Court Opinion

ID: 9898697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 22:00:26.679817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:44.399945
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                        For the First Circuit

No. 22-1696

                         BONNIE DIXON-TRIBOU,

                        Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                  v.

                    DENIS RICHARD MCDONOUGH,
        Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,

                         Defendant, Appellee.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

              [Hon. Nancy Torresen, U.S. District Judge]

                                Before

                      Kayatta, Selya, and Gelpí,
                           Circuit Judges.

     Robert F. Stone and Law Office of Robert F. Stone on brief
for appellant.
     Darcie N. McElwee, United States Attorney, and James D.
Concannon, Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for
appellee.

                          November 14, 2023
           GELPÍ,    Circuit     Judge.         Plaintiff-Appellant          Bonnie

Dixon-Tribou        ("Dixon")          was      formerly          employed      by

Defendant-Appellee,     the     U.S.    Department    of    Veterans      Affairs

("VA"), as a nurse.    Following her removal from federal service in

November   2016,    Dixon   brought      suit   against     the    VA,    alleging

disability discrimination, among other claims.              Dixon appeals the

district court's decision granting the VA's motion for summary

judgment and denying her like motion.            For the reasons described

herein, we affirm.

                                I. Background

           When    reviewing    a    district    court's    entry    of    summary

judgment, we recite the facts in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant -- here,     Dixon -- "consistent          with   record       support."

Lahens v. AT&T Mobility P.R., Inc., 28 F.4th 325, 328 (1st Cir.

2022) (citations omitted).          We are careful, however, to omit from

our recitation those facts that the district court deemed excluded

for Dixon's failure to comply with Local Rule 56(f).1                 See id. at

     1 Despite our prior urging to comply with local anti-ferret
rules at summary judgment, see, e.g., López-Hernández v. Terumo
P.R. LLC, 64 F.4th 22, 25-27 (1st Cir. 2023), we are once again
faced with a litigant who failed to support her asserted facts
with appropriate citations to the record.     See Dixon-Tribou v.
McDonough, 616 F. Supp. 3d 38, 43 n.2 (D. Me. 2022). Accordingly,
the district court struck said facts for violating Local Rule
56(f).   Id.  The district court also noted that, because Dixon
filed no response to the VA's proposed additional facts, the VA's
additional facts were admitted for purposes of deciding Dixon's
summary judgment motion. Id. Our recitation of the facts accounts

                                       - 2 -
328 n.1 (omitting from discussion on appeal facts that the district

court excluded pursuant to Local Rule 56(e)).                Additionally,

because the extensive factual history is thoroughly detailed in

the district court's opinion, see Dixon-Tribou, 616 F. Supp. 3d at

43-51, we recite only the facts needed for purposes of the present

appeal.   See Dukes Bridge LLC v. Beinhocker, 856 F.3d 186, 187

(1st Cir. 2017).

                  A. Dixon's Employment with the VA

           Dixon began working for the VA as a floor nurse at the

Togus, Maine VA Medical Center ("Togus") in 2006.                  In 2007, a

patient injured Dixon, and she was thereafter assigned temporary

light duties.    In the latter part of 2008, treatment for Dixon's

work-related    injury   revealed    that   she   had   multiple    sclerosis

("MS").   One of the many symptoms of MS is heat intolerance, which

results in fatigue after exposure to elevated temperatures.             Dixon

felt that her light-duties restriction was not being honored in

her role as a floor nurse, so when offered a role in the Quality

Management Department, she accepted.

           In January 2015, the VA reassigned Dixon to the Patient

Care Services Department ("Non-VA Care Department"), where she

for the district court's decisions -- decisions that Dixon does
not challenge on appeal.
     Given that the failure to heed local rules at summary judgment
harms litigants and creates additional work for the district court,
see id. at 51 n.11, we continue to stress the importance of
compliance.

                                    - 3 -
processed referrals for patients to seek care outside of the VA

system. Dixon first began experiencing issues with the temperature

of her work environment shortly after she moved to her new office.

On July 8, 2015, she contacted Dustin Cochran ("Cochran"), Togus's

Reasonable   Accommodation   Coordinator,   about   the   temperature

issues.   Dixon provided Cochran with a letter from her doctor, Dr.

