Court Opinion

ID: 9401461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-13 14:02:15.940281+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:52.956726
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 19-11341    Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023   Page: 1 of 10

                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                    In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                 No. 19-11341
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

        RAYMOND B. BALDWIN,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

                                                     Defendant-Appellee.

                           ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 5:15-cv-00594-MMH-PRL
                            ____________________
USCA11 Case: 19-11341      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 2 of 10

        2                      Opinion of the Court                  19-11341

        Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
               Raymond Baldwin appeals the district court’s decision grant-
        ing summary judgment to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
        Veterans Affairs (“VA”) on his claims of disability discrimination
        under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See 29 U.S.C. § 794. On ap-
        peal, he contends that the VA unlawfully ordered him to undergo
        a psychological-fitness-for-duty evaluation for his job as a VA police
        officer after he injured his finger in an off-duty accidental-discharge
        incident, and that the evaluation was tainted by false and illegally
        obtained information. After careful review, we conclude that the
        VA properly required the fitness-for-duty evaluation, which Bald-
        win failed, and that there is no evidence to support a finding that
        the alleged problems with the evaluation or his subsequent re-
        moval as a police officer were due to his claimed disability. So we
        affirm the grant of summary judgment.
                                          I.
               Baldwin began working as a police officer at a VA hospital
        in September 2002. In August 2008, Baldwin shot himself in his left
        pinky finger while driving off duty. According to Baldwin, he was
        driving while handling a gun, which he had recently loaded at a
        stop sign, when his truck ran off the road due to inattention and he
        hit a “rough spot” that caused the gun to fly from his grasp. The
        gun discharged when he reached to grab it, and the bullet passed
        through his finger and the steering wheel before lodging in the
USCA11 Case: 19-11341      Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023     Page: 3 of 10

        19-11341               Opinion of the Court                         3

        truck by the windshield. As a result of this incident, Baldwin was
        on leave until October 2008, when he returned to work on light-
        duty status. By early February 2009, his finger had healed, and his
        physician released him to return to work without restriction.
               Meanwhile, in late January 2009, the VA informed Baldwin
        that, because of concerns stemming from the August 2008 incident,
        he would need to undergo a psychological fitness-for-duty evalua-
        tion before returning to his full duties as a police officer. In addi-
        tion, Acting Police Chief Milton Gordon said he believed such an
        examination was warranted in light of “very bizarre” statements
        Baldwin had made to coworkers about Baldwin’s personal life, in-
        cluding having been accused of pedophilia and incest.
               A VA staff psychologist conducted a psychological evalua-
        tion and determined that Baldwin had “a long history of interper-
        sonal conflict and difficulty managing anger,” a lengthy legal record
        indicating disregard for the law or poor judgment, and a lack of
        emotional stability. The psychologist expressed “serious reserva-
        tions about [Baldwin] being authorized to carry a firearm in the line
        of duty.” Based on that evaluation, a VA occupational health phy-
        sician found that Baldwin was “unfit for duty as a police officer”
        and “should not be authorized to carry a firearm in the line of
        duty.”
             As a result of the failed fitness-for-duty examination, the VA
        removed Baldwin from his position as a police officer. Later, the
USCA11 Case: 19-11341       Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 4 of 10

        4                       Opinion of the Court                    19-11341

        VA reassigned him to another position with the agency, at the same
        grade and pay. 1
                Believing that the reasons for the fitness-for-duty examina-
        tion were specious and his job transfer unwarranted, Baldwin filed
        several equal employment opportunity (“EEO”) complaints along
        with a Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) action challeng-
        ing the VA’s actions against him. After proceeding through the full
        administrative process for his EEO and MSPB actions, but failing
        to prevail in either forum, Baldwin filed the current action in fed-
        eral district court.
               Baldwin alleged various disability discrimination, retalia-
        tion, and hostile work environment claims, among others. In a
        comprehensive order, the district court granted summary judg-
        ment to the VA, finding that the evidence was insufficient for Bald-
        win to prevail on any of his claims. Baldwin now appeals.
                                           II.
               We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary
        judgment, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the
        nonmoving party—here, Baldwin. Roy v. Ivy, 53 F.4th 1338, 1346
        (11th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is appropriate where the evi-
        dence “shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
        fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
        Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). No genuine issue of material fact exists unless

        1Nonetheless, the VA advises that Baldwin was rehired for a police officer
        position in November 2020.
USCA11 Case: 19-11341       Document: 48-1       Date Filed: 06/13/2023     Page: 5 of 10

