Court Opinion

ID: 9402426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 18:00:27.964787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:59.574155
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30767        Document: 00516787873             Page: 1      Date Filed: 06/15/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                     ____________
                                                                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                        Fifth Circuit
                                      No. 22-30767
                                    Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                    ____________                                  June 15, 2023
                                                                                 Lyle W. Cayce
   Cardell Bright,                                                                    Clerk

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Willy J. Martin, Sheriff, St. James Parish,

                                               Defendant—Appellee.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:20-CV-3232
                     ______________________________

   Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Carvell Bright appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment
   for Willy J. Martin on Bright’s failure-to-accommodate claim. We
   AFFIRM.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30767          Document: 00516787873              Page: 2     Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                          No. 22-30767

          Plaintiff-Appellant Carvell Bright 1 was employed as a sergeant at the
   St. James Parish Jail until his employment was terminated on April 21, 2020.
   On November 27, he filed a complaint, which he subsequently amended
   twice. As relevant to this appeal, he brought a failure-to-accommodate claim
   under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) arising out of events on
   April 16, 2020. Bright’s alleged disability is rectal distress following
   numerous surgeries from over twenty years ago. He alleges that he sought
   and was denied a request to abandon his post to soothe his rectal pain before
   he could be relieved by another officer. The district court granted summary
   judgment for Defendant-Appellee Sheriff Willy J. Martin on Bright’s ADA
   claim. Bright appeals.
          We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and apply the same
   standards as the district court. Yogi Metals Grp., Inc. v. Garland, 38 F.4th 455,
   458 (5th Cir. 2022). “To prevail on a failure-to-accommodate claim, the
   plaintiff must show ‘(1) [he] 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.’” Moss v. Harris Cnty.
   Constable Precinct One, 851 F.3d 413, 417 (5th Cir. 2017) (alteration in
   original) (quoting Feist v. La., Dep’t of Just., Off. of the Att’y Gen., 730 F.3d
   450, 452 (5th Cir. 2013)). “Plaintiffs ordinarily satisfy the knowledge element
   by showing that they identified their disabilities as well as the resulting
   limitations to a public entity or its employees and requested an accommodation
   in direct and specific terms.” Smith v. Harris Cnty., 956 F.3d 311, 317 (5th Cir.
   2020) (emphasis added). “When a plaintiff fails to request an
   accommodation in this manner, he can prevail only by showing that ‘the

          _____________________
          1
              The case caption mistakenly lists Bright’s first name as “Cardell.”

                                                     2
Case: 22-30767         Document: 00516787873                Page: 3       Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                           No. 22-30767

   disability, resulting limitation, and necessary reasonable accommodation’
   were ‘open, obvious, and apparent’ to the entity’s relevant agents.” Id. at
   317–18 (quoting Windham v. Harris Cnty., 875 F.3d 229, 237 (5th Cir. 2017)).
           Bright’s failure-to-accommodate claim fails because he cannot show
   that he actually requested the accommodation he now alleges. 2 On April 16,
   Bright phoned his supervisor, Cathlyn McKarry, and told her that he was
   sick. She replied by telling him to call his co-worker John Falgoust to come
   relieve him. But Bright did not make a request to leave prior to Falgoust
   coming to replace him—in other words, he did not make the specific
   accommodation that he claims he was denied. 3 Although an employee need
   not use a specific phrase to request an accommodation, this does not obviate
   the need for an employee to directly make a request for the specific
   accommodation of an employer in the first instance. See Clark v. Champion
   Nat’l Sec., Inc., 952 F.3d 570, 587 (5th Cir. 2020) (failure-to-accommodate
   claim fails because plaintiff did not meet his burden to request an
   accommodation); Smith, 956 F.3d at 317 (request must be in “direct and
   specific terms”). Based on the record evidence, no reasonable person would
   believe that Bright’s communications to McKarry contained the specific
   accommodation that he now alleges he was refused. Bright alleges that he
   stated to McKarry that he “can’t stay” and had “to go.” But at best, such
   language suggests merely that he was uncomfortable and that he needed to
           _____________________
           2
            Bright does not argue that his requested accommodation was so obvious that he
   did not need to make the request. In any case, we do not think that Bright’s proffered
   accommodation—leaving his post prior to his replacement’s arrival—was sufficiently
   obvious here.
           3
              Although Bright repeatedly references a second conversation with McKarry
   where she told him to “[t]ake care of yourself,” he has provided no evidence to refute the
   call logs produced by Martin showing that said call did not occur. Such unsubstantiated
   assertions do not raise a genuine factual dispute. See Rogers v. Jarrett, 63 F.4th 971, 975 (5th
   Cir. 2023).

                                                      3
Case: 22-30767    Document: 00516787873         Page: 4   Date Filed: 06/15/2023

                                 No. 22-30767

   leave early, not that he needed to leave immediately or prior to his
   replacement’s arrival. His claim that Martin impermissibly denied such a
   request cannot succeed when the request was never made.
         AFFIRMED.

                                          4