### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20827
T AMM YJ OHNS ON P l a i n tiff - A p p ell a n t v. DIVE RS I CA RE A F T ON O AK S L L C; DIVE RS I CA RE MANAG EMENT S ERVI CE S C OMPA NY ; DIVE RS I CA RE L EA S I NG C OR P ORAT I ON; AD VO CA T F I NANC E I NCO RP ORAT ED D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i tedS tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or th e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d G A R Z Aan d S T E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg es . E M ILIO M
. G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg e: Tam m y Jo hns o n a ppe al s t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s g r anto f s um m ar y j udg m e nt i n fav o ro f

D ive r s i c ar e Af

t o n Oaks LLC (“Af

t o n Oaks ” ) , D ive r s i c ar e M ana ge m e nt S ervi ces C om pa n y, D iversi care Lea si n g C orporati on , an d A dv o ca tF i n an ce Incorporat ed (col l ect ivel y, “ D iversi care” )
. John son als o app eal s t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s d e n i a l o f h e r m o t i o n f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d f o r a n e w t r i a l
. Fo rt he r e a s o n s s e tf

o r t h b e l o w, we AF FI RM
. I Jo hns o n was w o r ki ng as t he A s s i s t antD i r e c t o rof N ur s i ng atAf

t o n Oaks w he n s he w as al er t ed bya r es i dentt o a n i nci dentof r es i dentabus e thathad

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 17, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

2 o c c ur r e d t w o day s pr i o r . Jo hns o n a ppr o ac he d he rs upe rvi s o r , PatPe t r y, a bo ut th e incide n t. P etrytol dJo h n son to start an i n ve sti ga ti on i m m ed i a tel y a n dto o b ta insta t e m e n t s fro m th e em p loy e e s w h o h a db e e n w o rk in gd u rin gth e sh ift w he n t he i nc i de nto c c ur r e d. H o w e ve r , w he n Pe t r y s po ke w i t h J oh n s o n t he fol l ow i n g d a y, Joh n son ad m i tted to ob tain i n g o n l y o n e em p lo y ee statem en t. P et ry tol d Joh n son t h at P et ry w an t ed allem pl oyee st atem en t s un der her of f i ce do o rb y t he ne xtm o r ni ng. J o hns o n fail e d t o c o m ply w i t h this d i r e c t ive , a nd P etrysu sp en d edJo h n s o n p en d i n g a n i n ve sti ga ti on i n to Jo h n son ’ s i n a b i l i ty to c om pl et e the r epo r ti n a t i m ely fas hi on. Jo hnson w as t ol d t ha t sh e w ou l d be c o m p e n s a te dfo rh e rm is s e dw o r kif sh e w a s cle a r e d
. A t th e con cl u sionof th e inv estiga ti on , Jo h n son w a s i n vitedto retu rn to w ork w i th pa y for th e d a ys of th e su sp en sion
. H ow ev er, J oh n son de cl i n ed to retu rn to w ork , as sh e h a dalrea d y fil ed th i s a cti on for reta l i a ti on i n T ex a s state court pu rsuan tt o T EX . H E ALT H & S A F E TY C ODE § 2 4 2 .1 3 3 , w h i ch pr otects nur s i ng ho m e em pl o ye e s w ho re po r tv i o l at i o ns o f l aw f r o m a dv e r s e e m pl o ym e nt ac t i o ns . Dive r s i c ar e r e m o ve d t o fe de r alc o ur to n t he b as i s o f dive r s i t y, a nd s ubs e que nt l y m o ve d f o rs um m ar y j udg m e nt , w hi c h t he di s t ri ctc o ur tg r ant e d. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d e n ie dJ o h n s o n ’ s m o tio n to re c o n s id e ra n dfo ran e w tr ia l. Joh n son ap pea l s bot h deci si on s. II A Joh n son argu es t h at th e di st ri ctcourterr ed i n f i n di n g t h at s h e di d n ot m ak e a“r e po r t” pur s uan tto T EX . H E ALT H & S A F E TY C ODE § 2 4 2 .13 3 (b ). S p e c ific a lly , J o h n s o n co n te n d s th a t th e d i strict cou rt i m p rop erly m a d e cre d ib ility determ i n ati on s r egard i n g h er t est i m on y i n i t s eval u ati on o f th e rec ord on sum m ary j u dg m en t . W e r e v iew a n app ealf rom an order gr an t i n g sum m ary j udgm en t d e n o v o . I n reADM /G row m ark R i ver S ys. , I n c. , 234 F. 3d 881, 886 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 0)
. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e w he n, a f t e rc o ns i de r i ng t he Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

