The Questionnaire, the Safety Narrative, and the Questions Discovery Must Answer

An Outpost 422 Op-Exposé on Burt v. Frank Productions, ERD Case No. CR202500211

This report does not announce a legal finding. It preserves a sequence of documents and identifies the questions I believe the record requires the Wisconsin Equal Rights Division to examine.

The central question is not whether an employer may ever request medical documentation. Employers may engage in an interactive process and, in appropriate circumstances, request information needed to evaluate an accommodation. The question in my case is whether a disability-related documentation process became part of a retaliatory chain after I opposed what I believed to be disability discrimination, disability-related stereotyping, and unequal workplace treatment.

The documented sequence

On September 19, 2024, Frank Productions sent me an Interactive Process Questionnaire, or IDPQ. The accompanying letter requested provider-completed information and gave an October 3 deadline, stating that a failure to provide the requested information in a timely manner could result in rejection of an accommodation request.

The questionnaire was not a neutral document to me. It asked a provider to assess disability, job functions, restrictions, accommodations, and whether accommodations could reduce or eliminate an identified “direct threat.” I was a disabled veteran receiving care through the VA. I contend that the scope, deadline, and direct-threat language created a burdensome process at a time when I was already reporting workplace concerns and attempting to explain VA-related documentation practices.

The record also shows that I reported concerns to company leadership. My September 27 communications described what I perceived as unfavorable treatment, disability-related microaggressions, and a need for privacy in medical discussions. I reported that I was trying to de-escalate conflict while following my DVR-connected reporting obligations.

On October 3, Human Resources wrote that Frank Productions would proceed with the information I provided and approved the listed accommodations, while describing the materials as “self-reported” and reserving the possibility of later provider documentation. In an October 14–15 email exchange, CEO Joel Plant stated that the company had accepted my documentation and implemented accommodations. He also described the questionnaire as customary ADA process and explained that the company could request updated information in the future.

Those are the documents. They matter because they establish notice, an accommodation dialogue, a disputed documentation process, and the involvement of senior leadership before my November 8, 2024 termination.

My allegation and the limit of it

I allege that I opposed discrimination when I reported disability-related treatment, scheduling favoritism, communication practices, and what I understood as ableist or military-service stereotyping. I further allege that the IDPQ was the first step in a sequence that reframed my workplace reporting as a concern about my performance and safety.

Frank Productions disputes that account. Its investigative response states that it used a customary accommodation process, granted accommodations, conducted an outside HR investigation, and later terminated me because of reports that I made threatening statements about a patron on November 5. Its position is that disability, accommodation requests, and prior complaints played no role in the decision.

That disagreement is precisely why the record should not stop at labels.

I do not presently have discovery establishing that I was the only employee required to complete an IDPQ, that the outside HR advisor was retained to validate a predetermined termination decision, or that medical information was used for a retaliatory purpose. Those are discovery questions and allegations—not established facts.

What I do have is a chronology: I reported concerns; I was directed into a medical-documentation process; I objected to aspects of that process; senior leadership was copied on the communications; a safety narrative later became the stated rationale for termination; and the investigation did not, in my view, address all of my distinct theories.

The pretext question

Pretext is not proved merely because an employee disagrees with an employer’s stated reason. It concerns whether the stated reason was honestly relied upon and whether the full record supports the explanation offered.

My reporting identified concerns involving management conduct, scheduling, disability accommodations, privacy, and what I described as groupthink. I contend that management’s references to my performance as “rocky,” together with heightened scrutiny after those reports, require examination beside the later threatening-violence narrative.

The question is not whether workplaces may take safety seriously. They should. The question is whether comparable seriousness was applied to my reports of risk, whether the relevant witnesses and video were evaluated, and whether the company’s documentation process was administered evenhandedly rather than used to recharacterize a disabled veteran who was opposing perceived discrimination.

What should be produced and examined

A fair review should test the theory against documents and testimony. That includes:

• IDPQs or comparable medical-documentation requests issued to similarly situated employees, with appropriate privacy protections;
• the scope, retention agreement, communications, notes, and conclusions of the outside HR investigation;
• the identity of all decision-makers and their knowledge of my reports and accommodation communications;
• contemporaneous witness statements, incident reports, video, and communications concerning the November 5 event;
• scheduling, discipline, and accommodation records relevant to similarly situated employees; and
• the investigator’s treatment of each separately pleaded theory, rather than only the employer’s preferred explanation.

I am not asking a reader to accept an accusation as a verdict. I am asking that the record be tested.

Federal law prohibits retaliation for asserting ADA rights, and Wisconsin law prohibits employment discrimination because an individual opposed a practice believed to violate the Fair Employment Act. The law does not prohibit every request for medical information. It does prohibit the use of protected activity or disability-related information as a motive for adverse employment action.

My position is straightforward: I opposed what I reasonably believed was discrimination. I attempted to document my needs. I was terminated under a narrative I dispute. The unanswered questions about notice, process, comparator treatment, and decision-maker intent are the reason judicial and administrative review should examine the complete record.

This publication reflects allegations and document-based analysis in a pending matter. It is not a judicial finding. The respondent disputes the allegations.