Court Opinion

ID: 9928213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 01:00:38.617695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:51:18.472724
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10806        Document: 00517050280             Page: 1      Date Filed: 01/30/2024

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 23-10806
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                               January 30, 2024
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Phile Andra Watson,                                                                Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   FedEx Express,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 3:22-CV-1738
                     ______________________________

   Before Davis, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Plaintiff-Appellant, Phile Andra Watson, appeals the district court’s
   dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) of his
   discrimination and retaliation claims against his former employer, Federal
   Express (“FedEx”). We AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10806      Document: 00517050280           Page: 2    Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                     No. 23-10806

                                          I.
          Watson alleges the following in his operative complaint, which we
   must accept as true at the pleadings stage: Watson worked for FedEx between
   2019 and 2020. Beginning in February of 2019, two FedEx employees
   harassed Watson on account of his status as a veteran. Watson tried to report
   the harassment to his manager but was unable to file a complaint. As a result
   of his attempt to report the “veteran status harassment,” FedEx’s human
   resources department suspended Watson. When Watson returned from his
   suspension, he continued to experience worsening harassment from his co-
   workers, which caused him to experience anxiety, panic attacks, and
   ultimately to fear for his life. In April of 2019, Watson took a leave of absence
   because of his deteriorating mental health.
          From May through October of 2019, after being cleared by his doctor,
   Watson repeatedly attempted to return to work, but each time FedEx refused
   to terminate his leave of absence. Specifically, one advisor, Myriam Rayne,
   required Watson to complete his psychiatric treatments before she would
   permit him to return to work. On October 9, 2019, FedEx approved Watson
   to return to work, even though Watson was “under some strong meds.”
   Upon Watson’s return, Rayne continued to harass him and disclosed his
   confidential medical information to FedEx’s management. On December 2,
   2019, Watson met with his manager to discuss his complaints regarding sex
   discrimination, retaliation, harassment, and favoritism, but these complaints
   were ultimately ignored. He additionally had meetings with his supervisors
   about his poor attendance record and performance.
          On December 13, Watson had a meeting with management during
   which he explained his need for an accommodation and recounted the
   instances of “[h]arassment, [d]iscrimination/unfairness, [and] retaliation”
   that he continued to experience. During this meeting, Watson was granted

                                          2
Case: 23-10806     Document: 00517050280           Page: 3   Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                    No. 23-10806

   an accommodation for his insomnia and was transferred to the “heavyweight
   department” for the early evening shift. Despite this agreement, by January
   7, 2020, Watson still had not received the job accommodation promised to
   him, and instead his supervisors modified the accommodated position in an
   effort to make Watson’s life and job harder.
          Throughout the following month and a half, Watson had various
   disputes with his supervisors about his attendance. The emotional stress of
   the situation resulted in Watson checking back into the hospital for anxiety,
   depression, and insomnia.      In February of 2020, FedEx investigated
   Watson’s attendance, and ultimately terminated Watson for his allegedly
   poor performance and attendance.
          Following his termination, Watson, proceeding pro se, sued FedEx in
   federal district court, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities
   Act of 1990 (“ADA”) for a hostile work environment, disability
   discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation.              Watson
   subsequently requested leave to file an amended complaint which reasserted
   his prior claims and added a claim for discrimination based on his status as a
   military veteran. The district court granted Watson’s motion but limited his
   proposed amended complaint—which included over 300 pages—to only his
   “factual allegations without attached emails, communications, and other
   documents.”
          FedEx moved to dismiss Watson’s amended complaint under Rule
   12(b)(6). The magistrate judge recommended the dismissal of Watson’s
   claims with prejudice, reasoning that the court had already granted Watson

