Combs v. Exxon Mobil

Case: 20-30733 Document: 00515826381 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 19, 2021
No. 20-30733
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Viola Combs,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:18-CV-459
Before Davis, Stewart, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Viola Combs appeals the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Exxon Mobil Corporation
(“Exxon”). For the following reasons, we AFFIRM.
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30733 Document: 00515826381 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 20-30733
I. Facts & Procedural History
In 1990, Combs, an African American woman, began working full-
time for Exxon’s Baton Rouge refinery. In 1994, Combs became an Assistant
Operator with the company. As an operator, Combs was responsible for
monitoring highly flammable and toxic substances moving under high
pressure through pipes and vessels. The processes for which she was
responsible were potentially hazardous. If a procedure was not followed or an
accident happened, Combs, other employees, and/or people living near the
refinery could be harmed.
According to Combs, she suffered from anxiety and depression and
from January to March of 2015, she took sick leave to address these issues.
Though she temporarily returned to work, she was soon briefly hospitalized
and subsequently began receiving outpatient treatment for her anxiety and
depression. In July of 2015, Combs’ psychiatrists, Dr. Mark Shoptaugh and
Dr. Kelechi Ohayagha, recommended that she be allowed to take the
prescription drug Xanax, a benzodiazepine, as needed. Exxon’s medical
department became concerned that Combs was taking Xanax while working
in a safety sensitive position. After a fitness for duty examination, Exxon
determined that Combs was not fit to return to duty and should continue
working on her recovery with her doctors. In February 2016, Combs was
prescribed Vistaril, another medication used for the short-term treatment of
anxiety.
In late 2015, Exxon personnel determined that Combs was “totally
and permanently” disabled. This was because her psychiatric conditions
were only potentially controlled with sedatives that could place Combs, other
employees, and the community at risk should she attempt to perform her job
functions while taking them. Effective April 1, 2016, Exxon granted Combs
long term disability benefits and treated her as a retiree which gave her instant
2
Case: 20-30733 Document: 00515826381 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 20-30733
access to her pension. 1 Since Combs was a union member at the time of
Exxon’s decision, the union grieved and the parties submitted to arbitration.
After full arbitration proceedings, the arbitrator issued an opinion and award
in Exxon’s favor finding that the disability retirement was proper.
Additionally, the arbitrator determined that Exxon had not discriminated
against or failed to accommodate Combs.
In April of 2018, Combs filed suit against Exxon alleging that it had
subjected her to unlawful discrimination and wrongful termination on
account of her disability, race, sex, and age. After the district court partially
granted Exxon’s motion to dismiss in August 2019, three claims remained:
(1) discriminatory discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), see 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; (2) failure to accommodate in
violation of the ADA; and (3) failure to promote based on race in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1981. In February of 2020, Exxon filed a motion for summary
judgment seeking dismissal of Combs’ remaining claims. In support of its
motion, Exxon submitted a 149-paragraph list of “undisputed material facts”
citing to record evidence. Relying on this evidence, Exxon contended that it
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Combs could not prove
the merits of her claims.
Combs’ opposition to Exxon’s summary judgment motion was due on
March 2, 2020. Combs sought, and the district court granted, three
extensions of this deadline. On May 7, 2020, Combs filed her opposition
generally adopting the facts set forth by Exxon. She did not file an opposing
statement contesting Exxon’s proposed undisputed facts. In her opposition,
however, she attempted to argue that Exxon’s proposed facts were disputed.
1
Prior to this time, Exxon determined that Combs qualified for short term disability
and gave her full pay and benefits for 26 weeks during her absence from work.
3
Case: 20-30733 Document: 00515826381 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 20-30733
She then filed a motion to strike certain parts of Exxon’s evidence on grounds
that it was submitted to her on the discovery cutoff date of January 6, 2020,
claiming she did not have time to “properly vet” the evidence. Then on May
12, 2020, she filed a motion for leave seeking three more days to file an
opposing statement of material facts in opposition to Exxon’s motion for
summary judgment. Months passed after Combs filed her motion for leave
but she never supplemented the record with a proposed opposing statement
of material facts.
The district court first denied Combs’ motion to strike on grounds
that she waited four months to challenge Exxon’s disclosures and offered no
explanation or good cause for her late filing that was due within seven days of
Exxon’s disclosures. See M.D. La. LR 26(d)(1). The district court also denied
Combs’ motion for leave for noncompliance with Local Rule 56(c) because
she belatedly suggested she would file a statement of material facts in
opposition to Exxon’s but never followed through. See M.D. La. LR 56(c).
Finally, the district court granted Exxon’s motion for summary
judgment on grounds that Combs failed to come forth with competent
summary judgment evidence addressing Exxon’s arguments or showing the
existence of a genuine factual dispute. The district court then dismissed
Combs’ suit with prejudice. Combs filed this appeal.
II. Standard of Review
“We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.” Sanders v.
Christwood, 970 F.3d 558, 561 (5th Cir. 2020). “Summary judgment is proper
‘if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Id. (citing Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a)). A dispute regarding a material fact is “genuine” if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the
nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
4
Case: 20-30733 Document: 00515826381 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/19/2021
No. 20-30733
“[U]nsubstantiated assertions may not be relied on as evidence by the
nonmoving party.” Carnaby v. City of Hous., 636 F.3d 183, 187 (5th Cir.
2011); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). “The party
opposing summary judgment is required to identify specific evidence in the
record and to articulate the precise manner in which that evidence supports
his or her claim.” Ragas v. Tenn. Gas Pipeline Co., 136 F.3d 455, 458 (5th Cir.
1998).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Combs argues that the district court erred in dismissing
her failure to accommodate, discriminatory discharge, and failure to promote
claims. 2 We disagree. As the district court stated in its Ruling and Order,
“summary judgment is about evidence.” Because Combs failed to present
any competent summary judgment evidence to the district court, she could
not carry her burden of showing a genuine issue of material fact. Ragas, 136
F.3d at 458. Consequently, the district court did not err in granting Exxon’s
summary judgment motion.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s summary judgment in
favor of Exxon is AFFIRMED.
2
Combs also briefs arguments against Exxon’s claims of preemption and collateral
estoppel, however, because the district court did not address these arguments, they are not
properly before this court on appeal.
5