Paul Muscat, which stated that, as a result of Dixon's "long-

standing [MS]," she was "very sensitive to even moderately elevated

temperatures."    The letter stated that she "need[ed] a work

environment in which higher temperature [was] not a problem" and

asked the VA to "make every effort to accommodate this requirement

in any way that [it saw] fit."    The VA granted Dixon's reasonable

accommodation request on July 20, 2015, and arranged to move her

physical workspace to another office (room 218E) and to supply her

new room with an air conditioner, all of which the VA implemented

a few weeks later.

           Following Dixon's move to room 218E, Dixon reported

continued temperature control issues, as well as interpersonal

conflicts with her officemates over the temperature of the space.

Then, on March 4, 2016, Dr. Muscat submitted a second reasonable

accommodation request to Cochran on Dixon's behalf.       Dr. Muscat

requested that Dixon be allowed to telework to enable her to take

medication, which would relieve her pain symptoms, and to help

meet Dixon's existing reasonable accommodation for temperature

                                 - 4 -
control.     After receiving the request, Cochran emailed Dr. Ray

Lash seeking his medical opinion on the accommodation request.

Dr. Lash responded that he "believe[d] there [wa]s some degree of

potential for improvement in her function with strict management

of temperature control and work conditions" and that "one could

make   a   reasonable   case   to   consider    a   trial   of   strict   home

temperature control as a means of managing her symptoms and ability

to function in her work."           Per Cochran, he had a follow up

conversation with Dr. Lash where it was decided that "a reasonable

trial would be a [six]-month period in which [Dixon] could telework

up to two days a week based on her symptoms."           On March 28, 2016,

the VA approved Dixon's second accommodation request -- insofar as

she was permitted to telework two days per week -- and committed

to providing her a new workspace that met all of her needs.                  By

late April 2016, Dixon was teleworking per her accommodation and

had a new private office located in Quarters 32.

            Then, in summer 2016, Corey Vail ("Vail"), Dixon's then-

supervisor, received several reports from employees that Dixon was

in the community garden during work hours.           An internal review of

her computer revealed that Dixon was logged off of her work

computer for more than two hours per day on twenty-eight separate

occasions during a five-month period.          On September 21, 2016, Vail

proposed Dixon's removal from federal service for "failure to put

forth an honest effort in the performance of [her] duties."               Dixon

                                    - 5 -
then   submitted      a   third     reasonable   accommodation       request   on

September 27, 2016, seeking full-time telework.                 On October 26,

2016, Dixon met with Alan Lane, another Reasonable Accommodations

Coordinator,     to       discuss     her   request.          Following    their

conversation, Jonathan Meserve, Director of Human Resources, sent

Dixon a letter proposing an accommodation and seeking feedback.

On November 3, 2016, however, the VA informed Dixon that she was

removed from federal service, effective November 12, 2016.

           On   January 26,         2017,   Dixon   applied    for    disability

retirement with the U.S. Office of Personnel Management ("OPM")

pursuant to the Federal Employees Retirement System ("FERS"),

claiming that the VA removed her from federal service due to her

disability.     After initially denying her application, OPM granted

Dixon disability retirement in May 2019.

                 B. Dixon's Administrative Complaints

           On March 17, 2016, while still employed with the VA,

Dixon began the administrative process for filing a discrimination

claim by contacting a VA Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

("EEOC") counselor.        Then, on June 22, 2016, Dixon filed a formal

complaint of employment discrimination, which the VA's Office of

Resolution Management ("ORM") partially accepted for investigation

on August 22, 2016.         Specifically, ORM agreed to investigate the

following: (1) the VA's alleged failure to comply with Dixon's

reasonable accommodation for temperature control, (2) the VA's

                                       - 6 -
alleged denial of her March 2016 request for full-time telework,

and (3) the VA's increases in Dixon's workload from May 2016 to

July 2016. Approximately a month after ORM accepted Dixon's claims

for   investigation,   the   VA   proposed   her   removal   from   federal

service.

