Opinion ID: 3011433
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Office temperature

Text: According to Shaner's testimony, prior to the relocation of his office, he frequently saw employees, including Jarvis, adjusting the thermostat in the area of the building where Shaner and others worked. He admitted during his deposition that he had no evidence that any of these people were changing the thermostat in order to harm him. Indeed, he responded I would think so when asked whether these people were adjusting the thermostat simply because they were uncomfortable with the office temperature, and he indicated that he disagreed with others regarding the appropriate temperature.14 Most significantly, Shaner testified that the thermostat frequently was adjusted too high for his liking prior to November 1993, _________________________________________________________________ 14. Shaner's testimony in this regard is corroborated by testimony from other Synthes employees. Denise Arms-Sadowski testified that she had a low tolerance for cold temperatures and often asked Jarvis to raise the heat. She also testified that there were other employees who complained about the office being too cold. According to George Felix, Bob [Shaner] would go to the thermostat and turn the heat down. There were employees that complained that it was then too cold in the office and they would turn the heat back up. Indeed, at oral argument before us, Shaner's counsel stated that it is clear from the evidence on the record that they were raising the heat to over 75 degrees for the comfort level of other employees. Oral Argument Tr. at 7 (emphasis added). Of course, we do not suggest that this case turns on an inquiry as to how far an employer must go to make a reasonable accommodation under the ADA to a disabled person at the expense of other employees. See Kralik v. Durbin, 130 F.3d 76, 80-84 (3d Cir. 1997). 17 when he first informed the company that he suffered from MS. Thus, with respect to the period prior to the relocation of Shaner's office, we see no basis for a finding that anyone adjusted the temperature with discriminatory or retaliatory intent, and no evidence of a causal link between Shaner's problems with office temperature and the filing of his first EEOC charge.15 According to Shaner, after his office was relocated, there were four or five instances when an unknown individual or individuals turned the heat all the way up while he was at lunch. These isolated incidents do not in themselves rise to the level of adverse action upon which to base a claim for disparate treatment or retaliation. See Mondzelewski v. Pathmark Stores, Inc., 162 F.3d 778, 787 (3d Cir. 1998) ([M]inor or trivial actions that merely make an employee `unhappy' are not sufficient to qualify as retaliation under the ADA . . . .). Even if a factfinder could infer that these incidents were motivated by hostility toward Shaner's disability, we do not believe, in light of all the evidence, that these incidents provide a basis for a rational finding that any of the company's other actions were motivated by discriminatory or retaliatory intent.16 _________________________________________________________________ 15. We do not see how an intent to discriminate or retaliate can be inferred from the fact that Shaner was required to work under the same temperature conditions as other employees. 16. Shaner's claim that the company acted with retaliatory intent in relocating his office is entirely without merit. The company was responding to Shaner's own complaints about office temperature, and Shaner conceded at his deposition that the companyattempted to accommodate me by moving him to a room with its own temperature control. Indeed, according to Shaner's testimony, he and DiGuglielmo agreed prior to the move that it would be better for him to work in an area where he could control the temperature. Further, Shaner's allegation that the conference room to which he was moved was a converted closet is completely at odds with his own deposition testimony. Although the conference room was once used for storage, it also had been an office for two consultants, and it contained windows looking out onto a hallway. We simply see no basis for a finding that the office relocation was causally linked to the filing of the EEOC charge or that the relocation was made with retaliatory intent. We also see no evidence of retaliatory intent with respect to DiGuglielmo's request that Shaner attend counseling. Shaner voluntarily 18