Skip to main content

Grant, Caleb v. Krolikowski, Daniel

W.D. Wis.March 17, 2025No. 3:23-cv-00551
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil Rights: Other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Plaintiff's Section 1983 claims against private parties were dismissed because private parties cannot be held liable under Section 1983, and his September 11 VCF-related claims were dismissed because he had already filed a VCF claim, thereby waiving his right to pursue civil litigation.

What This Ruling Means

**Worker Loses Case Against Private Employer Over Contract Dispute** Caleb Grant sued his employer Daniel Krolikowski, claiming his contract was broken. Grant tried to use two legal approaches: a federal civil rights law (Section 1983) and claims related to the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (VCF). The court threw out Grant's entire case before it could go to trial. The judge ruled that Grant's civil rights claims failed because Section 1983 only applies to government employees and agencies, not private employers like Krolikowski. The court also dismissed Grant's September 11th-related claims because Grant had already filed for compensation through the official VCF program. By doing so, he gave up his right to sue in regular court over the same issues. **What This Means for Workers:** This case shows two important limits on workplace lawsuits. First, certain federal civil rights laws only protect workers from government employers, not private companies. Second, if you participate in special compensation programs (like the 9/11 fund), you may lose the right to file separate lawsuits about the same problems. Workers should carefully consider their options and understand which laws apply to their specific employment situation before deciding how to pursue legal claims.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.