A fte r ex am in in g t h e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . A c c or d in gly , th e a p p ea l is su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . See F ED . R. A PP . P . 34(a )(2) -(3) . 

# United States Court of App eals

F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 60 604 Subm i tte d M ay 12, 20 10 * Deci ded M ay 24, 20 10 B efo re K E N N E T H F. R IP P L E , C ircu it Judge A N N C L A IR E W IL L IA M S, Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e N o. 09- 2870 G O R D A N B A T E S, P laint if f-A ppell ant,

v. W I S CONS I N DEP ART M ENT OF W O R K FO R C E D E V E L O P M E N T , et. al, D efend a nts -A pp ellees . A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct Cou r t f o rthe W es te r n Di st r i cto fW i sc o ns i n. N o. 3:0 8-c v-0 04 65 -slc Barbar a B. Crabb , Judg e . O R D E R Gordan Bates cl ai m s that s eve ra lW i sco nsi n age nci es and thei r em plo yee s v i ol ate d th e A m er ica n s w ith D isa b ilitie s A c t, see42 U . S. C. § 1 2132 , and the W i sco nsi n Decepti ve T ra d e P ra c tic es A c t (W D T P A ), see W IS . S T AT . § 100.18. Th e d istri ct cou rt grante d sum m ary j u d gm en t fo r th e d efe n d an ts on bo th cla im s. B a tes v. Wis. D ep’t o f W o rkf o rce D ev . , 63 6 F . Su p p . 2d 79 7, 79 9 (W .D . W is. 20 09 ). W e a ffirm th e jud gm en t. NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To be ci ted o nl y in acco rdance w i th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N o. 09
- 2870 Page 2

Bates i s a Bosni an r efugee w ho work ed as an ar chi tectbefor e co m i ng to the U ni ted S ta te s. He su ffer s fr o m a r es pi r at o r y a i l m en t si m i l art o a sthm a. Ba te s was j o bl es s an d appli ed f oras si sta nce fro m the Divi si on o fVocat i onalRehabi l i tat i on ( “DV R”) , an a gency w i thi n the W i sco nsi n Departm ent o fW or kf or ce Deve l opm ent that a i ds pers ons w i th disabi l i ti es i n fi nd i ng g ai nfulem plo ym ent. In l ate 20 05 the DVR began tr yi ng to fi nd a j ob f orBates i n the fi el d ofar chi tecture, but aftera few m onths he deci ded thathe pr efer re d to go int o b u sin es s fo r h im se lf as an arc h ite c t. T h e D V Rth en sh ifte d its foc u s t o h elp in g h im g ethi s bus i ne ss o ffthe g r o und. Ba te s al so r ec ei ve d a dvi ce fr o m e m pl o y ee s o fthe W i sco nsi n Departm ent o fA gr i cul ture , Tra de and Consum erPro tect i on, wh i ch, thr ough i ts C l i e n tAs s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m, s u p p o r t s p e r s o n s i n r e s o l v i n gd i s p u t e s wi th th e D V R . Y e tt wo y ea r s o fc o l l ec ti ve e ff o r t pr o ve d fr ui tl es s. Ba te s i ns i st ed o n a $ 70 , 00 0 g r an t fr o m the DVR for start-u p fun d s, bu t the DV Rcond iti one d any m one y on h is subm issi on of a satisfactory busi ness pla n addressing so urces o ffund i ng, o perat i ng co sts , and the l i kel i hood o f pr o fi tabi l i ty . T he DVR s ta ffhe l ped Bat es pr epa r e hi s pl an, b utthe a g en cy ’ s r ev i ewi ng com m i tte e di sapprove d i t a nd deni ed fund i ng with the e xplanat i on that Bate s had not provi ded i nfo rm ati on o n boo kke epi ng and i nsurance, had a poo r cre dithi sto ry, and had no t be co m e l i ce ns ed as a n a r ch i te cti n W i sc o ns i n. Abo ute i g htmonths l at er, a he ar i ng officer em p loyed by the A ll iance of I m p artial H earing O fficers up he ld th e com m ittee’s d ec isio n . B at es d id n ottry to rem ed y t h e s h or tc om in gs in h is p lan . In st ea d h e filed th is l aw sui t nam i ng as a defe nd ant e ver y depar tm ent, ag ency, and i nd i vi du alem plo yee that ha d a ny c o nne ct i o n t o hi s dea l i ng s wi ththe DVR. Ba te s cl ai m ed th athe was de ni ed th e sta rt - up gr ant be cause ofhi s r espi ra tory di sor der a nd bec ause he stutter s, i n vi ol ati on o f T itle IIof th e A D A . See4 2 U. S . C. § 1 21 32 . He fur th erc l ai m ed th at, fr o m the s ta r t, the defen dan ts ha d m i sr epr es en te d hi s pr o spe ct s o fo bt aini ngfundi ng, i n v i o l at i o n o fthe W D T P A . See W IS . S T AT . § 10 0.1 8. Bo ths i des move d f o rs um m ary j udg m en t. In the i rc o ns o l i dat ed m o ti o n the d efe n d an ts as se rt ed th at B at es ’s c laim s a re ba rre d by th e E lev en th A m en d m en t a n d , in add i ti on, l acking i n m er i t. The di str i ct c ourtr ej ecte d the i m m unity defense but ag re ed w i th th e d efe n d an ts th at th e c laim s a re gro u n d les s. A lth ou gh th e c ou rtac c ep te d th at B at es is disabl ed by hi s r espi ra tory di sor der (but notthe speech i m pedim ent) , the cour t r eas oned that Bates l acke d evi dence ofa sat i sf acto rybusi ness pla n and thus co uld notes tabl i sh that he was r efus ed fundi ngb ec au se o fa di sabi l i ty . T he di st r i ctc o ur t al so c o nc l ude d tha t th e defe nd ants’ di scussi ons w i th Bates abo ut hi s pro spects f orse l fem plo ym ent c oul d not be th e b as is of a cla im u n d er th e W D T P A .N o. 09
- 2870 Page 3

