West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports

Benefits to State Bar of Wisconsin Members	Case Highlights & Features	Publicize Your Case Results
As a service to its members, the State Bar of Wisconsin has entered into an alliance agreement with West, a Thomson Reuters business, to provide award information on Wisconsin civil jury trials, bench trials, settlements, and arbitrations. State Bar members can: Request a full case summary, free of charge Submit their own case results for online publication in Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts Wisconsin Reports, free of charge Order a paid online subscription to Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports Contact West: west.juryverdicts@thomsonreuters.com or 800-689-9378 For State Bar members submitting their own results for publication, West will: Send each submitter a pdf of his/her published case as it appears online in Westlaw's® West's Jury Verdicts - Wisconsin Reports, free of charge Consider highlighting and/or featuring the case in our semi-monthly "West's Jury Verdicts" article in InsideTrack, and on this web site.	*State Bar of Wisconsin's InsideTrack* Web Site Highlights - Our attorney editors select 6 cases to highlight in the State Bar of Wisconsin's semi-monthly "InsideTrack" web site in concise one-paragaph format from the many Wisconsin cases we publish each month in full summary format. This Web Site Case of the Month - Our attorney editors also select one case to feature in its entirety in its full summary format. dec Case of the Month March 2026** See below	Would you like West to consider featuring or highlighting your case? » Online Submission Form
		Westlaw Litigator
		Your key resource for every phase of litigation » Learn More
		Recommend Another State Bar
		Would you like West to provide similar content for another State Bar? » Contact Us

Case of the Month March 2026

Federal Jury Finds in County's Favor Regarding Dispatcher's Claims for FMLA Violations

Young v. Monroe Cnty.

Case Type:
Labor & Employment - Family & Medical Leave
Labor & Employment - Retaliation
Labor & Employment - Termination/Constructive Discharge
Labor & Employment - Discrimination
Labor & Employment - Disability/Medical Condition
Civil Rights & Constitutional Law - Americans with Disabilities Act

Specific Liability:
County dispatcher asserted that county had terminated her employment and/or taken adverse employment action against her in retaliation for her taking leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)

General Injury:
Monetary Damages

Jurisdiction:
State: Wisconsin
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

Related Court Documents:
Plaintiff's complaint: 2023 WL 12152484
Defendant's memorandum of law in support of motion for summary judgment: 2025 WL 2830973
Special verdict: 2025 WL 2829615
Judgment 2025 WL 2830976

Case Name:
Young v. Monroe Cnty.

Docket/File Number:
3:23CV00729

Result Amount:
$0

Result Date:
July 22, 2025

Judge:
Anita Marie Boor

Attorneys:
Plaintiff: Colin B. Good, Hawks Quindel SC, Madison, WI; Emma E. Knatterud-Johnson, Hawks Quindel SC, Madison, WI
Defendant: Laurie J. McLeRoy, von Briesen & Roper SC, Milwaukee, WI; Victoria L. Seltun, von Briesen & Roper SC, Milwaukee, WI

Result Type:
Jury

Experts:
Plaintiff: Not Reported
Defendant: Not Reported

Breakdown of Award:
$0. Defense verdict.

Summary of Facts:
Plaintiff Amanda Young was reportedly employed as a full-time dispatcher with defendant Monroe County, Wis., beginning in 2016. The plaintiff said that she was the primary caregiver to her three young children, M.K., J.K. and S.Y. The plaintiff contended that J.K. had been diagnosed with epilepsy and suffered ongoing and extensive physical and neurological symptoms. As a result, the plaintiff said that she was required to take time off of work to care for him.

The plaintiff claimed that in 2021, J.K. was hospitalized for several weeks; as a result, the plaintiff used approved time under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) to care for him. Because of J.K.'s frequent medical appointments and hospitalizations, the plaintiff said that she transitioned away from working full-time for the county, and submitted her formal resignation as a full-time dispatcher. However, the plaintiff indicated that she would like to work part-time as a dispatcher; as a result, the Monroe County Communications Center 911 Administrator, Michael Thompson, allegedly emailed the defendant's human resources (HR) department indicating that the plaintiff would like to remain employed by the county as an on-call dispatcher. Despite Thompson's message, the plaintiff contended that she was not presented with an employment agreement for the on-call position. The plaintiff said that in late 2021, her children tested positive for the COVID-19 virus; consequently, she contacted the defendant in January 2022 to inform it that she was unable to work on-call because she needed to care for her children.

In early March 2022, the plaintiff reportedly contacted Thompson regarding any dispatcher vacancies. However, Thompson allegedly informed the plaintiff that her employment as a full-time or on-call dispatcher was terminated because he doubted her reliability and dependability.

In her complaint, the plaintiff asserted multiple claims against the defendant, which included claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), claims for violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and violations of the FMLA. Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had interfered with her ability to take FMLA leave by taking adverse employment action against her, which included terminating her employment. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant had willfully retaliated against her when it terminated her employment following her lawful use of FMLA leave.

The plaintiff sought monetary damages for back pay and front pay, as well as compensatory damages for her emotional distress, pain and suffering and mental anguish and liquidated damages, together with attorney fees and costs.

The defendant denied liability and denied that the plaintiff's taking FMLA leave was a substantial and/or motivating factor in its decision not to transfer her to a full-time dispatcher position or its decision to end her at-will, on-call employment.

The defendant also disputed the nature and extent of the plaintiff's claimed damages, and argued that the plaintiff had failed to mitigate her damages.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial. Jurors found that the plaintiff had proven that her use of FMLA leave was a motivating factor in the defendant's decision to terminate her employment as an on-call dispatcher. However, jurors also determined that the defendant would have terminated the plaintiff's employment as an on-call dispatcher even if she had not used FMLA leave.

In addition, the jury determined that the plaintiff's use of FMLA leave was a motivating factor in the defendant's decision not to re-hire her as a full-time dispatcher. However, jurors also found that the defendant would not have re-hired the plaintiff as a full-time dispatcher even if she had not used FMLA leave.

In judgment, the court entered judgment in the defendant's favor against the plaintiff in accordance with the jury's findings.

United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin.

Westlaw Citation:
2025 WL 2924886