Brenda Scheidler v. State of Indiana
914 F.3d 535
7th Cir.
2019

Background

  • Brenda Lear Scheidler worked for the Indiana Department of Insurance and had documented mental-health disabilities (PTSD, bipolar disorder, depression); she had requested and received workplace accommodations (e.g., not to be startled).
  • In an elevator in early 2013 Scheidler said, “It’s who you know and who you blow,” about a coworker’s promotion prospects; coworkers disapproved but did not promptly report it.
  • On May 28, 2013, supervisor Annette Gunter made a choking gesture toward Scheidler and said, “I could just strangle you,” producing a reported workplace incident (the “cubicle episode”).
  • IDOI investigated: Gunter received a written reprimand; IDOI terminated Scheidler on July 8, 2013, citing both the elevator comment and Scheidler’s role in the cubicle episode.
  • Scheidler sued alleging disability discrimination (disparate treatment), failure to accommodate, and retaliation (Title VII and disability law). The district court narrowed claims by summary judgment; only disparate-treatment disability claims reached a jury, which returned a defense verdict.
  • The Seventh Circuit affirmed: it upheld summary judgment dismissing failure-to-accommodate and retaliation claims, found no reversible error in trial evidentiary rulings, and deemed any procedural error granting summary judgment to the Commissioner harmless.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Failure to accommodate under ADA/Rehab Act Scheidler: Gunter’s May 28 conduct breached requested accommodation (not to be startled) and IDOI failed to accommodate that day IDOI: accommodations had been provided for years; the cubicle episode was a one-off, the interactive process did not break down, and IDOI addressed misconduct Court affirmed summary judgment for IDOI — single isolated incident did not support failure-to-accommodate claim
Title VII retaliation based on elevator remark (“who you blow”) Scheidler: her elevator remark complained about favoritism/quid pro quo and is protected activity; employer’s later treatment retaliatory IDOI: remark was not a sincere or objectively reasonable opposition to sex discrimination; no evidence of sexual quid pro quo or gender-based motive Court affirmed summary judgment — remark failed both subjective and objective protected-activity tests under Title VII
Disability-based retaliation (complaints re: accommodation/disability discrimination) Scheidler: she told HR her PTSD/bipolar made the cubicle episode worse and thus complained about failure to accommodate; that complaint led to termination IDOI: she did not sufficiently or timely present a complaint of disability discrimination; arguments forfeited or unsupported by the record Court affirmed summary judgment — Scheidler failed to show statutorily protected activity (forfeiture and lack of record support)
Evidentiary exclusion and summary-judgment procedural errors (Thomas personnel file; premature grant to Commissioner) Scheidler: exclusion of Thomas personnel records and premature summary judgment for Commissioner deprived her of comparators and a fair chance IDOI: exclusion was within discretion; plaintiff waived chance to admit documents at trial; Commissioner error was harmless because other rulings independently disposed of claims Court affirmed — plaintiff forfeited opportunity to admit the records; exclusion not an abuse of discretion; Commissioner error harmless

Key Cases Cited

  • Barbera v. Pearson Educ., 906 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 2018) (standard of review for summary judgment)
  • Gerhartz v. Richert, 779 F.3d 682 (7th Cir. 2015) (affirming for reasons not articulated below where record supports them)
  • Monroe v. Ind. Dep’t of Transp., 871 F.3d 495 (7th Cir. 2017) (elements for disparate-treatment ADA/Rehab Act claim)
  • Felix v. Wis. Dep’t of Transp., 828 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2016) (‘‘but for’’ causation in ADA disparate-treatment claims)
  • E.E.O.C. v. AutoZone, 809 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2016) (elements for failure-to-accommodate claim)
  • Brumfield v. City of Chicago, 735 F.3d 619 (7th Cir. 2013) (failure-to-accommodate framework)
  • Cloe v. City of Indianapolis, 712 F.3d 1171 (7th Cir. 2013) (reasonable accommodation is a process, not a one-off)
  • Ortiz v. Werner Enters., 834 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2016) (overruling aspects of Cloe on other grounds)
  • Pernice v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2001) (employer may discipline misconduct even if precipitated by disability)
  • Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook Cty., Ill., 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (firing for unacceptable behavior is permissible even if behavior was caused by mental illness)
  • Heffernan v. City of Paterson, N.J., 136 S. Ct. 1412 (2016) (employer’s mistaken belief about protected activity in First Amendment context)
  • Thompson v. North American Stainless, 562 U.S. 170 (2011) (standing for retaliation claim by third party)
  • Guzman v. Brown Cty., 884 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2018) (elements for disability-based retaliation)
  • Ennin v. CNH Indus. Am., 878 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2017) (waiver by choosing not to present evidence when opportunity given)
  • Haynes v. Ind. Univ., 902 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2018) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Read the full case