In a recent decision, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Coca-Cola Company acted lawfully when it required an employee to undergo a “fitness for duty” evaluation where the inquiry was both job-related and consistent with business necessity. Owusu-Ansah v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 11-13663 (11th Cir. May 8, 2013)
Franklin Owusu-Ansah began working for Coca-Cola in 1999 at the company’s Dunwoody, Georgia call center. Owusu-Ansah performed well and was promoted to quality assurance specialist in 2005. This position required Owusu-Ansah to monitor the performance of call center associates. Although he worked from home, Owusu-Ansah was required to attend on-site meetings from time to time.
In 2007, Owusu-Ansah attended a meeting at which he alleged mistreatment by managers and co-workers. Specifically, Owusu-Ansah claimed that these individuals discriminated against and harassed him because he is from Ghana. Owusu-Ansah became agitated at the meeting to the point where he banged his hand on the table and exclaimed that someone was “going to pay for this.” At a subsequent meeting with Coca-Cola’s senior HR manager, Owusu-Ansah refused to discuss the concerns he previously raised.
Owusu-Ansah agreed, however, to discuss the issues with an independent psychologist. Following this meeting, the psychologist reported to Coca-Cola her concern over Owusu-Ansah’s emotional and psychological stability, and recommended that he be placed on paid leave in order to receive further evaluation. Initially, Owusu-Ansah refused to cooperate with the follow-up evaluation. Coca-Cola responded by sending Owusu-Ansah a letter requiring him to undergo a psychiatric/psychological “fitness for duty” evaluation and advising failure to complete the evaluation would subject Owusu-Ansah to immediate termination.
Owusu-Ansah passed the evaluation, however, upon returning to work, he sued Coca-Cola, claiming that the mandatory evaluation violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employers from requiring medical examinations and making inquiries as to whether an “employee is an individual with a disability” or the degree of the disability, “unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.”
Both the district court and the Eleventh Circuit confirmed summary judgment was warranted for Coca-Cola, and provided two important takeaways. First, a fitness for duty evaluation is permissible under the ADA where the assessment is both job-related and consistent with business necessity. Even though Owusu-Ansah worked from home, his occasional interaction with co-workers and the recommendations for evaluation justified Coca-Cola’s requiring him to undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. The ability of an employee to handle reasonable stress and to work well with others are essential job functions that satisfy the “job-related” prong of the statute, which concerns whether the evaluation is sufficiently related to employer decision making. The “business necessity” component, which concerns whether the employer has a valid business justification for the evaluation, was satisfied by Coca-Cola’s need to provide a safe workplace.
Second, employees are protected by section 12112(d)(4)(A) even if they are not disabled. In so holding, the Eleventh Circuit joined the Second, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits and recognized that it does not make sense “to require an employee to demonstrate that he has a disability to prevent his employer from inquiring as to whether he has a disability.”