United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-20641

Summary Calendar

Medora Chetlin, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation, 

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CV-1986

Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Medora Chetlin filed this suit against Exxon Mobil Oil Corporation 

(“Exxon”) after it denied her claim for her deceased ex-husband’s 

retirement benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 17, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641

2

1974 (“ERISA”). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of 

Exxon. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM. 

I. Facts & Procedural History

Nathan Broussard was employed by Exxon from 1968 to March 1982. 

He was enrolled in the Mobil Oil Retirement Annuity Plan. Broussard and 

Chetlin were married the first six years that Broussard worked for Exxon and 

divorced in 1974. As a result of the divorce proceedings, Chetlin was awarded 

a community property interest in Broussard’s retirement plan with Exxon. 

After Broussard left Exxon, the terms of the plan provided that he would be 

entitled to a straight life annuity of $241.46 a month after his calculated 

retirement date of January 1, 2008 plus his total contribution amount of 

$280.68. The plan further provided that, in the event of his death prior to 

January 1, 2008, Broussard’s designated beneficiary, Chetlin, would receive 

his $280.68 contribution plus interest. Broussard passed away in February 

2007, less than a year before his retirement date. 

In November 2012, Exxon sent a letter to Chetlin informing her that 

she was eligible for a refund of Broussard’s contribution plus interest. Chetlin 

responded to Exxon twice requesting information about his contribution but 

did not receive an immediate response. InAugust 2013, Exxon requested that 

Chetlin complete and return a form for a contribution refund along with 

Broussard’s death certificate. The parties then ceased communicating with 

each other.

Approximately six years later in May 2019, Chetlin filed suit in state 

court against Exxon claiming that she was wrongfully denied Broussard’s 

retirement benefits. Exxon removed to federal court based on ERISA 

preemption. Then in July 2019, Exxon sent Chetlin another letter denying 

her request for any benefits exceeding those detailed in its November 2012 

letter, explaining that she was only entitled to a refund of Broussard’s 

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641

3

contribution plus interest. Thus, Chetlin was due a lump sum payment of 

$3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019. Exxon explained that Chetlin was limited to 

Broussard’s contribution plus interest because he was divorced at his date of 

death and there was no Qualified Domestic Relations Order in place that 

would have provided her with a spouse’s benefit such as an annuity. The 

letter advised Chetlin that she had 60 days to appeal the benefits 

determination. She did not pursue an administrative appeal and instead filed 

this lawsuit.

Exxon filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not 

the proper defendant, that Chetlin failed to exhaust her administrative 

remedies, and that its denial of benefits determination was supported by the 

record and the terms of Broussard’s retirement plan. Chetlin responded that 

the terms Exxon claimed were in effect during Broussard’s employment were 

not and that the administrative record was likely incomplete. 

The magistrate judge issued a memorandum and recommendation to 

the district judge concluding that (1) Exxon was not the proper defendant and 

Chetlin’s claims against it could be dismissed on that basis; (2) because it 

took seven years for Exxon to provide Chetlin with the information and

documents she sought from the retirement plan and she had no other way to 

obtain the information needed to make a formal claim for benefits, she was 

excused on equitable grounds for failure to exhaust her administrative 

remedies; and (3) Exxon’s determination that Chetlin was limited to a refund 

of Broussard’s contribution plus interest was supported by the administrative 

record and the terms of the retirement plan. On these grounds, the magistrate 

judge recommended that Chetlin’s claims be dismissed with prejudice. 

The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s memorandum and 

recommendation, agreeing that the benefits decision was proper and 

supported by the administrative record. The court declined to decide, 

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641

4

however, whether Exxon was the proper defendant on the basis that it was 

not the only determinative issue in the proceedings. The court noted that 

Chetlin’s claim that the record was incomplete failed because she had the

opportunity to further develop the record but had not done so. Accordingly, 

because Chetlin failed to present any evidence beyond speculation as to the 

accuracy of the plan’s terms, her claims could not survive summary 

judgment. In light of this conclusion, the district court granted summary 

judgment in favor of Exxon and held that Chetlin was only entitled to a refund 

of Broussard’s contribution plus interest.

1

II. Standard of Review

We review grants of summary judgment de novo. West v. City of 

Houston, 960 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Petzold v. Rostollan, 946 

F.3d 242, 247 (5th Cir. 2019)). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the 

movant 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). 

Although the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party, it may not rely on “conclusional allegations and 

unsubstantiated assertions” as evidence. West, 960 F.3d at 740 (quoting

Carnaby v. City of Houston, 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 2011)).

III. Discussion

On appeal, Chetlin asserts that the district court erred in granting 

summary judgment because (1) there was a material dispute as to whether

Exxon is the proper defendant; (2) the ERISA benefits determination was 

1 As the district court noted, this amount totaled $3,311.96 as of August 1, 2019 and 

continues to accrue interest until Chetlin receives payment.

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/17/2021
No. 20-20641

5

incorrect; and (3) the administrative record was incomplete. We are 

unpersuaded by these arguments. 

As a preliminary matter, the district court declined to hold whether 

Exxon was the proper defendant in these proceedings because it could decide 

the case on the basis that the benefits decision was correct and supported by 

the administrative record. We agree with this reasoning. Although Chetlin 

disagrees with the benefits decision here, she has failed to present evidence 

negating its accuracy. She alleges that the record is “likely” incomplete but, 

as the district court observed, she had ample time to develop the record prior 

to summary judgment but failed to do so. Exxon provided Chetlin with a copy 

of the retirement plan and an explanation of benefits available to Chetlin 

based on Broussard’s contribution.2 Chetlin’s disagreement with Exxon’s

numbers is of no consequence because she provides no evidentiary support 

for her claim that the benefits determination is incorrect. Rather, she merely 

speculates that Exxon has not provided a complete and accurate record to 

support its calculations. As the district court properly concluded, that is not 

enough to survive summary judgment. See West, 960 F.3d at 740 

(“[C]onclusional allegations and unsubstantiated assertions may not be 

relied on as evidence by the nonmoving party.”). The district court did not 

err in granting summary judgment in favor of Exxon. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment is 

AFFIRMED.

2 Chetlin argues that the retirement plan that Exxon provided from July 1982 may 

not be the plan in place at the time of Broussard’s employment since he left Exxon in March 

of 1982. As the district court points out, however, Chetlin had the opportunity to resolve 

any discrepancies regarding the plan prior to summary judgment but failed to do so.

Case: 20-20641 Document: 00515904061 Page: 5 Date Filed: 06/17/2021