           After her removal, on January 26, 2017, Dixon moved to

amend her formal discrimination complaint to include a promotion

that she did not receive in February 2014, her transfer to the

Non-VA Care Department in January 2015, and her removal from

federal service in November 2016.      About a month later, ORM denied

Dixon's amendment request, explaining that her first and third

proposed additional claims could proceed as a separate complaint

but that her second claim was untimely and thus dismissed because

she failed to contact an EEOC counselor within forty-five days of

her transfer.     On June 6, 2017, Dixon filed a second formal

complaint of discrimination based on: (1) her non-promotion in

2014, (2) the VA's failure to accommodate her disability, and

(3) her 2016 removal from service -- all of which were accepted

for investigation by ORM. ORM concluded both of its investigations

by October 24, 2017, and the complaints proceeded to a hearing in

front of an EEOC administrative law judge.         On August 1, 2019, the

EEOC administrative law judge granted the VA's motion for summary

                                   - 7 -
judgment, which became final on August 6, 2019, when the VA

accepted the decision and issued its final agency decision.

                  C. Proceedings Before the District Court

             Dixon filed the underlying complaint on November 8,

2019, in the United States District Court for the District of

Massachusetts,       raising    the    following       claims:    (1) disability

discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"); (2) hostile

work environment under the RA and Americans with Disabilities Act;

(3) retaliation in violation of Title VII; and (4) failure to

accommodate under the RA.         The case was transferred to the United

States District Court for the District of Maine in October 2020.

There, during a Local Rule 56(h) conference, Dixon clarified that

all of her claims were based on the RA, not Title VII.                        Both

parties moved for summary judgment in February 2022.

             On    July 13,    2022,   in   a   very   thorough    opinion,    the

district court granted summary judgment in favor of the VA on all

counts and denied Dixon's like motion.            Dixon-Tribou, 616 F. Supp.

3d at 63.     In reaching said conclusion, the district court found

that, even if Dixon had met the prima facie burden of establishing

her disability discrimination and retaliation claims, Dixon failed

to offer evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that

the   VA's    nondiscriminatory         reasons    for     its    actions     were

pretextual.       Id. at 57-58.   As to Dixon's hostile work environment

claim, the district court concluded that Dixon failed to present

                                       - 8 -
evidence     establishing        that    the     conduct      she     endured     was

"sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of her

employment" and that she failed to "offer[] any evidence that any

harassment    that   she    suffered      occurred       as   a     result   of   her

disability."     Id. at 60-61.          Finally, as to Dixon's failure to

accommodate    claim,      the    district       court     concluded     that     "no

reasonable juror could find that the VA failed to provide for a

reasonable accommodation," despite the occasional shortcomings in

achieving temperature control.             Id. at 61-62.            After entry of

summary judgment in favor of the VA, Dixon appealed.

                           II. Standard of Review

            We review a district court's order granting summary

judgment de novo.    Lahens, 28 F.4th at 333.             To prevail at summary

judgment, a movant "must demonstrate that 'there is no genuine

dispute as to any material fact' and [that they are] 'entitled to

judgment as a matter of law.'"                 Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a)).    The standard remains the same when the district court is

faced with cross-motions for summary judgment.                       See Dusel v.

Factory Mut. Ins. Co., 52 F.4th 495, 503 (1st Cir. 2022) (citation

omitted).     While we must consider the record and the reasonable

inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the

nonmovant, we need not credit "conclusory allegations, improbable

inferences, and unsupported speculation."                Lahens, 28 F.4th at 333

                                        - 9 -
(quoting Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Tr. Co., 721 F.3d 1, 6-

7 (1st Cir. 2013)).

                                 III. Analysis

            At the outset, we note that Dixon's challenges on appeal

differ    from   our   typical    summary    judgment   review.    With   one

exception, which we ultimately reject, Dixon does not point to

factual   disputes     precluding    summary    judgment.    Nor   does   she

directly take issue with the district court's conclusion that the

VA was entitled to summary judgment on each of her four claims.

Instead, Dixon argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction

at summary judgment to review the facts underlying her claims,

that the district court should have precluded the VA from raising

certain arguments on appeal, and that the district court improperly

resolved a factual dispute at summary judgment and overlooked

specific pieces of evidence in reaching its decision.              Although

Dixon's briefing is not a beacon of clarity, we do our best to

address the claims raised, as we understand them.             We begin with

her argument that the district court lacked jurisdiction.

