FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 19, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 11 77 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 8- cv -0 21 38 -CAM JOHN WE THERBEE, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us
THE SOUTH ERN COMPANY, Defen da nt , SOUTHERN NUCLEAR OPERATING COMP ANY, INC., Defen dant -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ap ril 19 , 20 11 ) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARTIN andANDERSON, Circu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Jo hn W ethe rb ee (“ W ethe rb ee”) ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of

hi s emplo y er, So ut he rnNucl ear Op erat in g C om pa ny (“ So ut he rnNucl ear” ), on hi s cl ai m un de r th e Am eri can s wi th Dis ab il it ie s Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 12 , et s eq . W ethe rb ee ar gu edbe fo re the di st ric t co urt t ha t So ut he rn 1 Nuc le ar d is cri m in at edag ai ns t h im in vi ol at io n o f th e ADA by rev ok in g h is job of fer a fte r le arn in g tha t h e su ffer s fr om bi po la r di so rd er. W ethe rb ee al so arg ue d th atSo ut he rnNucl ear v io la te d 4 2 U.S.C. § 12 11 2( d) (3 ) by m is us in g the res ul ts of
m ed ic al ex am in at io ns an d i nq ui rie s i t co nduc te d a fte r of feri ng hi m

a job . The di st ric t co urt fo un d t ha t Weth erb ee fa il edto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA bu t d idno t ad dr es s Weth erb ee’s § 12 11 2( d) (3 ) cl ai m . After t ho ro ug h re vi ew, we affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n Weth erb ee’s d is cri m in at io n c la im bu t re m an d s o t ha t t he di st ric t
co urt ca n e nt er an ord er ad dr es si ng hi s § 12 11 2( d) (3 ) cl ai m . I. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t, vi ewin g a ll of t he fact s i n t he reco rdin th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g pa rty. W it te r v. Del taAir Li ne s, In c., 13 8 F .3d13 66 , 13 69 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ). “ To

Wetherbee also sued The Southern Company , but the district court grante d the par ties’ 1 joint mot ion to drop The Southern Company as a de fenda

nt. The Southern Company is not a party to this appeal. 2m ak e a p rima facie cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA, [th e p la in ti ff] hadto

sh ow a d is ab il it y

(whe th er re al or p erce iv ed ), th at[]he was ot he rwis e qua li fie d t o pe rfo rm th e es se nt ia l fu nc ti on s o f th e job , and[]he was di sc riminat edag ai ns t ba se d upo n t he (rea l o r pe rcei ve d) di sabi li ty.” W il li am s v . Mo to ro la , Inc ., 30 3 F.3 d 1 28 4, 1 29 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ; s ee al so Carrut he rs v. BS A Adv er., In c., 35 7 F.3 d 1 21 3, 1 21 5 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . The d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Weth erb ee fa il ed to est ab li sh th e fi rs t an d s eco ndele m en ts of h is di sc riminat io n c la im
. W ethe rb ee h as waiv edth e arg um en t t ha t h e es tabl is he d t ha t So ut he rn Nuc le ar re ga rd edhi m

as d is ab le d a ndth athe was o th erwi se qu al ifi edforhi s po si ti on . W ethe rb ee al lu de s t o t hi s ar gu m en t i n afoo tn ot e to hi s i ni ti al bri ef, i n whi chhe urg es th is Co urt t o c on du ct“ a d e n ov o re vi ew of th e[s e] iss ue s u si ng th e arg um en ts [W ethe rb ee] setforth on su m m ary jud gm en t.” Th is Co urt h as reject ed th e p ract ic e o f in co rp or at in g b y refe ren ce ar gu m en ts m ad e to th e d is tri ctco urt. See F ou r Sea so ns Hot el s & Res orts , B.V. v. Co ns co rci o B arr S.A., 3 77 F.3d11 64 , 11 67 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 2 8( a)(9 ) requi res th ata br ie f m

us t i nc lu de “ th e arg um en t, wh ic h m us t co nt ai n . . . ap pe ll an t’s
co nt en ti on s an d t he reas on s fo r th em , with c it at io ns to th e au th or it ie s an d p art s o f th e rec or d o n wh ic h the ap pe ll an t re li es .” Fu rth erm or e, al th ou gh W ethe rb ee br ie fedth es e is su es inde ta il inhi s re pl y bri ef, we d o n otco ns id er ar gu m en ts
3rai se d fo r th e fi rs t t im e in a rep ly brie f. See Lo ve ttv. Ra y , 32 7 F .3d11 81 , 11 83

