May 14, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Turner v. BNSF Railway Co., 24-10031, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Engelhardt, J. (Graves, Engelhardt, Oldham), Graves, J., dissenting; Americans with Disabilities Act
    • Affirming dismissal of former employee’s ADA claims on the pleadings.
    • The Court held that Turner cannot establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA because he failed to demonstrate that he was “qualified” for the job, having not obtained the required conductor certification due to failing FRA-mandated vision tests and not exhausting the FRA’s administrative appeals process.
    • The Court held that BNSF’s refusal to recertify Turner was not discriminatory under the ADA but was compelled by federal law, as the vision and certification standards are governed by FRA regulations, which BNSF is legally bound to follow and has no discretion to override.
    • Judge Graves dissented and would vacate and remand. He disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Turner is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and that his ADA claim is barred due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Turner, who worked for BNSF for 15 years despite a color-vision deficiency, was terminated after failing a new color-vision field test designed by BNSF, which he claims was discriminatory and did not reflect real-world job conditions. Turner had consistently passed BNSF’s prior tests and performed his job safely. The dissent argues that the ADA does not require exhaustion of Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) procedures before filing suit and criticizes the majority for equating the lack of certification with being unqualified under the ADA. The dissent also distinguishes this case from others involving sudden onset disabilities and emphasizes that Turner’s condition had not changed. Judge Graves asserts that Turner’s longstanding successful job performance and the disputed nature of BNSF’s test create a genuine issue of material fact, warranting vacating the dismissal and remanding the case.
  • Ethridge v. Samsung SDI Co., 23-40094, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (King, Jones, Oldham), Jones, J., dissenting; personal jurisdiction, product liability
    • Reversing dismissal of personal injury lawsuit against manufacturer of cell phone battery for lack of personal jurisdiction.
    • Judge Oldham summarized the case as follows: “Samsung SDI … is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in South Korea. It manufactures and sells batteries. Samsung does not have a physical presence in the United States. Rather, it uses various subsidiaries and distribution companies to serve customers in the United States. The product at issue in this case is a Samsung 18650 lithium-ion battery. With respect to 18650 lithium-ion batteries, Samsung has two kinds of contacts with the forum State of Texas. The first kind of contact is direct and clear. Since January 2019, Samsung has shipped 18650 batteries to Black & Decker’s Texas manufacturing facility to be incorporated into sealed power tool battery packs. For a number of years (at all times relevant to this litigation), Samsung has also shipped 18650 batteries to HP and Dell to be used as samples or for laptop repairs in their Texas service centers. The second kind of contact is less direct and less clear. Samsung sells 18650 batteries to ‘sophisticated and qualified’ businesses, which typically use them in battery packs. Some of these battery packs end up in products that are sold to Texas consumers. Samsung contends, however, that it has no control over what happens to its 18650 batteries after it sells them to its business customers in Texas.”
    • The Court held that the key issue in this case is whether plaintiff Ethridge’s claims “arise out of or relate to” Samsung’s contacts with Texas, satisfying the Supreme Court’s relatedness requirement for specific personal jurisdiction. Samsung sells a substantial number of the same type of 18650 batteries in Texas to companies like HP and Dell, and Ethridge, a Texas resident, used and was injured by such a battery in Texas. The Court rejects Samsung’s “different market” argument—that its sales to businesses should be treated differently from consumer use—as incompatible with Supreme Court precedent, particularly Ford Motor Co. v. Montana. The Court emphasizes that personal jurisdiction is based on the defendant’s connection to the forum as a whole, not subdivided markets, and warns that adopting Samsung’s approach would render jurisdictional analysis unworkable and overly complex, undermining established precedent and predictability.
    • Judge Jones dissented. “The unilateral choices of an individual-consumer plaintiff have not been determinative of specific jurisdiction in modern history. Instead, an unbroken string of Supreme Court cases, with a recent, narrow exception in Ford, focus on the purposeful actions of the defendant in a forum state. Here, the defendant’s forum-state activities are wholly unrelated to the plaintiff’s purchase and use of the relevant product. Therefore, because Ethridge purchased the battery for his vape pen through a channel that Samsung never authorized, the fact of his injury should not make Texas a valid forum consistent with Due Process.”
  • Speech First, Inc. v. McCall, 23-50633, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Ho, J. (Ho, Duncan, Oldham), First Amendment, mootness
    • Vacating dismissal of plaintiff’s challenge to university’s allegedly speech-chilling policy as moot, and remanding for consideration of injunctive relief in the first insstance.
    • Speech First challenged Texas State University’s harassment policy for prohibiting “unwelcome” speech without clear definitions, arguing it chills politically sensitive expression and violates the First Amendment. The district court acknowledged these constitutional concerns but did not issue an injunction.
    • The University reluctantly amended its policy only after pressure from the district court, not voluntarily, and continued to defend the original policy—raising doubts about the permanence of the change.
    • The Fifth Circuit ruled that the case is not moot, as Texas State’s actions failed the “voluntary cessation” test, and remanded it to the district court to reconsider issuing a preliminary injunction.

Unpublished decisions

  • Oldham v. U.S. Small Business Administration, 19-10644, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Richman, J. (Richman, Southwick, Oldham), civil
    • Affirming in part, reversing in part, and vacating in part district court’s judgment dismissing claims arising from bank’s loan requirements under SBA program and regulations.
  • U.S. v. Sullivan, 24-10799, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Maples, 24-10827, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Haynes, Higginson, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Lusk, 24-10990, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Estrada-Hernandez, 24-20418, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Stewart, Duncan), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • U.S. v. Grant, 24-20442, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming denial of petition for a writ of coram nobis.
  • U.S. v. Aguirre, 24-20539, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Graves, Willett, Wilson), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Balke v. Carmichael, 19-20616, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Richman, Haynes), bankruptcy, mootness
    • Dismissing creditors’ appeal of grant of motion to strike certain exhibits from record, as moot.
  • Paulson v. Doe, 24-40584, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Graves, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
    • Dismissing as frivolous Texas state prisoner’s appeal from dismissal of sec. 1983 claim.
  • Lucio v. Brownsville Independent School District, 24-40754, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Engelhardt, Douglas), sec. 1983, appellate jurisdiction
    • Dismissing for lack of appellate jurisdiction the appeal of a district court judgment that only dismissed plaintiff’s claims in part.
  • U.S. v. Garcia, 24-40779, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Stewart, Ho), criminal, Miranda rights
    • Affirming conviction of using interstate commerce facilities with the intent to commit murder for monetary consideration, and conspiracy, and upholding denial of motion to suppress post-arrest statements.
  • U.S. v. Brown, 24-60490, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Richman, Douglas, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.