                          A. Jurisdiction Claim

            Dixon devotes most of her briefing to arguing that OPM's

disability retirement decision is "final," "conclusive," and "not

subject to review," meaning, per Dixon, that the district court

lacked jurisdiction to review the facts related to OPM's disability

                                    - 10 -
determination at summary judgment.2          Dixon grounds her argument in

5 U.S.C. § 8461(d), which states in part:               "The Office shall

determine questions of disability and dependency arising under the

provisions of this chapter administered by the Office.            Except to

the extent provided under subsection (e), the decisions of the

Office concerning these matters are final and conclusive and are

not subject to review."3       Setting aside for a moment the question

of what OPM        actually   decided when it granted her disability

retirement, Dixon's jurisdictional argument is foreclosed by the

plain text of the statute.         "[A]rising under . . . this chapter,"

as used in Section 8461(d), clearly refers to Chapter 84 of Title

5   of     the   United   States   Code,   entitled   "Federal   Employees'

Retirement System," where the statute at issue is housed.            There

is no suggestion that the statute has force outside of the FERS

context, and, notably, Dixon cites no support for her assertion

that Section 8461(d) applies to claims arising under the RA.

         2 Sandwiched
                  into Dixon's jurisdictional argument is her claim
that the VA lacked standing to challenge OPM's disability decision.
For the reasons we set forth in the opinion, the OPM's disability
decision does not alter the outcome of our inquiry.
     3 Dixon's motion for summary judgment erroneously cited 5

U.S.C. § 8347, which applies to Civil Service disability
retirement. Giving Dixon the benefit of the doubt, the district
court considered her jurisdictional claim under Section 8461, the
analogous FERS statute. See Dixon-Tribou, 616 F. Supp. 3d at 53
n.13. Dixon attempts, somewhat confusingly, to assign error based
on the district court's decision, despite citing to Section 8461
herself on appeal. We need not dwell on this issue given that
neither statute gets Dixon where she wants to go.

                                    - 11 -
            In fact, the cases cited by Dixon work against her.         In

Anthony v. Office of Personal Management, the Federal Circuit

explicitly stated that "Section 8461 of Title 5 . . . sets out

OPM's authority to administer FERS benefits."            58 F.3d 620, 624

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).         Further, each case that Dixon

cites for the premise that Section 8461(d) circumscribes judicial

review involved an appeal from the denial of retirement benefits

under FERS, not claims of employment discrimination.            See Alston

v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 527 F. App'x 872, 874 (Fed. Cir. 2013)

(per curiam) (considering appeal from the denial of plaintiff's

"application for disability retirement under FERS"); Black v. Off.

of Pers. Mgmt., 250 F. App'x 343, 344 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (per curiam)

(reviewing    appeal   related    to   plaintiff's       FERS   disability

retirement application); Grayton v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt., 136

F. App'x 364, 365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (deciding appeal

pertaining to the denial of FERS disability retirement benefits);

Anthony, 58 F.3d at 622 (affirming the denial of FERS disability

benefits).      The    district    court     correctly    concluded   that

Section 8461(d) did not bar its review of Dixon's claims at summary

judgment.

                         B. Preclusion Claim

            Dixon next argues, in a similar vein, that the district

court erred by not giving OPM's disability retirement decision

                                  - 12 -
preclusive effect against the VA.4   According to Dixon, for OPM to

grant her disability retirement, it necessarily found that Dixon

"was in a position where her disabling MS . . . could not be

reasonably accommodated, and that her work deficiencies were due

to lack of accommodations."   She further argues that, because OPM

found that her work deficiencies were disability-related and not

due to her failure to put forth an honest effort in her work, the

district court should have precluded the VA from arguing that she

was removed for "work dishonesty."

          Dixon's preclusion argument is a nonstarter.   First, "a

party asserting preclusion must carry the burden of establishing

all necessary elements."   Puerto Ricans for P.R. Party v. Dalmau,

544 F.3d 58, 70 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 Charles Alan Wright &

     4 Before the district court and on appeal, Dixon cites the
doctrine of res judicata as the basis for her preclusion argument.
"Res   judicata -- also   known   as  claim   preclusion -- is   a
longstanding legal doctrine that 'a final judgment on the merits
of an action precludes the parties from relitigating claims that
were or could have been raised in the prior action.'"      Rivera-
Rosario v. LSREF2 Island Holdings, Ltd., Inc., 79 F.4th 1, 2 (1st
Cir. 2023) (quoting Haag v. United States, 589 F.3d 43, 45 (1st
Cir. 2009)). Given that Dixon's preclusion argument pertains to
issues that she claims the VA should have been barred from
relitigating, we assume she intended to ground her argument in
collateral estoppel -- also known as issue preclusion.        This
doctrine provides that "[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually
litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the
determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is
conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on
the same or a different claim." Ríos–Piñeiro v. United States,
713 F.3d 688, 691-92 (1st Cir. 2013) (emphasis omitted) (quoting
Mihos v. Swift, 358 F.3d 91, 101 (1st Cir. 2004)).

