NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 13 a03 26n. 06 No. 11 -413 4 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

KRIST IN KEP REOS, Plaint if f -Appe llant,

v

. ALCON LAB ORAT ORIES, INC. , and CRAIG VL AANDEREN, Def end ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNIT ED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE NORTHERN DIS T RICT OF OHIO

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, KET HLEDGE, an d DONAL D, Circuit Jud ges.

PER CURIAM. P la in t if f Kristin Kep reos f orme rly w orked f or def end ant Alcon Lab orato ries as an accou nt ma nager, in charge of prom oting the sale of Alcon ’s ref ractiv e lense s to physicians’ of f ices and clinics in Northe rn Ohio. Alcon wa s h e a d quartered in T exas; Kep reos w orked out of an of f ice in her hom e in Chagrin Falls, Ohio. She sued the

com pan y and several Alcon of f icers and ma nagers, claimin g tha t she had bee n term inate d f rom her positio n in v iolation of the Em ployee Retirem ent Inco me Secu rity Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1 0 0 1 - 1 4 6 1 ; T itle VII of the Civ il Rig hts Act of 196 4, 42 U.S.C. §§ 200 0e

- 200 0e-1 7; the Am ericans w ith Disabi li t ie s A ct (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 121 01 - 122 13; and

v arious provisi ons of Ohio state law tha t para llel tho se f ede ral statu tes. She also alleged tha t the def end ant s ma intain ed a w ork environme nt tha t was sexually dem ean ing toNo. 11-4134

Kepreos v. Alc on Laboratori es, Inc ., et al.

w om en and tha t the def end ant s w ere liable und er state law f or in t e n t io n a l inf liction of

em otion al distress and v iolation of Ohio’s pub lic policy. T he district court dism issed three individual def end ant s f rom the suit, f inding – correctly, w e conclu de – tha t the court lacked
perso nal jurisdiction over the m. Af ter bot h the plaint if

f and the rema ining def end ant s f iled

mo tions f or sum ma ry judgme nt, the district court den ied the plaint if f ’s mo tion and gr ant ed

sum ma ry

judgm ent to the de f end ant s.

T hat d ecision in f avor of the def end ant s w as pred icated , f irst, upo n the court’s conclu sion tha t Kep reos had f ailed to exhaust her adm inistrative reme dies w ith regard to the claims base d on T itle VII and the ADA. T he plaint if f has not app eale d tha t ruling and , thu s, has ef

f ectively aba ndo ned tho se f ede ral claims. Moreover, beca use her ADA claim

w as “associat iona l” in nat ure and beca use Ohio’s disab ility -discriminat ion statu te doe s not provide f or such a claim, see gen erally Ohio Revi sed Code Ch. 4 1 1 2 , the district court correctly r uled tha t th e p laintif f cou ld no t asse rt it un der st ate l aw. Th e d istrict court a lso held tha t the re w as no evidence to supp ort the claim tha t the em ployer had interf ered w ith the plaint if

f ’s ERISA rig hts by te rmina ting her in orde r to d ef eat her ent itlem ent to hea lth ben ef its f or he r dau ghter, who suf f ered f rom a ca rdiac a ilmen t.

As f or the oth er discrimina tion claims base d on the Ohio statu tes, the district court
prop erly held tha t even if Kep re o s could esta blish a prim a facie case, she had not prod uced any proo f tha t Alcon ’s reaso n f or her term inatio n w as prete x tua l. T he com pan y prof f ered evidence tha t Kep reos had engaged in repe ate d instan ces of abu se of the Alcon

- 2 -No. 11-4134

Kepreos v. Alc on Laboratori es, Inc ., et al. credit card tha t had bee n giv en her to cover legitimate busin ess expense s. She had
repe ate dly charged perso nal item s on the card but l ogged them on her expense account

as “of f ice supplies,” and she had purch ased gift cards on several occasio ns, som e f or as

mu ch as $10 0. If she the n used the m f or herse lf or her f am ily , the result w as clearly the f t f rom the com pan y