                                         3
Case: 23-10806           Document: 00517050280              Page: 4       Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                            No. 23-10806

   leave to amend and that he had pleaded his “best case.” 1 In so concluding,
   the magistrate judge did not consider attachments to Watson’s opposition
   because they were outside the pleadings and not central to his claims. The
   district court accepted the magistrate judge’s recommendation, and
   overruled Watson’s objections. Watson filed a timely notice of appeal.
                                                  II.
           We review a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to
   state a claim de novo, accepting as true “all well-pled facts” and “construing
   all reasonable inferences in the complaint in the light most favorable to the
   plaintiff.” 2      “But we do not accept as true conclusory allegations,
   unwarranted factual inferences, or legal conclusions.” 3 To withstand a
   motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible
   on its face.” 4
           Although we construe a pro se litigant’s brief liberally, the litigant
   “must still brief the issues and reasonably comply with the standards of Rule
   28” of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 5 Watson’s brief on appeal
   consists of disjointed allegations, record citations to documents excluded by
   the district court, and conclusory statements that FedEx violated the law.
   However, construed liberally, we understand Watson to contend the district

           _____________________
           1
             A “district court does not err in dismissing a pro se complaint with prejudice if
   the court determines the plaintiff has alleged his best case.” Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d
   322, 327 (5th Cir. 1999) (per curiam) (citation omitted).
           2
               White v. U.S. Corr., L.L.C., 996 F.3d 302, 306–07 (5th Cir. 2021) (citations
   omitted).
           3
             Heinze v. Tesco Corp., 971 F.3d 475, 479 (5th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks
   and citation omitted).
           4
               Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
           5
               Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (citation omitted).

                                                   4
Case: 23-10806         Document: 00517050280                Page: 5       Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                           No. 23-10806

   court erred in dismissing his ADA claims for discrimination, hostile work
   environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. As such, we limit our
   review to the district court’s dismissal of these claims,6 and conclude that the
   court correctly held that Watson failed to state a claim under the ADA.
           As it pertains to Watson’s discrimination claim, the district court held
   that his amended complaint did not plausibly allege any of the elements of a
   prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA. 7 On appeal, Watson again
   asserts that FedEx discriminated against him, but fails to identify any
   particular error in the district court’s analysis. By failing to brief any
   challenge to the district court’s reasoning for dismissing his discrimination
   claim, Watson has waived any such argument. 8
           We next consider Watson’s hostile-work-environment claim. “To
   establish a hostile-work-environment claim under the ADA, [Watson] must

           _____________________
           6
             See Norris v. Causey, 869 F.3d 360, 373 n.10 (5th Cir. 2017) (noting that “a failure
   to adequately brief an issue constitutes abandonment” (citing Weaver v. Puckett, 896 F.2d
   126, 128 (5th Cir. 1990))); Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (requiring
   even pro se litigants to brief arguments in order to preserve them).
           7
              Under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework for cases relying on
   circumstantial evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of
   discrimination by showing: “(1) that he has a disability; (2) that he was qualified for the job;
   [and] (3) that he was subject to an adverse employment decision on account of his
   disability.” E.E.O.C. v. LHC Grp., Inc., 773 F.3d 688, 697 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted). Although Watson “did not have to submit evidence
   to establish a prima facie case of discrimination at th[e motion to dismiss] stage, he had to
   plead sufficient facts on all of the ultimate elements of a disparate treatment claim to make
   his case plausible.” Chhim v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin, 836 F.3d 467, 470 (5th Cir. 2016) (per
   curiam) (citations omitted).
           8
              Norris, 869 F.3d at 373 n.10; see also Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff
   Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (holding that a pro se litigant’s brief that recited
   the “familiar rules governing our review of summary judgments, without even the slightest
   identification of any error in [the district court’s] legal analysis or its application to
   [plaintiff’s] suit . . . is the same as if he had not appealed that judgment”).

                                                  5
Case: 23-10806          Document: 00517050280              Page: 6       Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                           No. 23-10806

