Weldon Williams v. Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc. ( 2014 )

Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 1 of 7
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 13-11673
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 4:11-cv-00027-WTM-GRS
WELDON WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
REVCO DISCOUNT DRUG CENTERS, INC.,
d.b.a. CVS Pharmacy Inc.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(January 14, 2014)
Before WILSON, KRAVITCH and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 2 of 7
Weldon Williams appeals from the district court’s grant of summary
judgment in favor of his former employer, Revco Discount Drug Centers, Inc.,
d/b/a CVS Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS), in his employment suit alleging: (1) disability
discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; (2) violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act
(FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq.; and (3) age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. After a
thorough review of the record, we affirm.
Williams filed this employment action alleging that CVS failed to
accommodate his reasonable requests for assistance under the ADA, terminated
him despite his FMLA request, placed unreasonable demands on him before
allowing him to return to work, and treated younger pharmacists more favorably.
CVS moved for summary judgment, arguing that most of Williams’s claims
were time barred or unexhausted and that the timely and exhausted claims failed on
the merits. The district court granted CVS’s motion, finding that Williams’s ADA
claims failed because (1) he was not able to perform the essential functions of staff
pharmacist, (2) the accommodation Williams requested was not reasonable, and (3)
any claim of retaliation under the ADA was unexhausted. Addressing Williams’s
ADEA claim, the court concluded that it too was not exhausted, as Williams did
not include it in his EEOC charge. With respect to Williams’s FMLA claims, the
2
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 3 of 7
court found that there was no merit to the interference claims because Williams
had been given leave, and there was no evidence to support a retaliation claim.
Williams now appeals, arguing that the court erred in concluding that he was
not a qualified individual under the ADA and that his requested accommodation
was unreasonable. He contends that the court failed to consider other
accommodations he requested or CVS’s obstruction of the interactive process. He
asserts that deposition testimony given by CVS employees raised questions of fact
as to CVS’s motivation. Finally, Williams argues that the court erred by rejecting
his retaliation claim.
As a preliminary matter, Williams offers no argument with regard to his
ADEA and FMLA claims on appeal.1 Thus, he has abandoned them. Rowe v.
Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998). Moreover, the district court
correctly determined that Williams’s ADA retaliation claim was unexhausted
because Williams failed to include this claim in his EEOC charge. Gregory v. Ga.
Dep’t of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004). Thus, the only issue
before us is Williams’s discrimination claim under the ADA.
We review the grant of a summary judgment motion de novo, construing the
facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Holly v. Clairson Indus.,
1
Williams’s passing reference to whether CVS obstructed the interactive process addresses the
motives of CVS employees in rejecting the medical evidence he submitted to show the necessary
accommodations under the ADA and is insufficient to preserve a claim under the FMLA.
Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570, 1573 n.6 (11th Cir. 1989).
3
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 4 of 7
LLC, 492 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2007). A district court shall grant summary
judgment where the evidence shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
We evaluate disability-discrimination claims under the McDonnell Douglas 2
framework, which requires the plaintiff to first establish a prima facie case of
discrimination. Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F.3d 1189, 1193
(11th Cir. 2004). To make such a showing under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove
that (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he was subjected to
unlawful discrimination because of his disability. Holly, 492 F.3d at 1255-56.
To show that he is a qualified individual, a plaintiff must show that he can
perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable
accommodations. Id. at 1256. Essential functions are “the fundamental job duties
of the employment position the [disabled employee] holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R.
§ 1630.2(n)(1). Whether a function of a position is essential is evaluated on a case-
by-case basis by examining a number of factors, including the employer’s
judgment of what it believes to be the essential functions, any written description
of the position, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, and
the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function. D’Angelo
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005).
2
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
4
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 5 of 7
An accommodation is reasonable and necessary under the ADA only if it
will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job. Earl v.
Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000). The employee has the
burden of identifying a reasonable accommodation. Id. at 1365. An
accommodation is not reasonable if it places an undue hardship on the employer.
Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001).
“To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be
necessary for [an employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the
qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation” to identify the
employee’s limitations and any possible accommodations. 29 C.F.R. §
1630.2(o)(3). “[A]n employer is not required to accommodate an employee in any
manner in which that employee desires.” Earl, 207 F.3d at 1367 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Nor does the ADA require an employer to eliminate an
essential function of an employee’s job or reallocate job duties to change the
essential functions of a job. Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1260; Earl, 207 F.3d at 1367.
Here, CVS does not dispute that Williams was disabled, thus the central
issue on appeal is whether Williams was a qualified individual who could perform
the essential job functions of a staff pharmacist with or without a reasonable
accommodation. Williams’s own deposition testimony indicates that he was not.
5
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 6 of 7
During discovery, Williams acknowledged that his position involved
extended standing over the course of an eight-hour shift and frequent movement
around the pharmacy. And he admitted that he could not perform these essential
job functions without the accommodation of the full-time assistance of another
intern or technician. 3
The ADA did not require CVS to permanently provide Williams with full-
time technical support because this would require it to eliminate essential functions
of the staff pharmacist job as it existed and reallocate those functions to other
employees. Even though the record evidence shows that CVS had provided
Williams with technical support in the past, this did not make his request for
additional support from another CVS employee reasonable. Wood v. Green, 323
F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2003).
Finally, Williams’s claim that CVS “obstructed the interactive process” is
without merit. In his deposition, Williams admitted that his physician never
submitted any paperwork outlining the types of accommodations that Williams
might require, even though CVS sent Williams multiple e-mails and letters seeking
supporting medical documentation. Thus, Williams’s claim that CVS obstructed
the process is without merit.
3
Although Williams states that he requested other accommodations, he also clearly
communicated to CVS that he would only be able to perform his duties with the assistance of a
full-time pharmacy technician.
6
Case: 13-11673 Date Filed: 01/14/2014 Page: 7 of 7
AFFIRMED.
7