Opinions of the United 2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-4-2008 Acker v. Coca Cola N Amer Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 07-4257 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008 Recommended Citation "Acker v. Coca Cola N Amer" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 269. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/269 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT NO. 07-4257 DENNIS C. ACKER, Appellant v. COCA-COLA NORTH AMERICA On Appeal From the United States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.  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 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