From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zirpel v. Toshiba America Information Systems

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 10, 1997
111 F.3d 80 (8th Cir. 1997)

Summary

holding that although breathing was hampered during an actual panic attack, the disorder did not substantially limit the plaintiff's major life activity of breathing where the attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from Stowell v. Open Door Mission

Opinion

No. 96-2293SD

Submitted February 11, 1997

Filed April 10, 1997

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellant was Stephanie E. Pochop of Gregory SD.

Counsel who presented argument on behalf of the appellee was Susan J. Brunick of Sioux Falls, SD.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.

Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.


Kathryn Jean Zirpel appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (Toshiba) in her employment discrimination suit. Zirpel claimed she was sexually harassed in violation of 42 U.S.C. §(s) 2000e-2(a)(1) (1994). She also contended Toshiba fired her because she is disabled in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 12101-12213 (1994). The district court concluded Zirpel could sustain neither claim. We agree, and affirm.

Zirpel, who managed quality control at Toshiba's Mitchell, South Dakota plant, contends she suffered hostile-environment sexual harassment from Marty Cunningham, the plant's sales director. We doubt, but we need not decide, whether Cunningham's conduct was "severe or pervasive enough to create an objectively hostile or abusive work environment" for Zirpel. Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993). Whatever Cunningham said and did, the district court properly granted summary judgment because Toshiba promptly took "remedial action . . . reasonably calculated to end the harassment" once it knew or should have known about Cunningham's behavior. Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc., 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir. 1993). Although Zirpel complained about Cunningham to Toshiba's human resources manager Jan Hopkins in October 1992, the first time Zirpel told Hopkins that Cunningham was making suggestive remarks to Zirpel was January 13, 1993. Hopkins offered to intervene, but Zirpel said she would rather talk to Cunningham herself. Hopkins asked Zirpel to keep her informed. On Friday, January 15, Zirpel reported to Hopkins that Cunningham had said something overtly sexual to her. On Monday, January 18, Hopkins and the plant's general manager met with Cunningham, who signed a written warning informing Cunningham "that future acts of this type will result in additional disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination." The warning was placed in a sealed envelope in Cunningham's personnel file, and Hopkins told Cunningham he would be fired if that envelope ever had to be opened. Cunningham never bothered Zirpel again. Because Zirpel's evidence is insufficient to establish an essential element of her sexual harassment claim, summary judgment in favor of Toshiba was mandated. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).

Likewise, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for Toshiba on Zirpel's ADA claim. Obviously, Toshiba cannot have violated Zirpel's rights under the ADA unless Zirpel is disabled. Zirpel suffers from a mental impairment, panic disorder, but Zirpel failed to create a triable dispute about whether her disorder substantially limits any of her major life activities. See 42 U.S.C. §(s) 12102(2)(A); Aucutt v. Six Flags over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311, 1318-19 (8th Cir. 1996) (explaining ADA's definition of "disability"). Although Zirpel's ability to breathe and speak is hampered during an actual panic attack, Zirpel admits her panic disorder does not usually limit her activities. Zirpel's psychologist said that with treatment, panic disorder is "very manageable," causing infrequent, mild attacks. Furthermore, Zirpel's panic disorder does not substantially limit her ability to work. See Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir. 1996) (requiring significant reduction in meaningful employment opportunities). While Zirpel's panic attacks interfered with her work at Toshiba, Zirpel has had three jobs since her discharge, and she currently holds a quality control position nearly identical to the one she held at Toshiba.

We affirm the judgment of the district court.


Summaries of

Zirpel v. Toshiba America Information Systems

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 10, 1997
111 F.3d 80 (8th Cir. 1997)

holding that although breathing was hampered during an actual panic attack, the disorder did not substantially limit the plaintiff's major life activity of breathing where the attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from Stowell v. Open Door Mission

holding that although breathing was hampered during an actual panic attack, the disorder did not substantially limit the plaintiff's major life activity of breathing where the attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from Miles-Hickman v. David Powers Homes, Inc.

holding plaintiff not disabled where plaintiff's ability to speak and breathe was hampered during panic attacks, which could be infrequent and mild, but panic disorder did not otherwise usually limit plaintiff's activities

Summary of this case from Countryman v. Nordstrom, Inc.

holding that summary judgment was properly granted in an employer's favor because the employer "promptly took `remedial action . . . reasonably calculated to end the harassment'" once it knew or should have known about a harassing co-employee's behavior

Summary of this case from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyeth

holding that summary judgment was properly granted in an employer's favor because the employer "promptly took 'remedial action . . . reasonably calculated to end the harassment'" once it knew or should have known about a harassing co-employee's behavior

Summary of this case from Baker v. John Morrell Co.

holding that although breathing was hampered during actual panic attack, disorder did not substantially limit plaintiff's major life activities where attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from Dose v. Buena Vista University

holding that summary judgment was properly granted in an employer's favor because the employer "promptly took `remedial action . . . reasonably calculated to end the harassment'" once it knew or should have known about a harassing co-employee's behavior, citing Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc., 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir. 1993)

Summary of this case from Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill

holding that although speaking and breathing were hampered during actual panic attack, disorder did not substantially limit plaintiff's major life activities where attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from GITS v. MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING

holding that summary judgment was properly granted in an employer's favor because the employer "promptly took `remedial action . . . reasonably calculated to end the harassment'" once it knew or should have known about a harassing co-employee's behavior, citing Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc., 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir. 1993)

Summary of this case from Jones v. United States Gypsum

finding no substantial limitation where plaintiff "has had three jobs since her discharge, and she currently holds a quality control position nearly identical to the one she held at Toshiba"

Summary of this case from Duncan v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

finding plaintiff's panic attacks, although they hampered breathing did not substantially limit breathing because the attacks were infrequent and very manageable

Summary of this case from Bukta v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.

finding an employer must take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known of harassment

Summary of this case from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wyeth

finding an employer must take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known of harassment

Summary of this case from Baker v. John Morrell Co.

finding sufficient remedial measures undertaken where employer offered to intervene between the complaining employee and harassing employee and eventual meeting with alleged harasser by employer to issue a written warning

Summary of this case from Hanna v. Boys and Girls Home and Family Services, Inc.

finding an employer must take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known of harassment

Summary of this case from Erickson-Puttmann v. Gill

finding an employer must take prompt remedial action after it knew or should have known of harassment

Summary of this case from Jones v. United States Gypsum

finding insufficient evidence of substantial limitation in ability to work where plaintiff held three jobs immediately after being terminated, one very similar to that of defendant

Summary of this case from Brunko v. Mercy Hospital

determining that plaintiff failed to create a triable dispute about whether her disorder substantially limited any of her major life activities

Summary of this case from Breiland v. Advance Circuits, Inc.

assuming there was a hostile work environment, employer's warning to harassing employee was sufficient remedial action under Title VII

Summary of this case from Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Case details for

Zirpel v. Toshiba America Information Systems

Case Details

Full title:Kathryn Jean Zirpel, Appellant, v. Toshiba America Information Systems…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Apr 10, 1997

Citations

111 F.3d 80 (8th Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Delashmutt v. Wis-Pak Plastics, Inc.

Delashmutt's first claim asserts Wis-Pak's liability for the sexually hostile environment created by a…

Moland v. Bil-Mar Foods

Bil-Mar also asserts in its supplemental brief that it is entitled to summary judgment on Moland's sexual…