR- and VA-mediated documentation process, distinguished privacy objections from refusal to participate, and applied the same evidentiary scrutiny to the employer’s account.

I timely appealed. The available probable-cause hearing permits evidence to be presented to an administrative law judge and creates a substantial procedural obstacle to any claim that the Initial Determination alone permanently deprived me of due process.

Madison College

On August 7, 2026, ERD issued a Preliminary Determination dismissing my Madison College complaint as untimely and partly outside the Division’s jurisdiction under Wisconsin’s Discrimination in Postsecondary Education Law.

The investigator treated the alleged accommodation denials as discrete acts, determined that my internal complaint did not extend or restart the 300-day filing period, and concluded that the accommodation theory presented was outside the applicable statute.

This was a threshold determination. It was not a factual finding that the alleged classroom mistreatment, accommodation delays, or cognitive injury did not occur.

The determination states that an appeal must be received within 20 days of mailing. Because it was mailed August 7, 2026, the apparent receipt deadline is August 27, 2026.

Camp Createability and Boardman & Clark LLP

Camp Createability supplies another comparator. I allege that Camp knew of DVR’s involvement, resisted disability-related procedures, and used disputed allegations to justify an adverse employment decision after I acted in good faith to oppose perceived discrimination.

Boardman & Clark LLP appears in both the FPC and Camp proceedings. Attorney Robert Gregg represents FPC, while Attorney Storm Larson represents Camp.

On February 13, 2025, Gregg asked MEOD and ERD to designate one primary agency to process what FPC characterized as duplicate filings. That motion establishes that counsel sought coordinated agency processing and avoidance of duplicative investigations.

It does not establish that Boardman & Clark controlled either agency, shared confidential information improperly, conspired with investigators, or acted under color of state law.

Private attorneys do not ordinarily become state actors merely by representing clients before a government agency. A federal joint-action or conspiracy theory would require concrete facts showing an agreement between private counsel and identified state officials to deprive me of a specific federal right. Parallel arguments, professional familiarity, favorable rulings, or representation of two employers are not enough.

Boardman & Clark is therefore presently an evidentiary link—not an established federal defendant. The relevant questions are:

• What did counsel submit?
• When did ERD receive it?
• Did ERD give me an equivalent opportunity to respond?
• Did counsel possess or use information originating in the other employer’s matter?
• Did an investigator adopt disputed employer assertions without addressing contrary evidence?
• Is there evidence of communications or coordinated conduct beyond ordinary legal advocacy?

The pending public-records request

On July 3, 2026, I requested ERD policies, manuals, memoranda, training materials, and quality-assurance records addressing:

• interactions with self-represented complainants;
• investigator neutrality and impartiality;
• documentary evidence, chronologies, credibility, and corroboration;
• complaints, reassignment, and supervisory review;
• preparation and review of Initial Determinations; and
• investigative quality assurance.

DWD acknowledged the request on July 3 and stated that processing had begun.

This request arises under the Wisconsin Public Records Law, Wis. Stat. § 19.35. It is not a federal Freedom of Information Act request.

The response may show whether ERD maintains written standards for claim identification, exhibit tracking, evidentiary exclusions, supervisory review, and communications with disabled or self-represented complainants.

If DWD produces no record responsive to a particular category, the accurate statement will be that DWD produced no responsive record identified in that category. That does not necessarily establish that no policy exists unless the records custodian expressly confirms it.

The federal civil-rights question

My working federal question is:

Whether identified Wisconsin officials, acting under color of state law, subjected a disabled self-represented complainant to materially unequal or inaccessible administrative procedures by failing to identify and fairly examine his claims and documentary submissions while accepting materially disputed employer submissions, and whether the available appeal and hearing procedures supplied a constitutionally adequate remedy.

“Investigator unfairness” and “discovery abuse” are not independent federal causes of action.

Wisconsin’s administrative rules generally prohibit formal discovery before a matter is certified to hearing. The more precise issue is whether ERD used an opaque, inaccessible, or materially unequal evidence-screening system before issuing gatekeeping determinations—and whether that process caused an injury that the available appeal could not correct.

Potential federal claims requiring factual support

Count I — Procedural Due Process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A possible claim would arise under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

To establish this claim, I must identify:

1. a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest;
2. a deprivation attributable to a particular state official;
3. procedures that were constitutionally inadequate;
4. each defendant’s personal involvement;
5. a concrete injury caused by the inadequate procedure; and
6. why the available appeal, probable-cause hearing, or other state remedy did not provide adequate process.

