01-1059 Wallscetti v. Fox, et al.

Listen to this article

“Wallscetti … points to an April 10, 1997 entry in Lagges’ confidential file. This entry mostly discusses Lagges’s unwillingness to grant Wallscetti a transfer until she provided him with supporting evidence for her allegations against Fox. The end of the note states that ‘if the charges are proven baseless, she may be disciplined or discharged,’ which Wallscetti believes aids her case. However, this sentence provides little support for an inference of retaliation. First, Wallscetti has not provided any evidence to show that Lagges eventually concluded that her complaints were ‘baseless.’ Thus, any assertion that he disciplined her for the reason stated in the entry is speculative. Second, the fact that the plaintiff still had not provided Lagges any of the information about Fox and the overall context of the entry illustrates his doubts about whether she had any evidence to support her charges. If the plaintiff’s allegations against Fox were in fact ‘baseless’ in the sense that she did not have any supporting evidence and the claims were untrue, which is to say that her charges were recklessly false, then she could have been disciplined without violating the First Amendment. See Brenner v. Brown, 36 F.3d 18, 20 (7th Cir. 1994) (per curiam). Lagges’s legally accurate statement to this effect provides little support for the inference that he would have punished Wallscetti if in fact her allegations against Fox did have an evidentiary basis.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Leinenweber, J., Flaum, J.