Schwarzkopf v. Brunswick Corp., 833 F. Supp. 2d 1106

Schwarzkopf, an employee of Brunswick Life Fitness, sues for ADA and MHRA discrimination and retaliation.
He has a long history of depression and anxiety, including past treatment in a mental hospital, contributing to work-place stress and concentration issues.
From 2005–2007, Schwarzkopf alleges repeated harassment by supervisors Bauer and Hager, often directed at his mental disabilities.
Schwarzkopf sought accommodation and reporting channels; he took FMLA leave in 2007 for depression and back issues, and his safety-committee duties were reassigned during that period.
After escalating complaints in 2007, he was suspended in July 2007 and then again in August 2007; Brunswick ultimately deemed him to have voluntarily resigned in August 2007.
Schwarzkopf filed an EEOC charge in May 2007; the EEOC later found reasonable cause for retaliation but the court later evaluates the merits of the ADA/MHRA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Schwarzkopf’s hostile-work-environment claim survives	Schwarzkopf asserts pervasive derogatory remarks tied to his mental disabilities created a hostile environment.	Conduct was not severe or pervasive enough to alter terms and conditions of employment.	Hostile-environment claim survives for factual questions on severity and pervasiveness.
Whether Brunswick violated the ADA by discriminating via adverse actions	Suspensions and constructive-discharge actions were discriminatory based on disability.	No adverse employment actions or constructive-discharge occurred; actions were platitudinous or non-punitive.	Discrimination claims fail for July and August suspensions and for constructive-discharge; limited to hostile-work-environment claim remaining viable.
Whether Brunswick failed to accommodate Schwarzkopf's disability	Requests for non-yelling environments and other accommodations were viable accommodations.	Requests were not reasonable accommodations under the ADA; employee remained capable of performing essential functions.	Failure-to-accommodate claim fails.
Whether Schwarzkopf’s retaliation claim survives	Actions taken after protected activity were retaliatory.	Causation not shown; actions were not materially adverse or not linked to protected conduct.	Retaliation claim fails.

Shaver v. Indep. Stave Co., 350 F.3d 716 (8th Cir. 2003) (hostile-work-environment framework for disability claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (totality-of-circumstances standard for harassment)
Ross v. Douglas County, Nebraska, 234 F.3d 391 (8th Cir. 2000) (extensive slurs can establish hostile environment)
Smith v. St. Louis Univ., 109 F.3d 1261 (8th Cir. 1997) (derogatory comments toward plaintiff support hostile-work-environment claim)
Green v. Franklin Nat’l Bank of Minneapolis, 459 F.3d 903 (8th Cir. 2006) (range and severity of harassment considered)
Delph v. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. of Paragould, Inc., 130 F.3d 349 (8th Cir. 1997) (direct evidence of discrimination must be linked to challenged action)
Arraleh v. County of Ramsey, 461 F.3d 967 (8th Cir. 2006) (evidence of discriminatory comments from coworkers evaluated for hostility)
Tidwell v. Meyer’s Bakery, Inc., 93 F.3d 490 (8th Cir. 1996) (constructive-discharge requires objective perception of intolerable conditions)
Wierman v. Casey’s General Stores, 638 F.3d 984 (8th Cir. 2011) (investigational shortcomings do not prove retaliation)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (Sup. Ct. 2006) (mere workplace annoyances not retaliation unless materially adverse)