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