Kimberly Crockett v. Humana Behavioral Health ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40632 Document: 00515350179 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 19-40632 March 18, 2020
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
KIMBERLY CROCKETT,
Plaintiff – Appellant
v.
HUMANA BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant – Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-403
Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Kimberly Crockett sued Humana Behavioral Health alleging that
Humana wrongfully terminated her employment in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The district court granted
summary judgment for Humana because Crockett signed a waiver releasing
“any and all legal and equitable claims of any type relating to [her]
employment.” Further, the court noted that Crockett had pointed to no
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40632 Document: 00515350179 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2020
No. 19-40632
evidence that would invalidate that release. See Davis v. Fort Bend Cty., 765
F.3d 480, 484 (5th Cir. 2014) (“A party cannot defeat summary judgment with
conclusory allegations, unsubstantiated assertions, or only a scintilla of
evidence.” (quotation omitted)).
On appeal, Crockett argues that Humana exercised undue influence to
secure her signature on the waiver. In order to show undue influence, Crockett
must provide evidence that Humana’s “ ‘persuasion, entreaty, importunity,
argument, intercession, and solicitation’ were so strong as to ‘subvert and
overthrow [her] will.’ ” Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1178 (5th Cir. 1980) (quoting
DeGrassi v. DeGrassi, 533 S.W.2d 81, 85 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1976, writ ref ’d
n.r.e.)). After carefully reviewing the record, we agree with the district court:
there is no evidence that Humana exercised undue influence. Therefore,
Crockett’s waiver is valid, and the district court appropriately granted
summary judgment. See Smith v. Amedisys Inc., 298 F.3d 434, 444 (5th Cir.
2002) (holding that “summary judgment was appropriate” where no dispute of
material fact existed about the validity of a waiver of claims).
AFFIRMED.
2