The current weakness is substantial: ERD provided appeal rights and a probable-cause hearing at which evidence may be presented independently of the Initial Determination. A federal court may conclude that this corrective procedure satisfies due process.

Count II — Equal Protection under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

A possible equal-protection claim would require proof that an identified official intentionally treated me differently because of disability or another protected classification.

I would need evidence that:

1. I was similarly situated to another complainant or respondent in relevant respects;
2. ERD applied materially different evidence or procedural standards;
3. the difference was intentional rather than negligent, mistaken, or based on case-specific considerations; and
4. the unequal treatment occurred because of disability or another constitutionally protected basis.

An unfavorable determination, factual omission, or delayed response does not independently establish discriminatory intent.

Count III — Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title II, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, denying the benefits of those programs, or subjecting the person to discrimination by reason of disability.

A potential Title II claim would require proof that:

1. I am a qualified individual with a disability;
2. ERD is a public entity;
3. I was denied meaningful access to, excluded from, or discriminated against in ERD’s administrative process;
4. the denial occurred by reason of disability; and
5. a reasonable modification was necessary and requested, or the need was otherwise apparent.

Pro se status alone is not protected under the ADA. I would need to connect the alleged administrative barrier to my TBI, neurodivergence, or another qualifying disability—not merely to the complexity of self-representation.

Count IV — Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, prohibits disability discrimination in a program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

A possible claim would require proof that:

1. I am otherwise qualified;
2. ERD or the relevant DWD program receives applicable federal financial assistance;
3. I was denied meaningful access or subjected to discrimination;
4. the denial occurred solely by reason of disability; and
5. the requested modification was reasonable.

The federal-funding element must be verified. It should not be alleged solely on assumption.

Count V — Prospective declaratory or injunctive relief

If an ongoing violation of federal law can be established, prospective relief may potentially be pursued against an appropriate state official under the doctrine of Ex parte Young.

The requested relief must be directed to an ongoing violation and must be narrowly tailored. Possible relief could include:

• preservation of the administrative record;
• identification of the claims and exhibits actually considered;
• a neutral review using accessible procedures;
• a reasonable disability-related procedural modification; or
• an injunction against a specific, continuing unequal practice.

A general federal audit of ERD is unlikely to be available as relief in an individual action.

The Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–2202, may authorize declaratory relief when an actual federal controversy exists, but it does not independently create a cause of action.

Claims that should not presently be pleaded as established

I should not presently allege a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy against Boardman & Clark or ERD officials without concrete facts demonstrating:

• an actual agreement;
• the participants in that agreement;
• discriminatory class-based intent;
• an act performed to advance the agreement; and
• a resulting deprivation or injury.

Suspicion, similar legal arguments, representation of separate employers, or ERD’s acceptance of an employer’s position would not satisfy those requirements.

I also should not name the State of Wisconsin, DWD, or ERD as defendants for damages under § 1983. The Supreme Court has held that a State and its agencies are generally not “persons” subject to § 1983 damages liability.

Federal jurisdiction

If a viable federal claim exists, subject-matter jurisdiction may arise under:

• 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the action arises under federal law; and
• 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)–(4), for certain civil-rights claims.

The substantive vehicle would be 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations by persons acting under color of Wisconsin law.

The jurisdictional statutes do not create liability. Every count must still identify a substantive federal right and facts showing how each named defendant violated it.

The current evidentiary objective

Before filing, I must build an administrative-record matrix identifying:

1. every claim I presented;
2. every exhibit submitted;
3. proof ERD received it;
4. the employer’s competing submission;
5. how the investigator treated each item;
6. any material omission or exclusion;
7. similarly situated evidence treated differently;
8. the responsible official;
9. the available appeal or hearing remedy; and
10. the concrete injury that remained uncorrected.

The public-records response should then be compared with ERD’s actual conduct in the Marcus, FPC, Madison College, and Camp proceedings.

The responsible theory is not that every unfavorable determination proves bias. It is that a documented pattern of materially unequal or inaccessible evidence handling may warrant federal examination if it can be connected to a protected federal right, an identified state actor, a concrete injury, and the absence of an adequate corrective remedy.

Editorial notice

This article distinguishes documentary facts, party statements, disputed allegations, and inferences. FPC, Marcus, Madison College, Camp Createability, their attorneys, and ERD officials may dispute my characterization. No court has found that ERD investigators or Boardman & Clark violated my federal rights. This is investigative commentary and litigation-preparation research, not a filed complaint or judicial finding.