August 5, 2025, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • Wright v. Honeywell International, Inc., 24-30667, appeal from M.D. La.
    • Elrod, C.J. (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), employment discrimination, COVID-19
    • Reversing summary judgment in favor of the employer on the plaintiff former employee’s Title VII religious discrimination claim arising from his termination after refusing to get the COVID-19 vaccination and the employer failing to grant him a religious exemption, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • Donald Wright, a longtime Honeywell employee, was terminated after refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccination policy, which was implemented in accordance with a federal contractor mandate. Wright requested a religious exemption, citing his Baptist faith and beliefs about bodily autonomy, supported by a third-party attestation from his daughter referencing religious scripture. Honeywell denied his request, finding it insufficiently rooted in a sincerely held religious belief, and ultimately terminated his employment. Wright sued Honeywell under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination and disparate treatment. The district court granted summary judgment for Honeywell, finding that Wright failed to demonstrate a bona fide religious belief or that he informed the company of such a belief.
    • The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on Wright’s religious discrimination claim. The court held that Wright presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding both the sincerity of his religious belief and whether Honeywell was informed of it. The court emphasized that religious beliefs under Title VII need not align with orthodox doctrine and that courts must tread lightly when questioning the sincerity of such beliefs. Wright’s exemption request and supporting materials demonstrated at least a mixed motive—including religious reasons—for his vaccine refusal. Therefore, the sincerity of his belief and the adequacy of his communication to Honeywell should be resolved by a jury, not at the summary judgment stage. The case was remanded for further proceedings.
  • Robledo v. U.S., 24-50810, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Wilson, J. (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), Federal Tort Claims Act
    • Reversing dismissal of plaintiff’s FTCA medical malpractice claim, and remanding for further proceedings.
    • In this case, Destiny Robledo sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) after her newborn child, H.R., sustained severe and permanent nerve injuries during childbirth due to shoulder dystocia. Robledo alleged that Dr. Keilah Ketron, a resident physician, used excessive force during delivery and that Dr. Kimberly Micus failed to supervise Ketron adequately. The district court dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(1), holding that because shoulder dystocia is considered an obstetrical emergency under Texas law, Robledo was required to prove “willful and wanton negligence.” The court concluded that this heightened standard implicated punitive damages, which are barred under the FTCA, thereby eliminating jurisdiction.
    • The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, identifying two critical legal errors. First, the lower court presumed that shoulder dystocia necessarily involved the provision of emergency medical care, triggering the heightened standard of “willful and wanton negligence.” However, the appellate court noted that under Texas law, whether emergency care was actually provided in a specific case is a factual question that must be resolved based on the circumstances. The court emphasized that Robledo plausibly alleged Ketron did not provide emergency medical care, as the delivery allowed time for routine maneuvers. Thus, at the motion-to-dismiss stage, it was improper to resolve this factual issue against Robledo.
    • Second, the Fifth Circuit found the district court erred by conflating the heightened liability standard (willful and wanton negligence) with the nature of damages recoverable. The FTCA only bars punitive damages, not compensatory damages, and Robledo clearly sought only compensatory relief such as medical expenses and related costs. Texas law allows recovery of economic damages even under a gross negligence standard, and the U.S. Supreme Court in Molzof confirmed that the FTCA permits compensatory damages for gross negligence. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit held that Robledo’s claims fell within the FTCA’s waiver of immunity and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Unpublished decisions

  • U.S. v. Stone, 24-10115, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • Wiener, J. (Wiener, Willett, Ho), criminal, sentencing, sufficiency of evidence, new trial
    • Affirming convictions and sentences against co-defendants on charged arising from “elaborate scheme … to defraud a young woman out of her inheritance.”
  • U.S. v. Salto, 25-10236, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Jones, Duncan, Douglas), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • Rodriguez v. Blaine Larsen Farms, Inc., 22-10514, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Duncan), personal torts
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of survivor claims arising from her husband’s COVID-19 death shortly after commencing work for the defendant.
  • Narayanan v. Midwestern State University, 24-10849, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), employment discrimination, Title VII
    • Affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s Title VII claims against university employer.
  • Sotonwa v. Collins, 24-11043, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), employment discrimination, Title VII, Age Discrimination in Employment Act
    • Affirming summary judgment dismissal of Title VII and ADEA claims against VA as employer of plaintiff.
  • Doe v. Prairie View A & M University, 24-20128, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of sec. 1983 claims arising from university officials’ refusal or failure to expunge disciplinary findings from plaintiff’s record after he was expelled for violating university’s sexual misconduct policy.
  • U.S. v. LeBlanc, 24-30036, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), criminal
    • Reversing district court’s dismissal of indictment for possession of a firearm by a felon on Second Amendment grounds.
  • Voice of the Experienced v. Westcott, 24-30420, appeal from M.D. La.
    • per curiam (Dennis, Oldham, Douglas), prisoner suit, mootness
    • Finding moot appeal from preliminary injunction for prison condition remedies that had expired by the terms of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, and vacating injunctive remedies under Munsingwear.
  • Elder v. Bass, 24-30653, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), prisoner suit
    • Vacating in part and affirming in part dismissal of Louisiana state prisoner’s sec. 1983 claims that he was periodically subjected to unsanitary conditions; and remanding for further proceedings.
  • Berger v. Lexington Insurance Co., 24-30654, appeal from E.D. La.
    • per curiam (King, Smith, Douglas), insurance
    • Affirming summary judgment in favor of insurer on claims arising from automobile accident.
  • U.S. v. Hill, 24-30669, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Stewart, Clement, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming career-offender sentencing enhancement on conviction of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.
  • Bangmon v. Tucker, 24-40122, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), prisoner suit, qualified immunity
    • Affirming summary judgment for defendants on Texas prisoner’s sec. 1983 claims on qualified immunity grounds.
  • U.S. v. Morgan, 24-40152, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm and ammunition by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Alba-Hernandez, 23-40692, appeal from S.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (King, Smith, Douglas), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon.
  • U.S. v. Varela-Angel, 25-50001, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
  • U.S. v. McMaryion, 25-50040, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez), criminal
    • Affirming conviction of possession of a firearm.
  • CDC Real Estate Corp. v. La Biela, L.L.C., 24-50626, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), civil, breach of contract, personal jurisdiction
    • Affirming dismissal of claims arising from dispute among LLC members, for lack of personal jurisdiction on finding that plaintiff “failed to demonstrate that all of the defendants held sufficient minimum contacts with, or that the cause of the underlying action arose from contact with Texas.”
  • Barnhart v. Stroman, 24-50751, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of claims arising from Twin Peaks shootout, on basis that plaintiff’s survivor failed to state claim of breach of constitutional rights.
  • U.S. v. Fulcher, 24-60184, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming jury trial convictions and life sentences for sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.
  • Talley v. Jackson State University, 24-60400, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Elrod, Duncan, Engelhardt), Title IX, sec. 1983
    • Affirming dismissal of claims arising from plaintiff’s suspension from university.
  • Marshall v. Bisignano, 24-60665, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Ho), social security
    • Affirming the denial of Social Security disability insurance benefits.