 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dinyer v. University of Minnesota3/16/1999
This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment on three claims relating to disability discrimination. We affirm the district court's determination that the record fails to establish that the employee's disability materially affected a life activity, that the alleged retaliatory act did not constitute an adverse employment action, and that the negligent infliction of emotional distress had no independent tort basis.
FACTS
Linda Dinyer was employed as a patient account representative for the University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinics (University) from 1989 to 1996. In February 1991 she was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease, a chronic condition of the digestive tract that interferes with food digestion and absorption. Dinyer's condition manifests itself in severe cramping, nausea, diarrhea, and anorexia. She has been hospitalized several times because of aggravation of her condition, and in 1994, 18 inches of her intestine were surgically removed. Dinyer takes prescription medication to help control the symptoms and inflammation caused by her condition.
Dinyer's disability discrimination claims against the University are founded on her reaction to food odors in her work area. Certain types of strong food odors aggravate her condition, and, beginning in 1995, she experienced nausea, vomiting, and cramping that caused her to miss one to two days of work each month. In response to Dinyer's complaints about food odors, the University implemented some changes in Dinyer's work area, but did not prohibit employees from eating at their desks.
In October 1995, Dinyer filed a discrimination complaint with the University's EEOC office and the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) office. The EEOC office determined that Dinyer was not protected under the ADA or the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The ADA office separately concluded that Dinyer was not a person with a disability as defined under the ADA. In October 1996, Dinyer resigned from her employment with the University.
Dinyer sued the University in 1997, alleging that the University violated the MHRA by failing to adequately accommodate her disability, that co-workers retaliated against her by preparing and eating strong- smelling food near her desk, that she was constructively discharged by the University, and that these actions resulted in negligent infliction of emotional distress. In the district court, Dinyer withdrew her constructive discharge claim and supplemented her retaliation claim by arguing that a supervisor retaliated by refusing to allow her to use a small fan to redirect food odors from her desk area.
Following the district court's order granting summary judgment, Dinyer brought this appeal challenging the court's rulings on (1) disability discrimination, (2) retaliation, and (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress.
DECISION
To survive summary judgment in an action for disability discrimination or retaliation, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case on the elements of each action. Sigurdson v. Carl Bolander & Sons, Co., 532 N.W.2d 225, 228 (Minn. 1995) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 1824 (1973) (interpreting disability discrimination claim)); Hubbard v. United Press Int'l, Inc., 330 N.W.2d 428, 444-45 (Minn. 1983) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp., 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817 (interpreting retaliation claim)). In reviewing an appeal from summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but if a party fails to establish an essential case element, summary judgment is appropriate. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 47
Page 1 2 3 4 Minnesota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|