01-2959 Hutson v. State

Listen to this article

“Second, and in a closely related sense, Hutson’s memo, asking that ‘reasonable guidelines be established that would enable [her] to perform [her] job to best meet the needs of the protection of the community, the Department of Corrections and [her]self as agent in the Minimum/Administrative unit,’ presented more than a personal complaint of ‘the mere failure to act in accordance with a particular opinion regarding management techniques.’…

“Assuming, as the Commission did, that Hutson’s memo complained of a single ‘wrongful and negligent management action,’ it nonetheless alerted her superiors to an action potentially affecting numerous probation and parole agents and thousands of offenders under their supervision.

“What could better demonstrate ‘a pattern of incompetent management actions which are wrongful, negligent or arbitrary and capricious and which adversely affect the efficient accomplishment of an agency function’? See Wis. Stat. sec. 230.80(7). What possible purpose, consistent with the Whistleblower Law, could be served by requiring a probation and parole agent to await a ‘series’ of actions before alerting superiors to a single action establishing a pattern that endangers our citizens?…

“Therefore, we conclude, the Commission erred in determining that Hutson’s February 5 memo was not a protected disclosure of “information” under Wis. Stat. sec. 230.80(5). Thus, we reverse and remand for the Commission to consider Hutson’s retaliation claim under Wisconsin’s Whistleblower Law.”

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Hansher, J., Schudson, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Alan C. Olson, New Berlin; Faye D. Boom, New Berlin

For Respondent: David C. Rice, Madison; Jennifer S. Lattis, Madison