Franklin Owusu-Ansah v. The Coca-Cola Company, 715 F.3d 1306

Background

Owusu-Ansah, Coca-Cola employee, placed on paid leave for a psychiatric/psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation after concerns about stability and potential threats; he was later cleared to return to work.
Owusu-Ansah sued Coca-Cola under ADA § 12112(d)(4)(A), asserting the required evaluation violated medical examination limitations.
District court granted Coca-Cola summary judgment, holding the examination was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court, reviewing de novo the grant of summary judgment and adopting the magistrate judge’s Rule 56 findings for plain error unless objections were raised.
The court held § 12112(d)(4)(A) protects non-disabled employees and that the challenged evaluation was job-related and consistent with business necessity, with EEOC guidance viewed as persuasive but not controlling.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §12112(d)(4)(A) protects non-disabled employees	Owusu-Ansah argues the employer violated the ADA by requiring the evaluation	Coca-Cola contends the provision covers employees generally, including non-disabled ones	Yes, §12112(d)(4)(A) covers non-disabled employees
Whether the fitness-for-duty evaluation was job-related and necessary for business reasons	Owusu-Ansah argues it was not appropriately tailored or justified	Coca-Cola argues it was based on objective concerns about safety and performance	Yes, the evaluation was job-related and consistent with business necessity
Whether EEOC enforcement guidance controlling on the issue	Guidance should govern because it reflects objective standards	Guidance is persuasive but not controlling law	Guidance persuasive but not controlling; court relied on record evidence to assess job-relatedness and necessity
Whether the “direct threat” concept from other ADA provisions was required here	Direct threat requirement should apply to §12112(d)(4)(A)	Direct threat not required if objective evidence supports danger; elimination by accommodation not necessary	Not required; objective evidence sufficed to support the examination

Key Cases Cited

Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2007) (reafirms summary-judgment standard in ADA context)
Brown v. Sec'y of State of Fla., 668 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 2012) (summary judgment limits; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (establishes materials adduced to support summary judgment)
LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745 (11th Cir. 1988) (magistrate findings reviewed for plain error when no objections)
United States v. Hall, 716 F.2d 826 (11th Cir. 1983) (plain-error standard for quoted facts adopted from magistrate report)
Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437 (11th Cir. 1991) (de novo review of conclusions of law when adopted by district court)
Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177 F.3d 932 (11th Cir. 1999) (discussion on disability definition for ADA analysis)
Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (ability to handle stress and work with others as essential functions; job-related analysis)
Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, 124 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1997) (non-disabled coverage under §12112(d)(4)(A))
Conroy v. New York State Dep't of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2002) (discussion of business necessity and safety considerations)
Harrison v. Benchmark Elecs. Huntsville, Inc., 593 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 2010) (construction of disability-related inquiries; safety context)
E.E.O.C. v. AIC Sec. Investigations, Ltd., 55 F.3d 1276 (7th Cir. 1995) (concept of safety-related business necessity in workplace)
Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804 (6th Cir. 1999) (limits on medical examinations in context of safety)
Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112 (11th Cir. 1993) (protection of workplace safety as business necessity)