                              - 13 -
Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4405, at 83 (2d

ed. 2002)).     Dixon made no meaningful effort to do so before the

district court, instead relying on her own conclusory assertions

about what OPM decided and her assumptions about the basis for its

decision.     The only evidence that she offered as to OPM's decision

was a letter stating that she was entitled to disability retirement

under FERS.     The district court correctly noted that it contained

"no factual findings or legal conclusions of any kind."           Dixon-

Tribou, 616 F. Supp. 3d at 53.        Among other deficiencies, Dixon

failed to put forth any facts from which it could be determined

that the parties "actually litigated" the issues as to which she

seeks preclusion, see Ríos–Piñeiro, 713 F.3d at 692 (quoting Mihos,

358 F.3d at 101), or that OPM "[wa]s acting in a judicial capacity"

when it made its decision, see id. at 691-92 (quoting United States

v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966)). Dixon's

position that the OPM awarded her benefits based in part on a

finding that her disability could not be reasonably accommodated

would, if accepted, provide yet another basis for challenging her

foundational contention in this case that the VA should be held

liable for failing to provide a reasonable accommodation.             See

Pena v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 923 F.3d 18, 27 (1st Cir. 2019).

Given   the    shortcomings   of   Dixon's   preclusion   argument,   the

district court did not err in rejecting her attempt to oppose the

VA's motion for summary judgment on this basis.

                                   - 14 -
                       C. Other Claims of Error

           Finally, Dixon takes aim at the district court's summary

judgment decision by pointing to an alleged factual dispute that

she claims should have foreclosed summary judgment, as well as

evidence allegedly overlooked by the district court.            We begin

with Dixon's disputed-facts claim.

         1. Alleged Conflict Between Cochran and Dr. Lash

           Dixon argues that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment to the VA because there was a dispute of material

fact between Cochran and Dr. Lash as to the reasonableness of

Dixon's March 2016 telework request.       According to Dixon, Dr. Lash

opined   that   her   full-time   telework   request   was    reasonable.

However, Cochran claimed that Dr. Lash recommended only two days

of telework per week on a six-month trial basis.             Dixon argues

that the district court erred by intruding on the role of a jury

and resolving this factual dispute at summary judgment.

           We need not dive into the issue of materiality -- whether

a fact "has the potential of affecting the outcome of the case,"

Taite v. Bridgewater State Univ., Bd. of Trs., 999 F.3d 86, 93

(1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Pérez-Cordero v. Wal-Mart P.R., Inc., 656

F.3d 19, 25 (1st Cir. 2011)) -- given that the conflict Dixon

points to is nonexistent.     While Dixon is correct that Dr. Lash

stated that a trial of telework was reasonable to manage her MS

symptoms, there is no evidence of him opining on the frequency of

                                  - 15 -
said telework.      In fact, Dixon's second reasonable accommodation

request, which Dr. Lash reviewed, does not specify that she was

seeking   to    telework   full-time.      Further   undercutting   Dixon's

argument is the fact that Dr. Lash, during a conversation with the

ORM investigator, stated that he could "not recall who said what

pertaining to the actual number of days that [Dixon] would be

permitted to telework on a trial basis."             Contrary to Dixon's

claim, there is no record support for her assertion that Dr. Lash

approved her to telework full-time and thus no factual dispute

between Dr. Lash and Cochran precluding summary judgment.

            Dixon also appears to argue that the district court erred

by not construing the facts related to the reasonableness of her

telework request in the light most favorable to her.          She asserts

that the district court erred when it credited Cochran's statement

that Dr. Lash recommended two days of telework per week, as opposed

to drawing the more favorable inference that he approved full-time

telework.      As explained above, the record does not support Dixon's

claim that Dr. Lash ever endorsed a full-time telework request.

Additionally, Dixon's argument misconstrues the district court's

recitation of the facts.      Contrary to Dixon's claim, the district

court stated that "Dr. Lash recommended 'a trial of strict home

temperature control' but did not specify how many days he thought

Ms. Dixon-Tribou should be permitted to telework."          Dixon-Tribou,

                                  - 16 -
616 F. Supp. 3d at 46 (emphasis added).               We turn next to her

overlooked-facts arguments.

