Owusu-Ansah v. Coca-Cola Co., 11-13663
| Decision Date | 08 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | D.C. Docket No. 1:09-cv-02664-SCJ,No. 11-13663,11-13663 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN OWUSU-ANSAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
[PUBLISH]
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
Before TJOFLAT, CARNES, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges.
On the recommendation of an independent psychologist, Coca-Cola placed Franklin Owusu-Ansah, one of its employees, on paid leave and required him to undergo a psychiatric/psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation. After he wascleared to return to work, Mr. Owusu-Ansah sued Coca-Cola, alleging that the evaluation violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), a provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court granted Coca-Cola's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the evaluation was both job-related and consistent with business necessity, and therefore permissible under the ADA.
Mr. Owusu-Ansah now appeals. Following review of the record, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.
We exercise plenary review of the district court's grant of summary judgment on Mr. Owusu-Ansah's ADA claim. See Holly v. Clairson Indus., L.L.C., 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). "Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, presents no genuine issue of material fact and compels judgment as a matter of law in favor of the moving party." Brown v. Sec'y of State of Fla., 668 F.3d 1271, 1274 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accord Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
As noted above, we would normally look at all of the record evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Owusu-Ansah. But this is not a typical summary judgment case. The magistrate judge issued a report recommending that summary judgment be entered in favor of Coca-Cola. In so doing, the magistrate judge laidout the relevant facts, as he found them to exist, viewed through the prism of Rule 56. Mr. Owusu-Ansah asserts on appeal that the magistrate judge did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to him, improperly allowed hearsay evidence, and failed to consider certain evidence. Mr. Owusu-Ansah, however, did not file any objections to the magistrate judge's recitation of the evidence for Rule 56 purposes, and under our precedent, that failure to object means that we review the facts laid out by the magistrate judge only for plain error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749-50 (11th Cir. 1988) () (internal quotation marks omitted); United States v. Hall, 716 F.2d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 1983) ().1
Mr. Owusu-Ansah has not even attempted to meet the exacting plain error/ manifest injustice standard, so we take the facts, for Rule 56 purposes, as set out in the magistrate judge's report and do not consider other evidence which might have,according to Mr. Owusu-Ansah, created issues of material fact. Nevertheless, we review de novo the magistrate judge's conclusions of law if they were accepted and adopted by the district court. See Monroe v. Thigpen, 932 F.2d 1437, 1440 (11th Cir. 1991).
Mr. Owusu-Ansah began working for Coca-Cola in 1999 as a customer service representative at a call center in Dunwoody, Georgia. Coca-Cola promoted Mr. Owusu-Ansah three times, eventually elevating him to the position of quality assurance specialist in 2005. In that position, Mr. Owusu-Ansah - who monitored the performance of frontline call center associates - worked from home but was still required to report to the call center for certain meetings.
One such meeting occurred on December 14, 2007, when Mr. Owusu-Ansah met with his manager, Tanika Cabral, for a routine one-on-one. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Owusu-Ansah completed a questionnaire, the answers to which would then be discussed with Ms. Cabral. Under a section entitled "Barriers to success & proposed resolutions," Mr. Owusu-Ansah wrote "Candid discussion about work environment." He also wrote a similar response to a question which asked, "What steps have you taken to move closer to your career goals?"
During his meeting with Ms. Cabral, Mr. Owusu-Ansah articulated several incidents of alleged mistreatment by his managers and co-workers at Coca-Colaover the course of his employment. Mr. Owusu-Ansah said that from 2000 to 2009, certain managers and employees had discriminated against him or harassed him because he was from Ghana. Prior to his meeting with Ms. Cabral, Mr. Owusu-Ansah had never complained to Coca-Cola about any such treatment. Ms. Cabral observed that Mr. Owusu-Ansah became agitated during the meeting, banged his hand on the table where they sat, and said that someone was "going to pay for this."2
After the meeting, Ms. Cabral went to her own supervisor, Cassandra Cliette, and described Mr. Owusu-Ansah's conduct to her. Ms. Cabral and Ms. Cliette then contacted Melissa Welsh, Coca-Cola's senior human resources manager. Ms. Cabral explained to Ms. Welsh what had occurred during the meeting, including Mr. Owusu-Ansah banging his fist on the table and saying someone was "going to pay for this." Upon hearing Ms. Cabral's account, Ms. Welsh became concerned "because it sounded as though a threat had been made against an employee, or employees of the company."