On a ppea lthe de fen dan ts no l o ng era r g ue tha t th e El ev en thAm en dm en t ba r s th e A DA cl ai m , but sti l ltheyi nsi st that the c l ai m i s without m er i t. Bate s m ake s a num bero f argu m en ts for reversal, bu t only tw o w ere raised in th e d istri ct cou rt, and so the rest are w aiv ed . See B us. Sy s. E ng ’g, Inc . v. Int’l B us. M a ch . Co rp . , 547 F.3d 882 , 889 n.3 (7th C ir. 2008 ); H icks v. M idwestTransit, Inc. , 500 F.3d 64 7, 65 2 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ). B at es sp en d s a sign ifica n t p or tio n of h is b rie f arg u in g t h at h is s p ee c h im p ed im en t is a di s ab i l i t y, b utthe a ns we rt o tha tque s t i o n f a l l s a wa y i f, a s the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d, Bat es l ac k s ev i den ce tha t a di sabi l i ty
— whethe ri t be o ne o rb o thi m pai r m en ts
— was the re aso n f ordenyi ng hi s g ra nt appli cati on. Bate s s eem s t o bel i eve thathi s AD A cl ai m was es tabl i sh ed si m pl y b ec au se he ha s a di sabi l i tytha t qua l i fi ed hi m f o ra ss i st an ce fr o m the DV R. But thi s a ssum pti on m i sse s the m ar k. The AD A pro tect s a “qual i fi ed i nd i vi du al w i th a disabi l i ty” wh o i s, byr eas on o fsuch di sabi l i ty, “e xcl ud ed fro m part i ci pati ng i n or

