Owusu-Ansah v. Coca-Cola Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
715 F.3d 1306 (2013)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Beginning in 1999, Franklin Owusu-Ansah (plaintiff) worked for Coca-Cola Co. (defendant) at a call center. In December 2007, Owusu-Ansah told his manager that several coworkers had discriminated against him and harassed him because he was from Ghana. According to Owusu-Ansah’s manager, Owusu-Ansah banged his fist on the table, raised his voice, and said someone would “pay for this.” Owusu-Ansah later declined to speak with Coca-Cola’s senior human-resources manager about his concerns. However, Owusu-Ansah agreed to speak with Dr. Marcus McElhaney, an independent consulting psychologist specializing in crisis management and threat assessment. McElhaney believed that there was a strong possibility that Owusu-Ansah was delusional and recommended a fitness-for-duty evaluation. Coca-Cola placed Owusu-Ansah on paid leave and required him to undergo a fitness-for-duty evaluation with psychiatrist Dr. Christopher Riddell. Owusu-Ansah met with Riddell but initially refused to discuss his employment issues. After Coca-Cola warned Owusu-Ansah that he would be terminated unless he cooperated, Owusu-Ansah completed the evaluation. Dr. Riddell cleared Owusu-Ansah to return to work in April 2008. Owusu-Ansah then sued Coca-Cola, arguing that Coca-Cola had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by compelling Owusu-Ansah to complete the evaluation. The district court granted Coca-Cola’s motion for summary judgment, holding that the evaluation did not violate the ADA. Owusu-Ansah appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Jordan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
- AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New
Understand your casebook readings in seconds
Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.
Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

