From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kiesewetter v. Caterpillar Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Oct 9, 2008
295 F. App'x 850 (7th Cir. 2008)

Summary

finding that while bipolar disorder was an impairment, plaintiff had failed to show that his mild bipolar disorder substantially limited major life activities

Summary of this case from Estate of Robey v. City of Chi.

Opinion

No. 08-2140.

Submitted October 2, 2008.

After examining the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Cir. R. 34(f).

Decided October 9, 2008.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 06-1299. Michael M. Mihm, Judge.

Martain V. Kiesewetter, Tremont, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jason M. Torres, Attorney, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants Appellee.

Before FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Chief Judge, ANN CLAIRE WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge and DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge.



Order

Caterpillar fired Martin Kiesewetter in 2005 after he behaved unacceptably at a training session. Kiesewetter attributes his words and actions to the manic phase of his bipolar disorder and contends that the Americans with Disabilities Act required Caterpillar to accommodate his conduct by tolerating it. The district court granted summary judgment to Caterpillar, finding that Kiesewetter's mental condition is not a "disability" as the ADA uses that term. The district judge did not reach other questions, such as whether Kiesewetter is "qualified" if he cannot meet the employer's legitimate expectations about conduct toward superiors and co-workers.

After the district court entered its judgment, Congress amended the ADA's definition of "disability." See § 3 of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Sept. 25, 2008). Section 8 of this statute provides that the legislation's effective date is January 1, 2009, so it does not apply to this appeal. We use the laws and interpretations that were in force when the complained-of acts occurred. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994).

A "disability" is a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities". 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). Bipolar disorder is a mental impairment, but the district judge concluded that the record did not create a material dispute about whether it had substantially limited any of Kiesewetter's major life activities. He contends that the condition limits sleeping and working. Effects on sleep may be granted, but the judge found that these effects are mild (i.e., not "substantial" limitations) and did not bear any causal connection to Kiesewetter's difficulties at work. Kiesewetter points to a letter from his physician saying that sleep disorders can cause problems at work, but no evidence in this record implies that they did cause problems for Kiesewetter in particular.

As for working: We shall assume, as we have done before, that "working" was a major life activity under the preamendment version of the ADA. See Squibb v. Memorial Medical Center, 497 F.3d 775, 781 (7th Cir. 2007). (The 2008 amendments specify that "working" is among the covered "major life activities".) A substantial limitation means "inability to work in a broad range of jobs, rather than a specific job." Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 200, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). Kiesewetter contends that his bipolar disorder prevents him from working as an engineer at Caterpillar but has never tried to show that it prevents him from working at a "broad range of jobs". Bipolar disorder can be more or less severe. People with less severe manifestations of this disorder, which afflicts approximately 1% of the population, hold many different jobs across the economy. To prevail in this suit, Kiesewetter had to show that his condition is sufficiently severe that he is unable to work in a broad range of jobs, yet sufficiently mild that he is "qualified" to perform his duties at Caterpillar. He has not produced evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in his favor on these subjects.

Kiesewetter contends on appeal that he was fired, not because of his condition, but because of Caterpillar's misapprehensions about bipolar disorder. He did not make such an argument in the district court, however, so this contention has been forfeited.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Kiesewetter v. Caterpillar Inc.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
Oct 9, 2008
295 F. App'x 850 (7th Cir. 2008)

finding that while bipolar disorder was an impairment, plaintiff had failed to show that his mild bipolar disorder substantially limited major life activities

Summary of this case from Estate of Robey v. City of Chi.

In Kiesewetter, 295 F. App'x at 851, for example, the court explained that bipolar disorder "can be more or less severe" and rejecting the plaintiff's ADA claim because the plaintiff had failed to show that his bipolar disorder substantially limited any of his major life activities.

Summary of this case from Estate of Robey v. City of Chi.

declining to apply the ADAAA retroactively

Summary of this case from Hajel v. Ludlum

declining to apply the ADAAA retroactively

Summary of this case from ERBE v. POTTER

declining to apply the ADAAA retroactively

Summary of this case from Pinegar v. Shinseki

declining to apply ADA amendments to that appeal and stating that "[w]e use the laws and interpretations that were in force when the complained-of acts occurred."

Summary of this case from Salas v. 3M Company

applying pre-amendment definition of "disability" to ADA claim based on events that took placed in 2005

Summary of this case from Pennie v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

applying pre-ADAAA definition of "disability"

Summary of this case from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cast Prod
Case details for

Kiesewetter v. Caterpillar Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Martin V. KIESEWETTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CATERPILLAR INC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Date published: Oct 9, 2008

Citations

295 F. App'x 850 (7th Cir. 2008)

Citing Cases

Wilkes v. City of Fort Wayne

Filar v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Chicago, 526 F.3d 1054, 1066 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing 42 U.S.C. §§…

Estate of Robey v. City of Chi.

use her assertion is consistent with the Amended Complaint. (City's Reply 1-2) (citing Early v. Bankers Life…