   show that: (1) he belongs to a protected group, (2) was subject to unwelcome
   harassment (3) based on his disability, (4) which affected a term, condition,
   or privilege of employment, and (5) [FedEx] knew or should have known of
   the harassment and failed to take prompt, remedial action.” 9 The alleged
   harassment “must be sufficiently pervasive or severe to alter the conditions
   of employment and create an abusive working environment.” 10                          In
   determining whether the alleged harassment is “sufficiently pervasive or
   severe,” this Court considers several factors, including “the frequency of the
   discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or
   humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably
   interferes with an employee’s work performance.” 11
          The district court dismissed Watson’s hostile-work-environment
   claim on the grounds that his amended complaint provided “no specific
   instances of harassment” and therefore included no detail on “the severity
   or pervasiveness of harassment by employees.” On appeal, Watson disputes
   this conclusion, asserting that “two peers” harassed him and that the
   harassment was “severe or pervasive (toxic work environment).”
          As recognized by the district court, Watson’s complaint recites the
   elements of a hostile-work-environment claim, but crucially lacks any factual
   allegations pertaining to the underlying instances of harassment. Rather than
   identifying the relevant conduct, Watson’s complaint vaguely refers to “the
   harassment” or “[h]arassment (Performance).” Because Watson has failed
   to allege any specific instance of harassment, and instead relies on

          _____________________
          9
               Thompson v. Microsoft Corp., 2 F.4th 460, 470–71 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation
   omitted).
          10
               Id. at 471 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
          11
               Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

                                                  6
Case: 23-10806       Document: 00517050280             Page: 7      Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                        No. 23-10806

   “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual
   conclusions,” he has not stated a plausible claim for relief. 12 The district
   court did not err in dismissing Watson’s hostile-work-environment claim.
          Next, Watson appeals the dismissal of his failure-to-accommodate
   claim, asserting that FedEx “[n]eglected” his request for a reasonable
   accommodation. “To establish a failure to accommodate claim, the plaintiff
   must show that: (1) the plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2)
   the disability and its consequential limitations were known by the covered
   employer; and (3) the employer failed to make reasonable accommodations
   for such known limitations.” 13 In his complaint, Watson asserts that he is
   disabled on account of his “[a]nxiety/stress/depression, [and] insomnia,”
   and that FedEx was aware of this disability.              However, his complaint
   concedes that FedEx granted him an accommodation—an early evening
   shift—and that he “was granted the accommodation [the] same day 12-13-
   19.” Confusingly, Watson’s complaint elsewhere asserts that his managers
   “ignored the reasonable accommodation,” and delayed providing him the
   accommodated position for months.
           The district court reasoned that in light of Watson’s admission that
   he received an accommodation, his “conflicting allegations do not evince
   conduct to plausibly allege that FedEx acted in bad faith or that there was
   unreasonable delay in providing any accommodation,” and Watson failed to
   “provide any factual support to show his accommodation was
   unreasonable.”      We agree.       Watson’s assertions in his complaint and
   appellate brief regarding his failure-to-accommodate claim are contradictory
           _____________________
          12
             Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).
          13
             Patton v. Jacobs Eng’g Grp., Inc., 874 F.3d 437, 442 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal
   quotation marks and citation omitted).

                                              7
Case: 23-10806          Document: 00517050280                Page: 8       Date Filed: 01/30/2024

                                            No. 23-10806

   and largely incomprehensible. And even liberally construed, Watson’s
   allegations are wholly conclusory and devoid of the factual allegations
   necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss. 14 Accordingly, the district court
   correctly dismissed Watson’s failure-to-accommodate claim.
           Finally, we address Watson’s retaliation claim. “To establish a prima
   facie case of retaliation under the ADA . . . , a plaintiff must show that (1) []he
   participated in an activity protected under the statute; (2) h[is] employer
   took an adverse employment action against h[im]; and (3) a causal connection
   exists between the protected activity and the adverse action.” 15 The district
   court dismissed Watson’s retaliation claim because he did not plausibly
   allege a causal connection between his alleged protected activity and his
   termination.
           In his amended complaint, Watson states that he was “terminated for
   poor Attendance.” And, although Watson’s complaint labeled various other
   communications and actions by his supervisors as “retaliation,” he failed to
   include the factual details necessary to plausibly show a causal connection
   between his protected activities and alleged adverse employment actions.
   Accordingly, Watson has not plausibly alleged an ADA retaliation claim.
           Based on the foregoing, the district court’s judgment is
   AFFIRMED.

           _____________________
           14
               See Doe v. Robertson, 751 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 2014) (“A complaint must fail if
   it offers only naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement.” (internal quotation
   marks and citation omitted)).
           15
              Feist v. La., Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d 450, 454 (5th Cir. 2013)
   (citations omitted).

                                                   8