. If , as she said, she had giv en the m to prosp ective clients as “incent iv es” to do busin ess w ith Alcon , she had v iolate d w ell-estab lished com pan y policy. B o t h possib ilities w ere consid ered gr oun ds f or term inatio n. Moreover, w hen conf ronte d abo u t t h e credit card abu se, Kep reos resorted to dece ption , giv ing w hat am oun ted to
prep oste rous excuses f or her cond uct and claimin g tha t she had of f set perso nal expense s

on her busin ess card w ith busin ess expense s on her perso nal credit card. Kep reos’s f igures purp orted ly showed tha t Alcon owed her mo ney, but the app ellate record
esta blishes tha t ma ny of the una uth oriz ed purch ases she ma de w ith the busin ess card had
not be en include d in her ca lculation s.

T he district court also discou nte d the plaint if f ’s allegation s regarding the existence of a host ile w ork environme nt, f inding tha t the instan ces of sexual ha ra s s m e n t tha t Kep re o s iden tif ied w ere bot h isolate d and f ew in num ber – not surprising, giv en the f act tha t mo st of her w ork f or the com pan y w as cond ucte d f rom her hom e of f ice – and tha t she had f ailed to f ollow the com pan y ’s esta blished proce ss f or repo rtin g t h o se instan ces. “Accept ing all of plaint if f ’s evidence, ” the district court held , “no [reaso nab le jury ] could det ermin e tha t the w orkplace w as perm eat ed w ith discrimina tory intim idatio n, ridicule, and

- 3 -No. 11-4134

Kepreos v. Alc on Laboratori es, Inc ., et al. insult suf f iciently severe and pervasiv e so as to alter plaint if f ’s cond itions of em ploymen t,” citing Grace v. USCAR , 52 1 F.3 d 6 55, 67 8 (6t h Cir. 20 08).
Finally , the district court f oun d no me rit to the plaint if f ’s claim tha t replacin g her w ith the son of

an oth er Alcon em ployee a mo unt ed to sex d iscriminatio n, espe cially in lig ht of her dep osition testim ony in w hich she den ied tha t her term inatio n w as base d on gende r. T he district court likew ise discou nte d the state -law tort claims base d on allegati o n s of inten tiona l inf liction of em otion al distress and v iolation of state pub lic policy, f inding tha t the plaint if f ha d f ailed to sa tisf

y the elem ent s of

tho se claim s.

T he only oth er ma tter ra is e d on app eal conce rns the district court’s ruling tha t den ied the plaint if

f ’s mo tion to com pel discovery of v arious Alcon of f icers’ perso nne l f iles and records perta ining to the ir expense accou nt s

. T h e d is trict court f oun d tha t the

re quests w ere overly broa d in scope and not reaso nab ly calculat ed to lead t o t h e prod uction of adm issible evidence. See Fed. R. Civ

. P. 26(b )(1). Reveiw ing the dis t ri c t court’s d ecision f or ab use of discretio n, we f ind n one

.

Havi ng stud ied the record on app eal and t h e b rie f s of the partie s, w e are not
persu ade d tha t the district court erred in dismissing the com plaint

. Beca use the reaso ns

w hy judgme nt shou ld be ent ered f o r t h e d e f end ant s have bee n f ully articulat ed by the district court, the issua nce of an add itiona l det ailed opin ion by this court w ould be dup licativ e a nd w ould serve no usef ul jurisprude ntial purp ose. Accordin gly , w e A FFIRM the judgme nt of the district court base d upo n the reaso ning set out by tha t court in its orde r - 4 -No. 11-4134

Kepreos v. Alc on Laboratori es, Inc ., et al. den y ing the plaint if

f ’s mo tion to com pel prod uction of docu me nts, dat ed March 11, 201 1; in its me mo rand um opin ion and orde r dism issing three individual def end ant s, da t e d June 6, 201 1; and in its me mo rand um opin ion and orde r gr ant ing the def end ant s sum ma ry judgme nt, dat ed Novembe r 9, 2 011

.

- 5 -