          2. Dixon's Transfer to the Non-VA Care Department

              Dixon's   next   contention    on    appeal   relates      to    her

transfer to the Non-VA Care Department in January 2015.                       Dixon

asserts that the district court failed to consider the implications

of her transfer, namely, that the VA moved her from a position

where her MS was accommodated to one where it was not.              Dixon does

not spell out the significance that she wishes us to attach to

this asserted fact, nor how it applies to her claims.                Assuming,

as the VA did, that she would like us to consider her 2015 transfer

as the withdrawal of a reasonable accommodation, thus constituting

an adverse act by the VA, Dixon faces two problems.                 First, the

district court did not "overlook" Dixon's 2015 transfer.                 During

a Local Rule 56(h) conference prior to summary judgment, the

district court sought clarification on the adverse actions on which

Dixon was relying.        See Dixon-Tribou, 616 F. Supp. 3d at 57 n.20.

Dixon identified three allegedly adverse actions, none of which

involved her 2015 transfer.         As such, the district court did not

consider said transfer because the court "t[ook] her at her word."

See id.       Second, as the district court correctly noted, Dixon

failed to contact an EEOC counselor within forty-five days of her

transfer to the Non-VA Care Department.             See id.    Per ORM, said

claim   was    untimely    raised   and   thus    barred.     See   29    C.F.R.

                                    - 17 -
§§ 1614.105(a)(1), 1614.107(a)(2); Velazquez-Rivera v. Danzig, 234

F.3d 790, 794 (1st Cir. 2000) (explaining that "administrative

remedies   had   not   been    exhausted"   where    plaintiff   failed   to

"contact . . . an [EEOC] counselor within 45 days, as required by

29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1)").      Given Dixon's representation to the

district court about the adverse acts underlying her claims and

her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to

her 2015 transfer, the district court did not err in excluding her

transfer from its summary judgment analysis.

                       3. Melina Leland Statement

           Finally,    Dixon     contends   that     the   district   court

overlooked evidence establishing that the VA did not reasonably

accommodate her with temperature control of seventy-one degrees or

less.   Specifically, Dixon points to a statement from her former

coworker, Melina Leland ("Leland"), which states that "[o]n the

days the office was 75-76 degrees, [Dixon] seemed to have some

difficulty focusing and moving from one system to another.                The

days that it was 69-71, she was able to quickly process her

referrals and didn't need my assistance."           While Dixon criticizes

the district court for failing to consider Leland's statement,

Dixon failed to cite said statement in her opposition to the VA's

motion for summary judgment.        We have previously explained that

"litigants ignore [local summary judgment rules] at their peril,"

Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 486 F.3d 1, 7 (1st

                                   - 18 -
Cir. 2007), and that it is not the job of the district court to

"perus[e] through the summary judgment record in search of disputed

material    facts,"    López-Hernández,      64   F.4th    at   26   (citation

omitted).    As such, Dixon cannot fault the district court for

failing to consider a fact that she herself failed to put properly

before it.    See Cabán Hernández, 486 F.3d at 8 (explaining that

appellate review is limited to determining "whether the district

court appropriately granted summary judgment based on the facts as

set forth in [the relevant] moving papers").5             We find no error on

the part of the district court here.

                                 IV. Conclusion

            Having    dispensed     with   Dixon's   claims     of   error   and

discerning   none     in   the    district   court's   meticulous      summary

judgment decision, we affirm.

     5 Even if Dixon properly raised Leland's statement before the
district court, Dixon fails to explain on appeal how consideration
of the statement would change the summary judgment calculus. The
district court, in its analysis of Dixon's failure to accommodate
claim, credited her contention that the accommodations provided by
the VA sometimes fell short, including the VA's efforts to achieve
temperature control. Dixon-Tribou, 616 F. Supp. 3d at 61. The
district court noted, however, that the VA made reasonable efforts
to accommodate Dixon and that she "point[ed] to no authority for
the idea that an employer is liable for imperfect accommodations."
Id.   Given that Dixon does not challenge the district court's
conclusion that imperfect accommodations made in good faith are
not "legally deficient," id., we fail to see how consideration of
Leland's statement moves the needle.

                                    - 19 -