United States Court of Appeals 

### FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 96-2293SD

_____________ Kathryn Jean Zirpel, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United Sta tes v. * District Court for the * District of South Dakota. Toshiba America Information * Systems, Inc., a corporation, * * Appellee. *

_____________ Submitted: February 11, 1997 Filed: April 10, 1997

_____________ Before McMILLIAN, HEANEY, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________ FAGG, Circuit Judge.

Ka thrynJean Zirpel appeals the district court’s grant o f summary judgment in favor of Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. (Toshiba) in her employment discrimination suit. Zirpe l claimedshe was sexually harassed in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (1994). She also contended Toshiba fired her because she is disabled in violation of the Americans with Disabilit ies Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 (1994). The district cour t conclu dedZirpel could sustain neither claim. We agree, an d affirm. Zirp el, who managed quality control at Toshiba’s Mitchell , South Dakota plant, contends she suffered hostile-environment-2-

sexual harassment from Marty Cunningham, the plant’s sale s director. We doubt, but we need not decide, whether Cunningham’s con duct was “severe or pervasive enough to create an objectivel y 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 cou rt properly granted summary judgment becaus e Toshiba promptly took “remedial action . . . reasonabl y calculated to end the harassment” once it knew or should hav e known about Cunningham’s behavior. Kopp v. Samaritan Health Sys., Inc. , 13 F.3d 264, 269 (8th Cir. 1993). Although Zirpel complaine d about Cu nninghamto Toshiba’s human resources manager Jan Hopkins i n Oct ober 1992, the first time Zirpel told Hopkins that Cunningha m was making suggestive remarks to Zirpel was January 13, 1993
. Hopkins offered to intervene, but Zirpel said she would rath er talk to Cunningham herself. Hopkin s 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, Hop kins and the plant’s general manager met with Cunningham, wh o 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 tol d Cunning hamhe would be fired if that envelope ever had to b e opened. Cunningham never both ered 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, 322-2 3 (1986). Likewise, the district court correctly granted summar y judgme nt for Toshiba on Zirpel’s ADA claim. Obviously, Toshib a cannot have violated Zirpel’s rights under the ADA unless Zi rpel is disabled. Zirpel suffers from a mental impairment, panic di sorder, but Zirpel failed to create a triable dispute about whether her-3-

diso rder substantially limits any of her major life activities
. See 42 U.S.C. § 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 a n actual panic attack, Zirpel admits her panic disorder does not usually limit her activities. Z irpel’s ps ychologist said that with treatment, panic disorder is “ver y manageable,” causing infrequent, mild attacks. Furthermore , Zirpel’s panic disorder does not substantially limit her abi lity to work
. See Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co. , 94 F.3d 484, 488 (8th Cir
. 1996) (requiring significant reduction in meaningful employmen t opportunities). While Zirpel’s panic attacks interfered with her work at Toshiba, Zirpel has had three jobs since her dischar ge, 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.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.