3 pl ead i n gs, di scovery, an d d i scl osures on fil e, al on g w i t h an y af f i da vi t s, t h e court f i n ds “ n o gen u i n e i ssue as t o an y m ater i alfacta n d t h at the m ovan ti s entit l ed to j u d gm en t as am a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R . C IV . P
. 56(c)
. Agen u i n e i ssue of m a te r ia l fa c t e x is ts if th e s u m m a r yju d g m e n t e v id e n c e is s u c h th a t are a s o n a b le ju r yco u ldre tu r n av e r d ic t fo rth e n o n -m o v a n t. A n d ers on v. L i berty L obby, I n c. , 47 7 U
. S. 2 42 , 2 48 ( 19 86 )
. The c ou rtv i ew s a l lfac t s a nd e vi de nc e i n t he l i ght m o s t fa v o r a b le to th e n o n -m o v a n t. LeMai r ev. L a. D e p’ tof Transp. & D e v. , 480 F
. 3d383 , 387 ( 5th C i r. 200 7)
. C on clu sory al l egati on s o r un sub st an t i ated a s s e r tio n s a r e in s u ffic ie n t t o s h o w a g e n u in e is s u e o f m a te r ia l fa c t. A n d ers on , 477 U
. S. at256. A c o ur tr e vi e w i ng a s um m ar y j udg m e ntm o t i on m us tno tw e i gh t he e v id e n c e o re v a lu a te th e cr e d ib i l i t yo f w itn e s s e s . Boudre auxv . Sw if tTr ans p. Co. , 402 F
. 3d536 , 540 ( 5th C i r. 200 5 ) (cit ati on om i t t ed). H ow ever, “ sum m ary ju d g m en ti s app ropri ate un l ess [ a] pl ai n t i f f can p rodu ce sign if

i can tevi d ence d em on stratingth e e xisten ce of a g en u i n e fact i ssu e.” R u sse l lv. Harri son , 736 F. 2d2 83 , 2 87 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 98 4) (c i t at i o n om i t t e d) ( e m pha s i s i n or i gi nal)
. I n ano nj u rycas e, su ch as th i s on e, “a d i stri ct cou rt ha s som ew h a t grea ter d i scre ti on to con siderw h a t w eigh t itw i l la ccord th e ev i d en ce.” In re P laci dO i lCo. , 932 F. 2d 394 , 397 (5t h C i r. 1 991 )
. W h en d eci di n g a m ot i on forsum m ary j u dg m en tpri or t o a be nc h t r i al , t he di s t r i c t c o ur t “has t he l i m i t e d d i s c r e t i o n t o de c i de t hatt he s a m e e v id e n c e , p r e s e n te dto h im o rh e ra s atr ie ro f fa c t in ap le n a r ytr ia l, co u ld n ot p oss ib l y lea dto a d i ff ere n t resu l t. ” Id
. at398 (c i t i ng Nu n ez v . S u p er iorO il Co. , 5 7 2 F .2 d1 1 1 9 , 1 1 2 4 (5 th C ir . 1 9 7 8 )). B T EX . H E ALT H & S A F E TY C ODE § 2 4 2 .1 3 3 (b ) s ta te s in p e r tin e n t p a r t: An em pl o ye e ha s ac aus e o f a c t i o n a ga i ns ta n i ns t i t ut i o n, o rt he ow n er oran ot h er em pl oyee of t h e i n sti t u t i on , t h at s u spen ds or t erm i n ates t h e em pl oym en tof t h e person or ot h erw i se di sci pl i n es or di s c r i m i nat e s o rr e t ali at e s a ga i ns tt he em pl o ye e fo rr e po r t i ng t o t he Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

4 em p l oy ee ’ s su p erv is or, a n ad m i n i strato r of th e instit u ti on , a sta te r e g u l a t o r ya g e n c y , o r a l a w e n f o r c e me n ta g e n c yav i o l a t i o n o f l a w, in c lu d in gav io la tio n o f th is ch a p te ro ra r u le a d o p te du n d e rth is cha pter, or f

or i n i t i ati n g or cooperati n g i n an y i n vest i gati on or proceedi n g of

a govern m en t alen tit y rel ati n g t o care, servi ces, or c o ndit i o ns a tt he i ns t i t ut i o n. P u rsuan tt o t h e l an gu age of t h e stat u t e, a n em pl oyee on l y h as a cause of act i on u n der § 242. 133 (b) if he or she m ak es a “report” of a v i ol ati on of l aw . W e m u st d eterm i n e i f an yth i n g i n th e reco rdin d i ca tes th a t Joh n son m a d e su ch a re p ort. I n he rb r i e f

a n d i n de po s i t i o n t e s t i m o ny t ak e n e l e ve n m o nt hs a f t e rt he i n i t i ali n ci den t , Joh n son all eges t h at s h e ph on ed th e T e x a s B oard of N u rse E xam i n ers ( “ T B N E ” ) f or th e p u rpose of