        19-11341                Opinion of the Court                          5

        a “reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving
        party.” Baxter v. Roberts, 54 F.4th 1241, 1253 (11th Cir. 2022) (quota-
        tion marks omitted).
               We liberally construe the ﬁlings of pro se parties. Timson v.
        Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Nevertheless, “issues
        not briefed on appeal by a pro se litigant are deemed abandoned.”
        Id. Nor are passing references to an issue, without supporting ar-
        guments or authority, suﬃcient to raise the issue for appeal.
        Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins., 739 F.3d 678, 681–82 (11th Cir.
        2014). We may aﬃrm on any ground supported by the record.
        United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 879 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
                                          III.
               The crux of Baldwin’s argument on appeal is that the VA did
        not have the authority to conduct the fitness-for-duty examination
        in the first place. In Baldwin’s view, the August 2008 accidental-
        discharge incident was insufficient to justify a psychological evalu-
        ation. Knowing this, according to Baldwin, VA staff conspired to
        fabricate false and defamatory accusations against him as further
        support for the fitness-for-duty examination. He further asserts
        that the VA improperly obtained his criminal-history information
        and misrepresented that history in the examination.
                                          A.
               Liberally construing his filings, Baldwin appears to challenge
        the decision to order a fitness-for-duty examination under 42
        U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A), as incorporated by the Rehabilitation Act.
        See 29 U.S.C. § 794(d). That section states,
USCA11 Case: 19-11341      Document: 48-1     Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 6 of 10

        6                      Opinion of the Court                 19-11341

              A covered entity shall not require a medical examina-
              tion and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to
              whether such employee is an individual with a disa-
              bility or as to the nature or severity of the disability,
              unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be
              job-related and consistent with business necessity.
        42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A). Notably, § 12112(d)(4)(A) “protects em-
        ployees who are not disabled.” Owusu-Ansah v. Coca-Cola Co., 715
        F.3d 1306, 1310 (11th Cir. 2013). Although the district court did not
        construe Baldwin’s claim as brought under this section, we may
        reach beyond that court’s reasoning. See Campbell, 26 F.4th at 879.
               A psychological fitness-for-duty evaluation is job-related and
        consistent with business necessity when, among other reasons, the
        employer has “information suggesting that an employee is unstable
        and may pose a danger to others.” Owusu-Ansah, 715 F.3d at 1312.
        These concerns are heightened in police departments, which
        “place armed officers in positions where they can do tremendous
        harm if they act irrationally.” Watson v. City of Miami Beach, 177
        F.3d 932, 935 (11th Cir. 1999). Nothing in the Rehabilitation Act or
        the ADA “require[s] a police department to forgo a fitness for duty
        examination to wait until a perceived threat becomes real or ques-
        tionable behavior results in injuries.” Id. at 935.
               Regulations applicable to federal agencies further define
        when and how medical or psychological examinations may be con-
        ducted. See 5 C.F.R. § 339.301. When an employee occupies a po-
        sition that has medical standards or physical requirements, the
USCA11 Case: 19-11341       Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 7 of 10

        19-11341                Opinion of the Court                          7

        agency may require a medical examination whenever there is rea-
        son to question the employee’s continued capacity to meet those
        requirements. See id. § 339.301(b)(3). Any psychological assess-
        ment must be limited to the person’s mental fitness as it directly
        relates to successfully performing the duties of the position without
        significant risk to the employee or others. Id. § 339.301(e)(2).
               Here, the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to
        Baldwin, fails to show that the VA violated the Rehabilitation Act
        or applicable regulations by ordering a fitness-for-duty examina-
        tion. VA police officers are subject to physical and mental require-
        ments and are required to undergo yearly fitness-for-duty exami-
        nations. And undisputed evidence reflects that the VA had good
        reason to question Baldwin’s mental fitness for duty. By his own
        account of the August 2008 accidental-discharge incident, Baldwin
        engaged in reckless behavior with a loaded gun while driving on a
        public street, posing a risk to others and injuring himself as a result.
        Because Baldwin carried a firearm as a police officer and was au-
        thorized to make arrests, the VA had objective grounds to question
        whether he could perform the essential functions of his position
        without unnecessarily endangering others, wholly apart from
        statements Baldwin allegedly made to coworkers about his per-
        sonal life. See 5 C.F.R. § 339.301. Thus, we disagree with Baldwin’s
        claim that the fitness-for-duty examination cannot be justified
        based solely on the August 2008 shooting incident and that the VA
        sought to cover up that fact by invoking false allegations against
        him.
USCA11 Case: 19-11341         Document: 48-1        Date Filed: 06/13/2023         Page: 8 of 10

