Downtown Lawyer

Winspear v. Community Development, Inc., No. 08-2041.

In 1999, Zachary Winspear’s brother, Logan, committed suicide.  The brothers had been very close, and Winspear had difficulty with Logan’s suicide, even contemplating suicide himself.  The brothers had been close, in part, because of their strict religious upbringing and rejection of organized religion.  In March 2003, Winspear began working at Community Development, Inc. (“CDI”) as a personal assistant to Charles Schneider, a co-owner of CDI.  Winspear and Schneider spent significant time working together, and Winspear confided to Schneider about Logan’s suicide and its impact on him.  While at CDI, Winspear received multiple promotions and eventually became CDI’s community manager.

In January 2005, CDI hired Schneider’s wife, Lana Sierra, as a receptionist.  Sierra was aware of Winspear’s troubled history with religion and his brother’s suicide.  In late January, Sierra approached Winspear to tell him that she was able to speak with the dead and had communicated with Logan.  Sierra told Winspear that Logan was suffering in hell and that Winspear would also go to hell if he did not “find God.”  The meeting upset Winspear, who asked Sierra not to talk about his brother and then returned to his office where he cried for an extended period of time.  Throughout the rest of the day, and for the next three and a half weeks, Sierra continued to approach Winspear about her “gift,” telling him that he had to “find God” so that he would not go to hell like his brother.  Winspear repeatedly asked Sierra to stop talking to him about Logan.  Sierra’s behavior caused Winspear to again contemplate suicide.

After three weeks of Sierra’s behavior, Winspear approached Schneider to complain about Sierra.  Schneider confirmed that Sierra was able to speak to the dead, advised Winspear to heed her advice, and told Winspear to keep Sierra’s “gift” a secret.  After Winspear’s conversation with Schneider, Sierra stopped talking to Winspear about his brother directly.  Instead, she would mention her “gift” and ask whether he had thought about their previous discussions.  Winspear approached Schneider again, but he refused to remedy the situation.

By March 2005, Sierra had almost completely stopped approaching Winspear about his brother, but continued to ask him about finding religion every one to two weeks over the next five months.  In August 2005, they had a heated confrontation at work over a comment Winspear made regarding Sierra’s former boss, a chiropractor with whom Winspear had a billing dispute.  Winspear left the office after the confrontation, but was notified that he needed to return to work because he did not have permission to be off from work.  Instead of returning, he quit his job.

Winspear subsequently sued CDI, Schneider, and Sierra alleging that they subjected him to a religious-based hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.  CDI, Schneider, and Sierra filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, noting that “Winspear may have raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sierra’s repeated comments about Winspear’s brother suffering in Hell and about Winspear needing to find God constituted a hostile work environment,” it resolved the claim by stating that “[t]he four- to five-month lapse in time between when Sierra allegedly stopped harassing Winspear and when he resigned [was] fatal to his constructive discharge claim.”

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the elements of a hostile work environment claim and constructive discharge claim are distinct and separate.  Because the trial court made no specific finding as to Winspear’s hostile work environment claim, the court remanded the case back to the trial court to make such a determination.