Thomas v. Grundfos

Case: 20-20505 Document: 00516047205 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
October 7, 2021
No. 20-20505 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Michel Thomas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Grundfos, CBS; Mads Nipper; Henrik Christansen;
Jonathan Hamp Adam; Henri Baek; Astrid Norgaard
Fris; Steve Marshall; Billy Baxter; Terry Jalufka;
Chau Nguyen; Paddi Riopelle; Lonnie Padilla; Thomas
Braun Larsen; Grundfos Americas; Grundfos,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-557
Before Davis, Elrod, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Michel Thomas, a former temporary-employee assigned to a job with
Defendant–Appellee Grundfos, CBS, filed a slew of employment claims
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-20505 Document: 00516047205 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/07/2021
No. 20-20505
against fifteen defendants following his termination. Thomas asserted age,
race, religion, sex discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42
U.S.C. § 1981, and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code against the corporate
defendants. Thomas asserted claims of race discrimination and retaliation
under § 1981 and a negligent supervision claim against twelve individually
named defendants. The claims against the individual defendants were
dismissed in three separate orders. The district court denied the motions to
dismiss filed by the corporate defendants. The district court subsequently
granted the corporate defendants’ motion for summary judgment and
entered final judgment dismissing all of Thomas’s claims with prejudice.
In a rambling and conclusory brief, Thomas appears to argue three
points of error on appeal. First, Thomas argues that the district court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate his claims because the district court
“violated the judicial oath of office.” Thomas makes broad and conclusory
assertions that the district court acted outside its authority. Rather than
explain this assertion, Thomas merely repeats his arguments from his
employment claims. The district court had subject matter jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Thomas brought federal employment
discrimination claims against the defendants.
Second, Thomas appears to argue that the district court erred by
granting the corporate defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Thomas
claims that the district court did not properly weigh all inferences in his favor
as the nonmovant and the district court improperly relied on hearsay.
Thomas fails to brief this claim by merely repeating his arguments from his
employment claims in a rambling and conclusory manner. Thomas did not
clarify why the evidence constituted hearsay. He does not point to any
evidence to raise a fact issue to defeat summary judgment, nor does he
present an argument as to why the district court should not have relied on the
2
Case: 20-20505 Document: 00516047205 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/07/2021
No. 20-20505
evidence in the record. “Although pro se briefs are afforded liberal
construction, even pro se litigants must brief arguments in order to preserve
them.” Mapes v. Bishop, 541 F.3d 582, 584 (5th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
We hold that Thomas did not adequately brief this issue on appeal.
Therefore, Thomas effectively forfeited the argument and we will not
address this second point of error. See United States v. Maes, 961 F.3d 366,
377 (5th Cir. 2020) (noting that failure to adequately brief an argument
forfeits the claim on appeal).
Finally, Thomas argues that the district court’s orders and judgment
are null and void for violating his procedural Fifth Amendment due process
rights. By this argument, Thomas ignores the fact that he filed responses to
each motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. Thomas received a favorable
ruling on the corporate defendants’ motion to dismiss. Thomas also filed a
response to the corporate defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
Thomas does not clearly state how his Fifth Amendment due process rights
were violated other than generally stating that the district court did not give
him an opportunity to be heard. To adequately brief an argument, “a party
must do more than offer conclusory statements and general citations to
constitutional amendments.” Stancu v. Hyatt Corp./Hyatt Regency Dall., 791
F. App’x 446, 453 (5th Cir. 2019); Nichols v. Scott, 69 F.3d 1255, 1287 n.67
(5th Cir. 1995). We hold that Thomas did not adequately brief this issue on
appeal. Therefore, Thomas effectively forfeited the argument and we will not
address this third point of error. See Maes, 961 F.3d at 377.
* * *
Because Thomas did not adequately brief his arguments on appeal, he
has forfeited them. We AFFIRM the district court.
3