        8                         Opinion of the Court                       19-11341

               Given the nature of Baldwin’s position and the extremely
        questionable judgment he admittedly exhibited, which resulted in
        injury to himself, the fitness-for-duty examination was both job-re-
        lated and consistent with business necessity.2 See Watson, 177 F.3d
        at 935 (stating that police officers “can do tremendous harm if they
        act irrationally”); see also Owusu-Ansah, 715 F.3d at 1311–12. Ac-
        cordingly, Baldwin cannot prevail at trial on a claim under §
        12112(d)(4)(A), and summary judgment was appropriate.
                                              B.
                Baldwin also maintains that the fitness-for-duty examination
        was tainted by inaccurate information about his criminal history,
        which, in his view, was also improperly obtained by the VA. 3 He
        suggests that the VA rigged the fitness-for-duty examination to get
        rid of him, apparently as pretext for discriminatory animus.
              The Rehabilitation Act prohibits federal agencies from dis-
        criminating in employment against an “otherwise qualified individ-
        ual with a disability,” including by failing to make reasonable ac-
        commodations to such an individual. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), (d)

        2 Baldwin’s reliance on the “direct threat” regulation is misplaced. See 29
        C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). The VA did not invoke that defense, and the question here
        is whether the fitness-for-duty examination was job-related and consistent
        with business necessity, not whether Baldwin was a direct threat.
        3 We deny Baldwin’s request to strike the district court’s references to the al-
        legedly false criminal history from its order, which merely summarized infor-
        mation presented in the fitness-for-duty examination, which is part of the rec-
        ord in this case, whether accurate or not.
USCA11 Case: 19-11341       Document: 48-1      Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 9 of 10

        19-11341                Opinion of the Court                           9

        (incorporating the anti-discrimination standards of the Americans
        with Disabilities Act (ADA)); 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The Rehabilitation
        Act also incorporates the ADA’s anti-retaliation provision. See 29
        U.S.C. § 794(d); 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).
                Baldwin has not shown that the district court erred in grant-
        ing summary judgment on his discrimination claims. The only dis-
        ability Baldwin has clearly identified for consideration is his finger
        injury. And the only question to be resolved is whether Baldwin
        was subject to discrimination “solely by reason of . . . his disability,”
        29 U.S.C. § 794(a), not whether the process that led to his removal
        as a VA police officer more generally was fair or flawed. See Alvarez
        v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1243, 1266 (11th Cir. 2018)
        (“The question to be resolved is not the wisdom or accuracy of [the
        employer’s reasoning] . . . or whether the decision . . . was ‘prudent
        or fair.’ Instead, ‘our sole concern is whether unlawful discrimina-
        tory animus motivate[d]’ the decision.”).
                Whatever its flaws, no reasonable jury could conclude that
        the fitness-for-duty examination was actually a pretext for discrim-
        inating against Baldwin because of a disability, nor does Baldwin
        clearly make an argument along those lines. Plus, as the district
        court noted, the factual deficiencies Baldwin has identified do little
        to undermine the ultimate findings of the psychologist who per-
        formed the assessment. Notably, as his deposition, Baldwin con-
        firmed much of the criminal history recited in the fitness-for-duty
        examination, even if he disputed some details. Accordingly, Bald-
        win has not offered sufficient evidence to support a finding that the
USCA11 Case: 19-11341      Document: 48-1        Date Filed: 06/13/2023      Page: 10 of 10

        10                      Opinion of the Court                    19-11341

        VA’s proffered reasons for removing him as a police officer and
        denying reinstatement were a pretext for disability discrimination.
                Finally, Baldwin has abandoned any challenge to the district
        court’s resolution of his retaliation or hostile work environment
        claims by failing to address them on appeal. See Timson, 518 F.3d
        at 874. While he makes passing references to the VA’s failure to
        comply with rules relating to the Family and Medical Leave Act
        (“FMLA”), he does not explain the relevance of these assertions,
        and he fails to address the district court’s reasons for dismissing his
        FMLA claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction in his initial
        brief, so any argument in this regard is likewise abandoned. See
        Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681–82. Baldwin’s arguments in the reply brief
        come too late. See Timson, 518 F.3d at 874 (“[W]e do not address
        arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s reply brief.”).
                                           IV.
              For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judg-
        ment in favor of the VA on Baldwin’s claims.
               AFFIRMED.