m ak i n g an i n ci den treport . H ow ever, t h i s sel f

- servi n g st atem en t i s contradi ct ed byt h e rec ord. Fir st , i n a ha n dw ri t t en m e m o da t e d the s am e da y as t he a l l e ge d p h on e call , J o hns o n s t at e d t hats he c all e d TBN E “ t o a s k aq ue s t i o n” a bo ut ho w t o de al w i t h t he nur s e w ho w as t he s u bje c t o f th e co m p la in t. In a ty p e d m e m o la te r th a t d a y , J o h n s o n s ta te do n ly t hats he ha d “ a c o nve r s at i o n” w i t h TBN E and t hatdur i ng t he c o ur s e o f t he conversati on sh e n ever m en t i on ed A f t on O ak s’n am e, n or the n am e of t h e nu rse i n q ue s t i o n, b o t h o f w hi c h woul d b e ne c e s s ar y i n a n a c t ualr epo r t . I nde e d, Joh n son exp ress l y st ated i n her t yp ed m em o tha tP et ry w as u n der t h e m i st ak en i m pressi on t h at John son cal l ed T B N E t om ake a report , an d that t h i s i m pressi on w as, i n fact , un t rue. Thus , c o nt r ar y t o herpr e s e nta s s e r t i o n, J o hns o n’ s o w n r e c o r d t e s t i m o ny i n d ica te s t h at s h e di d n otm ak e a reportt o T B N E
. R ather, t h e rec ord de m o ns t r at e s t hatJ o hns o n was m e r e l y c o nt ac t i ng TB N E f o ri nf o r m at i o n a bo ut ho w t o handl e t he r e s i de nta bus e i nve s t i ga t i o n. I nde e d, t he o nl y e vi de nc e i n t he recor d that app ears t o sup port Joh n son’ s posi t i on t h at she m ad e a “report” are he rs e l f

- s e rvi ng, c o nc l us o r y s t at e m e nt s i n he r l at e r de po s i t i o n t e s t i m o ny. The d is tr ic t c o u r t, a s th e t r i e ro f fa c t, w a s p e r m itt e dto d r a w in fe r e n c e s fr o m th is Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

5 evi de nc e t o c o nc l ude t hat Jo hns o n fail e d t o pr e s e nt s uf f i c i e nt e vi dence of “r e p o r tin g” a v io la tio n o f la w w ith in th e m e a n in go f § 2 4 2 .1 3 3 (b ). S eeP la cidO il , 9 3 2 F .2 da t 3 9 7

– 9 8 ; Nu n ez , 572 F. 2d at1124. Jo hnson al s o c o nt e nds t hatt he di s t r i c tc o ur ti m pr o pe r l y ap pl i e d t he r e po r t i ng r e quir e m e nt s t o § 2 42 . 13 3(b) , r e l yi ng o n T ow n HallEst ate s- W

h i t n ey, Inc. v. Wi n t ers , 2 20 S. W
. 3d7 1 (Tex
. App.

))W a co 2 0 0 7 , n o p et. ) for su p p ort. H o w e ve r , t hi s c as e i s di s t i ngu i s hab l e f r o m t he i ns t ant m at t e r . I n T o w n Ha ll , a n u rse preva i l ed on her ret al i ati on com pl ai n t f or h aving report ed an i n ci den tof a l l eg edsex u a lab u se o f an u rsingh o m e r eside n t t o h er su p erv i sor d esp i te c o n c e r n s th a t t h e a lle g a tio n o f a b u s e m ig h t b e fa ls e . T h e T e x a s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls f ou n d n o subj ect ive bel i ef i n t h e veraci t y of t h e al l egati on necessary f or a r eport t o be l egi t i m ate. I n t h e i n st an tm att er, t h e i ssue i s not w h e th er John son be l i e ve d the a l l e ga t i o n o f r e s i de nt ab us e t o be t r ue , b utr at he rw he t he ra n ac t ual r e po r tw asm ade
. T h ou gh Joh n son i s corr ect i n argu i n g t h at § 242 . 133 does not r e quir e t hat an e m pl o ye e all e gi ng a r e t ali at i o n c l ai m a dhe r e t o t he l e t t e ro f t he report i n g requ i rem en t s, see i d. a t 7 9

