Dennis C. Acker v. COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA On Appeal From the United States District Court For the…

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 07-4257
DENNIS C. ACKER,
Appellant
v.
COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA
On Appeal From the United States
District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil Action No. 06-cv-03670)
District Judge: Hon. Thomas M. Golden
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2008
BEFORE: SLOVITER, STAPLETON and TASHIMA,*
Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 4, 2008)
*Hon. A. Wallace Tashima, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
OPINION OF THE COURT
STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Dennis Acker maintains that appellee Coca-Cola North America (1) in
violation of state law, terminated his employment in retaliation for his having “filed
worker’s compensation petitions to seek a remedy for . . . injuries” he sustained at work
(Appellant’s Br. at 7), (2) failed to accommodate his disability in violation of the ADA,
and (3) discriminated against him in violation of the ADA by denying him overtime
because of his disability.
The District Court granted summary judgment for Coca-Cola. We will affirm for
the reasons set forth in the thorough and persuasive opinion of the District Court.
Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of failure to accommodate and did not
exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his overtime claim. Finally, as the
District Court concluded, “[t]he undisputed facts reveal that rather than discriminate or
retaliate against Plaintiff, Defendant went out of its way to assist Plaintiff by taking
Plaintiff for immediate medical attention, promptly reporting the incident to its workers’
compensation carrier, helping Plaintiff through the benefits process and, most

-- 2 of 3 --

3
significantly, provided Plaintiff with modified work assignments for nearly six years even
though its policies limited Plaintiff to a period of 90 days.” App. at 10-11.
The judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.

-- 3 of 3 --