MADISON - A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit a Monroe senior citizen brought against the city alleging her Constitutional rights were violated when she was expelled from the Behring Senior Center.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday upheld Federal Magistrate Stephen Crocker's dismissal of Edith Milestone's suit but for different reasons.
Milestone filed suit in 2009 after the Monroe Senior Citizens Board lessened Senior Citizens Director Tammy Derrickson's perpetual expulsion order of Milestone. Derrickson perpetually banned Milestone for Milestone's abusive language, physically threatening conduct and lack of respect toward others, which violated the center's conduct code.
The board would allow Milestone to return to the center upon successful completion of an anger management course.
Milestone didn't attend an anger management course but instead sued the city.
Crocker dismissed the suit finding that Derrickson and the board weren't the city's final policymakers, which didn't make the city liable when sued. When Milestone appealed, the appeals court affirmed Crocker but found that the board had the authority to make rules for users of the senior citizen center.
The appeals court also found that the conduct rules were reasonable restrictions, weren't overbroad or vague, and didn't violate Milestone's free speech rights.
"The (conduct) code is akin to statutes prohibiting disruptive noises ... disorderly conduct ... disturbing the peace ... or abusive personal conduct against others," according to the opinion.
The appeals opinion also turned on whether Derrickson's or the board's decision made the city liable for Constitutional violations. The appeals court found that neither Derrickson nor the board had that authority. While the board reviewed Derrickson's ban, board decisions are subject to review by the common council.
"Indeed, the (b)oard fully advised Milestone of her right to appeal to the common council. In bypassing the common council, Milestone deprived the city's final policymaker of the opportunity to review the acts of municipal subordinates, including their compliance with city policy and even the wisdom of city policy itself," according to the opinion.
Milestone's attorney Raymond Clausen said he was disappointed with the decision but hadn't decided if there would be further appeal.
Milestones' visits to the center "were plagued with turmoil," according to the appeals opinion and included a number of incident reports after disturbances in which she had been involved.
They included shouting at patrons in 2002, threatening to get Derrickson fired in 2005, and filing frivolous police complaints against other center patrons.
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday upheld Federal Magistrate Stephen Crocker's dismissal of Edith Milestone's suit but for different reasons.
Milestone filed suit in 2009 after the Monroe Senior Citizens Board lessened Senior Citizens Director Tammy Derrickson's perpetual expulsion order of Milestone. Derrickson perpetually banned Milestone for Milestone's abusive language, physically threatening conduct and lack of respect toward others, which violated the center's conduct code.
The board would allow Milestone to return to the center upon successful completion of an anger management course.
Milestone didn't attend an anger management course but instead sued the city.
Crocker dismissed the suit finding that Derrickson and the board weren't the city's final policymakers, which didn't make the city liable when sued. When Milestone appealed, the appeals court affirmed Crocker but found that the board had the authority to make rules for users of the senior citizen center.
The appeals court also found that the conduct rules were reasonable restrictions, weren't overbroad or vague, and didn't violate Milestone's free speech rights.
"The (conduct) code is akin to statutes prohibiting disruptive noises ... disorderly conduct ... disturbing the peace ... or abusive personal conduct against others," according to the opinion.
The appeals opinion also turned on whether Derrickson's or the board's decision made the city liable for Constitutional violations. The appeals court found that neither Derrickson nor the board had that authority. While the board reviewed Derrickson's ban, board decisions are subject to review by the common council.
"Indeed, the (b)oard fully advised Milestone of her right to appeal to the common council. In bypassing the common council, Milestone deprived the city's final policymaker of the opportunity to review the acts of municipal subordinates, including their compliance with city policy and even the wisdom of city policy itself," according to the opinion.
Milestone's attorney Raymond Clausen said he was disappointed with the decision but hadn't decided if there would be further appeal.
Milestones' visits to the center "were plagued with turmoil," according to the appeals opinion and included a number of incident reports after disturbances in which she had been involved.
They included shouting at patrons in 2002, threatening to get Derrickson fired in 2005, and filing frivolous police complaints against other center patrons.