Ms. Welsh told Leslie Davis, one of Coca-Cola's security managers, about the situation and asked what should be done. Ms. Davis, in turn, suggested theycontact Dr. Marcus McElhaney, Ph.D., an independent consulting psychologist who specialized in crisis management and threat assessment.
On December 19, 2007, Ms. Welsh met with Mr. Owusu-Ansah and asked him to discuss in detail the concerns he had previously expressed to Ms. Cabral. Mr. Owusu-Ansah declined to do so. Ms. Welsh then asked Mr. Owusu-Ansah if he would be willing to speak to a consultant Coca-Cola used to resolve workplace issues. Mr. Owusu-Ansah agreed, and was introduced to Dr. McElhaney, who interviewed him right away at the Dunwoody call center.
In a private conversation with Dr. McElhaney, Mr. Owusu-Ansah discussed his concerns and described the alleged instances of discrimination. After this meeting, Dr. McElhaney expressed concern to Coca-Cola over the emotional and psychological stability of Mr. Owusu-Ansah, noting that there was a "strong possibility that he was delusional." Dr. McElhaney concluded that Mr. Owusu-Ansah was a "very stressed and agitated individual," and recommended that he be placed on paid leave to allow for further evaluation. Coca-Cola followed Dr. McElhaney's recommendation and placed Mr. Owusu-Ansah on paid leave effective December 19, 2007.
Following this initial meeting, Dr. McElhaney continued his assessment of Mr. Owusu-Ansah by phone and email. At Dr. McElhaney's suggestion, Mr. Owusu-Ansah agreed to visit a psychiatrist, Dr. Christopher Riddell, on January14, 2008. At this session, however, Mr. Owusu-Ansah declined to answer questions regarding his employment and workplace issues. He also refused to sign a release allowing Dr. Riddell to discuss his impressions with Dr. McElhaney. As a result, Dr. McElhaney was unable to complete his evaluation.
On January 22, 2008, Dr. McElhaney informed Ms. Welsh in writing that he remained "concern[ed] about Mr. Owusu-Ansah's apparent level of emotional distress and also about his ability to perceive events accurately." Dr. McElhaney recommended that Mr. Owusu-Ansah undergo a psychiatric/psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation "to rule out the possibility of a mental condition that could interfere with his ability to successfully and safely carry out his job duties."
A week later, Ms. Welsh sent a letter to Mr. Owusu-Ansah informing him that, as a condition to his continued employment with Coca-Cola, he was to "complete an evaluation to identify whether there were any issues that could represent a risk to the safety of others in the workplace." Failure to do so, explained Ms. Welsh, would subject Mr. Owusu-Ansah to immediate termination. Mr. Owusu-Ansah received the letter on February 1, 2008.
Mr. Owusu-Ansah returned for another session with Dr. Riddell - the evaluation complained of in this case - on February 20, 2008. As part of the psychiatric evaluation, Dr. Riddell recommended that Mr. Owusu-Ansah undergo a personality test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, before beingcleared for work. When Mr. Owusu-Ansah failed to attend a scheduled appointment to take the MMPI, Coca-Cola sent a letter advising him that he was not in compliance with the conditions outlined in the prior correspondence. Coca-Cola also informed Mr. Owusu-Ansah that he would be placed on unpaid leave on March 16, 2008, and warned him that continued noncompliance with the evaluation process would be considered a voluntary resignation.
Mr. Owusu-Ansah took the MMPI on March 20, 2008. After reviewing the results of the MMPI, which indicated that Mr. Owusu-Ansah's profile was "within normal limits," Dr. McElhaney cleared Mr. Owusu-Ansah for return to work. On April 22, 2008, Mr. Owusu-Ansah returned to work with Coca-Cola.
To continue reading
Request your trial