Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40632/USCOURTS-ca5-19-40632-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kimberly Crockett
Appellant
Humana Behavioral Health
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-40632

Summary Calendar

KIMBERLY CROCKETT,

Plaintiff – Appellant

v. 

HUMANA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,

Defendant – Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-403

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kimberly Crockett sued Humana Behavioral Health alleging that 

Humana wrongfully terminated her employment in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The district court granted 

summary judgment for Humana because Crockett signed a waiver releasing 

“any and all legal and equitable claims of any type relating to [her] 

employment.” Further, the court noted that Crockett had pointed to no 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 18, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-40632 Document: 00515350179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
No. 19-40632

2

evidence that would invalidate that release. See Davis v. Fort Bend Cty., 765 

F.3d 480, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (“A party cannot defeat summary judgment with 

conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of 

evidence.” (quotation omitted)).

On appeal, Crockett argues that Humana exercised undue influence to 

secure her signature on the waiver. In order to show undue influence, Crockett 

must provide evidence that Humana’s “‘persuasion, entreaty, importunity, 

argument, intercession, and solicitation’ were so strong as to ‘subvert and 

overthrow [her] will.’” Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1178 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting 

DeGrassi v. DeGrassi, 533 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref’d 

n.r.e.)). After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the district court: 

there is no evidence that Humana exercised undue influence. Therefore, 

Crockett’s waiver is valid, and the district court appropriately granted 

summary judgment. See Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 444 (5th Cir. 

2002) (holding that “summary judgment was appropriate” where no dispute of 

material fact existed about the validity of a waiver of claims). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-40632 Document: 00515350179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2020