– 8 0 , s o mesor tof report m u stha ve been m ad e t o q uali f

y as t he b as i s f

o rar e t ali at o r y ac t i o n. Joh n son als o poi n t s t o C lark v. T exas Hom e Heal t h , I

n c. , 971 S. W
. 2d 435, 437–38 (Tex. 1998) , ar gui ng t hatl i abi li t y f orr et al i at i on at t ac hes w hen an em pl oyee i s pu n i shed f or th e i nt e nto f r e p o r tin g , e v e n if n o re p o r t h a s a c tu a lly been m ad e. H ow ever, Joh n son “m u stdem on st r at eac aus alr e l ati o ns hip b et w een th e reta l i a toryaction an dthe rep orting
. ” I d. ; se e a lso T

o w n Ha ll , 220 S. W
. 3d at 81 ( ap pl yi n g a “bu t
- f

or” cau sati on stand ard i n ret al i ati on causes of act i on )
. E ven as sum i ng a rg u e ndo tha tJ o hns o n i nt e nde d t o r e po r tt he nur s e w he n s he contact ed T B N E f

or ad vi ce, i t does n ot f ol l ow t h at her i n t en tt o reportl ed to h er s us pe ns i o n. J o hns o n fail e d t o c o m pl e t e he ri nve s t i ga t i o n o f t he i nc i de nti n a t i m ely fas hi on, as s he w as as ked t o do by hers upervi so r . Jo hnson adm i t t ed t hat she h ad n ot obtai n ed th e st atem en t s, i n contradi ct i on t o a di rectorder t o do so. Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

6 A s t h e rat i o n a le f

or John son’ s s u spen si on w as her fai l u re t o com pl et e her i n vest i gati on of

t h e al l egedres i den tabu se, she has n ot show n t h at but f or her c o nve r s at i o n wi t h TBN E, s he w o ul d no tha ve be e n s us pe nde d. Ac c o r di ngly, t he di st r i c tc our t di d not er r i n c onc l udi ng t hat Johnso n di d not m ake a “ r epo r t” as re q u ire db y§ 2 4 2 .13 3 (b ). III J oh n son arg u es th a t th e d i stri ct cou rt erred i n de n yin g h er m oti on to re co n sid e r an d f

or a new t ri al
. W e revi ew a den i alof a m ot i on f

or reconsi derati on pu rsuan tt o F ED . R . C IV . P . 5 9 (e ) fo ra b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . La ke Hi l lMot ors, I

n c. v. Jim B enn et tY ach tSale s, I

n c. , 246 F
. 3d 752 , 75 7 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 1 ). C o u r ts h a v e b r o a dd is c r e tio n in d e c id in gs u c h m o tio n s . T e mple tv. H yd roCh em , I

n c. , 367 F
. 3d 473 , 482 –83 ( 5th C i r. 200 4)
. A m ot i on t o rec on si der ba s e d o n a n a l l e ge d d i s c o ve r y o f ne w e vi de nc e s ho ul d b e gr ant e d only i f “ ( 1) t he fac t s di s c o ve r e d a r e o f s uc h ana t ur e t hatt he y w o u l d prob ab l y c hang e t he out c om e; ( 2) t he fac t s al l ege d ar e a c t ual l y new l y di sc ove r ed and c oul d nothave b e e n d is c o v e r e de a r lie rb yp r o p e rd ilig e n c e ; a n d(3 ) th e fa c ts a r e n o t m e r e ly cu m u l a tive or i m p ea ch i n g.” Inf u si on R es. , Inc. v. Mi n i m ed, I n c. , 351 F. 3d 688, 6 9 6

– 9 7 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (cita tion om itted ). Jo hns o n po i nt s t o a “ ne w l y di s c o ve r e d” l e t t e rf r o m t he Te xa s D e pa r t m e nt o f Agi ng andD i s ab i l i t y Se rvi c e s (“ TD AD S” ) t hata l l e ge dly s upp o r t s he rha vi ng m ade ar epo r tof

t he re siden t ab use i nci dent
. H ow eve r , t hi s doc um entw as produ c e d by Jo hns o n dur i ng di s c o ve r y and t he r e f o r e s ho ul d hav e be e n pa r tof th e e v id e n c e J o h n s o n s u b m itt e dto th e co u r t o n s u m m a r yju d g m e n t. I d. M oreover, t h e r e co rd ref l ect s t h at th e i den t i f i cat i on nu m ber of

t h e report ref erenced i n Joh n son’ s l et t er m atc h es t h e i den t i f icati on nu m ber of

a report c r e at e d t w o w eeks af

t e rJ o hns o n’ s i ni t i als us pe ns i o n. Thus , e ve n if J o hns o n di d, in fa c t, m a k e t h is r e p o r t w ith T D A D S , itw o u ldn o t s u p p o r t a re ta lia tio n cla im bas ed o n an em pl oym entac t i on t hat oc c urr ed t w o w ee ks earl i er . Conseque nt l y, Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/17/2010N o. 08- 20827

7 Joh n son h as not presented suf f i ci en tgroun ds f

or r econsi derati on of t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s gra n t of

su m m a r yj u d gm en t, an dthe distri ct cou rt did n ot ab u se it s di s c r e t i o n i n de nyi ng he rm o t i o n. IV F o rth e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e A F F IR M
. Case: 08-20827 Document: 00511028752 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/17/2010