. . . de ni e d the b e ne fi t s o fthe s e r v i c e s , p r o g r a ms, o ra c t i v i t i e s o fa p ub l i c e nt i t y . ” 4 2 U. S . C. § 1 2132 ; Wis. Co m ty. Serv s., Inc. v. C ityof M ilw a uk ee, 465 F.3d 73 7, 75 0 (7 th C ir. 20 06 ). H er e the di str i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that, as to the gr ant m oney, Bates was not a “q u alifie d ind ivid u al” be c au se h e n ev er su p p lied a sa tis fac to ry bu sin es s p lan . B a tes, 636 F. S upp. 2 d a t 80 9. Ba te s do es no t di spu te tha t co nc l us i o n o n a ppea l . I fa g o ve r nm en t pr o g r am doe s no t va r y s er vi ce o n the b as i s o fdi sabi l i ty, b utr athe rupo n the b as i s o fthe re ci pie nt’ s abi l i ty to m ake m eani ngful use o fthe provi ded se rv i ce, the prog ra m does not vio lat e T itle IIof th e A D A . See D o e v. P fro m m er, 14 8 F . 3d 73 , 8 1- 84 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 8) ( affi r m i ng su m m ary j ud gm en t for state agen cy th at obta ins em p loym en t for d isabled pers ons w he re p lai nt iff w as no t place d i n em p loym en t beca us e of his beh avior pat tern s w hich plaintiff re fu se d to rem ed y, n otbe c au se h e s u ffer ed from p er so n alit y d iso rd er ); Flig ht v . Glo eck ler, 68 F. 3d 61, 64 ( 2d Cir . 19 95) ( per curi am ) ( affi rm i ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent forst ate ag ency that p ro vid es m on ey to d isa b led p er so n s w h er e p lain tiff w as d en ied gra n t t o m od ify v eh icle b ec au se h e w as u n ab le t o d riv e, n otbe c au se of h is m u ltip le s c ler os is); s e eal s o Be rg v . Fl a. D ep’t o f La bo r & E m plo ym ent Sec ., 163 F. 3d 1251 , 12 55 ( 11th Cir . 19 98) ( up hol ding rej ecti on o f pla i nti ff’ s Rehabi l i tat i on Act cl ai m ag ai nst s tat e a gencythatfund s di sabl ed pers ons’ co l l ege educati on wh er e pl ai nti ffwas denie d funds to at tend l aw scho olbec ause gr aduate s chool fu n d in g w as ou ts id e t h e s c op e o f se rv ice s, n otbe c au se p lain tiff w as d isa b led ); M a llet v. Wis. D iv. o f V o ca tio na l R eha bilita tio n, 13 0 F .3d 12 45 , 125 7 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ) (sa m e). A s f a ra s t h e W D T P A c l a i m , the defe ndants press their po siti on that a ll o f them, in c lu d in g th e in d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s, a r e i m mun e fr o m l i ab i l i ty a s “ p ub l i c o ffi ce r s. ” Butthe Ele venth Am endm ent doe s no t ba r a s tat e- l aw cl ai m ag ai nst a st ate em plo yee i n an in d ivid u al c ap ac ity . E .g., Gu illem a rd-G ino rio v. C o ntrera s-G o m ez , 585 F.3d 508 , 531 (1st C ir. 20 09 ); R eyes v . Saz a n, 16 8 F .3d 15 8, 16 2-6 3 (5 th C ir. 19 99 ); B ad Frog B re w ery, Inc. v. N . Y . StateN o. 09
- 2870 Page 4