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) . W ethe rb ee h as fai le d t o t im el y rai se th e is su e o f whe th er h e
es tabl is he d apri m a fac ie cas e o f di sc riminat io n u nd er the ADA. W e th eref or e
co ns id er tha t i ss ue ab an do ne d a ndaffi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s g ran t o f su m m ary jud gm en t o n Weth erb ee’s ADA di sc riminat io n c la im . Harts fie ldv. Lem ack s, 5 0 F.3 d 9 50 , 95 3 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 5) ; M arekv. Si ng le ta ry , 62 F.3d12 95 , 12 98 n.2 (11 th Ci r. 19 95 ). II. W ethe rb ee n ex t ar gu es th ata pl ai nt iff all eg in g avi ol at io n o f 42 U.S.C. § 1 21 12 (d )(3 ) ne edno t s ho w th athe is di sabl ed . The d is tri ctco urt d idno t ad dr es s W ethe rb ee’s § 12 11 2( d) (3 ) cl ai m in it s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of So uthe rnNucl ear. “ [T]his Co urt h as adm on is he d d is tri ctco urts th atth ei r 2
or de rs sh ou ldco nt ai n s uf fic ie ntex pl an at io ns of t he ir rul in gs so as t o p ro vi de th is Co urt wi th anop po rtu ni ty to en ga ge in m ean in gf ul ap pe ll at e rev ie w.” Danl ey v. All en , 48 0 F .3d10 90 , 10 91 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ). In Dan le y , th is Co urt re m an de d
Wetherbee ’s § 12112(d)( 3) cla im was properly befor e the district cour

t at summary 2 judgme nt. Wetherbee proper ly asser ted that claim in the ame nded complaint attac hed to his motion for leave to amend, which the district court grante d. See L ongv. Satz, 181 F.3d 1275, 1279 (11th Cir. 1999) (“ A motion for leave to amend should either se t forth the substanceof the proposed a

mendment or attach a c opy of the propose d amendment.” ); ac cord United States ex rel. Atkins v. McInteer , 470 F.3d 1350, 1361–62 ( 11th Cir. 2006). Southern Nuclea r sought summary judgme nt on Wetherbee ’s § 12112(d)( 3) cla im “to the extent that the Court finds that a Section 12112(d) c laim has bee n pled in this lawsuit.” 4whe n the di st ric t co urt p ro vi de d am ere o ne -s en te nc e su m m ary in it s d en ia l o f a
m ot io n t o d is m is s. Id . at 1 09 2. In th is cas e, th e d is tri ctco urt n eg le ct edto m ak e
an y m en ti on of Weth erb ee’s § 12 11 2( d) (3 ) cl ai m ev enth ou gh itclo se d W ethe rb ee’s ca se up ongra nt in g s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of So uthe rnNucl ear.

“ Whi le th is Co urt ce rta in ly cou ldrev ie w th e rec or d andap pl ic ab le cas e la w
an d re nd er a re as on edde ci si on on th e [§ 12 11 2( d) (3 ) cl ai m ], th is is th e
res po ns ib il it y

of t he di st ric t co urt i n t he fir stin st an ce.” Id . W e rem an d the cas e to th e d is tri ctco urt t o e nt er a re as on edord er wh ic h a dd res se s Weth erb ee’s § 1 21 12 (d )(3 ) cl ai m .

AFFIR MED, in pa rt, a ndREMANDED.

5