Li q uorAut h. , 134 F.3d 87, 102 (2d C ir. 1998); P ena v. G a rdn er, 976 F.2d 469 , 474 (9th C ir. 19 92 ); Gre e n v . Johns on , 97 7 F . 2d 1383 , 13 88 ( 10th Cir . 19 92) . The defendants al so advance the c onte nti on that Bate s f ai l ed to se rv e the A tto rneyGenera lo fW i sco nsi n w i th not i ce o f th e c laim ag ain st th e in d ivid u al e m p loy ee s, an d th u s c ou ld n otp ro c ee d w ith th is s u it. See W IS . S T AT . § 89 3. 82 ( 3) . Butthi s ar g um en t i s r ai se d f o rthe fi r stt i m e o n a ppea la nd c om es to o lat e. See B us. Sy s. E ng ’g, Inc ., 547 F. 3d at 889 n. 3; H i cks , 500 F.3d at65 2. Bu t i t m att er s no t be cause Bates’ s W DT PA cl ai m i s m er i tl ess . The W DT PA pro hibi ts “any perso n, fi rm , co rpor ati on, o r ass oci ati on” fro m m aking anyuntrue, decepti ve, o r m isle ad in g re p re se n ta tio n “t o th e p u b lic” w ith th e in te n t t o in d u c e a n ob liga tio n . W IS . S T AT . § 1 00 . 18 . T hi s st atut e do es no t apply t o r epr es en ta ti o ns made bythe de fen dan t ag en ci es b ec au se W i sc o ns i n l aw pr es um es tha t st at e r egul at o r y s ta tu te s do no t apply t o the st at e a n d its ag en c ies ab se n t s p ec ific la n gu ag e t o th e c on tr ar y. Wi s . Ve t e r ans Hom ev. D i v. of N urs ing Hom e Forfe it ureApp eals , 3 10 N. W . 2d 64 6, 6 48 ( W i s. Ct . App. 1 98 1) . F ur th er, the st at u te by its te rm s a p p lies on ly to co m m er c ial tr an sa c tio n s. SeeStatev. Autom atic M er chandise rs . of Am . Inc. , 22 1 N . W . 2d 683, 68 6- 87 ( W i s. 19 74) ( “[ The W DT PA ] i s a i m ed at prot ecting the publi c fro m untrue, decepti ve orm i sl eadi ng r epres entat i ons m ade i n sal es p rom otions.”); D or rv. Sa cre d Hear tHos p. , 5 97N. W . 2d 46 2, 4 73 ( W i s. Ct . App. 1 99 9) ( “[ The W D T P A ] p ro h ibit s d ec ep tiv e, m isle ad in g, or u n tr u e s ta te m en ts of an y k in d to th e p u b lic m ade i n a c om m er ci alse tting”) . Here the DVR w as not offer i ng se rv i ces orpro du cts f or c om m er c ial v alu e, bu t ra th er gra n t m on ey as p ar t o f a go ve rn m en ta l p ro gr am . B u t e ve n if the s tatute a pp l i es to a g ove rnm ent a gencyo ffer i ng speci alse rv i ces, Bates i s no t a m em ber of “ th e p u b lic” as req u ire d u n d er th e W D T P A . SeeNovell v. M igli accio , 74 9 N . W . 2d 544, 55 3 ( W i s. 20 08) ( sta ti ng tha t a n ess enti alel em ent o fl i abi l i ty und erW DT PA i s that pl ai nti ffi s a m em b er of “t h e p u b lic” ); K & S Tool & D i eCorp. v. Pe r f e ct i on M ac h. Sa l e s , Inc . , 73 2 N . W . 2d 792, 79 8- 99 ( W i s. 20 07) ( sam e) . One i s no t a m em bero f“the publ i c” i fther e i s a part i cul ar re lat ion sh ip w ith th e d efe n d an t. Se e A utom atic M er chandise rs . of Am . Inc. , 22 1 N . W . 2d at 68 6; Ka ilin v . Arm stron g, 643 N . W . 2d 132, 14 9 ( W i s. Ct. A pp . 20 02) . And the und i sputed f acts dem onst ra te that the di scussi ons about gr ant fund i ng o ccurr ed onl y a fterBates was a c c e pt e d a s a c l i e nto fthe DV R b a s e d o n hi s di s ab i l i t y . As the di s t r i c tc o ur tc o r r e c t l y n o t e d, th is re lat ion sh ip d ist in gu ish ed h im from th e p u b lic a t la rg e. AFFI RM ED .