950 F.3d 294
5th Cir.2020Background
- Arredondo was a mental-health case manager at UTMB (Apr 2007–Oct 2013) with documented performance problems (missed patient-visit quotas, incomplete/duplicated charts, inaccurate time reporting).
- In 2013 his status changed to non-exempt; he was warned about time-reporting and later audited for missing/inaccurate patient records.
- He applied repeatedly for promotions, filed an internal discrimination complaint in June 2013, and received coaching on interview skills; UTMB concluded hiring decisions were proper.
- He requested intermittent leave and schedule flexibility for insomnia and diabetes, was given provisional accommodations, but never submitted supporting physician paperwork.
- UTMB terminated him (Oct 30, 2013); he filed an EEOC charge, obtained a right-to-sue, then sued in federal court asserting Title VII, FMLA, ADA (and briefly ADEA).
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims; Arredondo appealed pro se, sought to add a supplemental appendix on appeal, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution for failure to comply with appellate briefing rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admitting supplemental appendix on appeal | Arredondo: new performance reviews/emails rebut district-court ruling and should be admitted | Appellees: documents not introduced below; not part of the appellate record | Denied — appellate court will not consider documents not in the district-court record (motion denied) |
| Compliance with FRAP/local rules (record citations in brief) | Arredondo: pro se status and counsel withdrawal justify leniency; cited documents list at end suffices | Appellees: failure to provide record citations violates FRAP 28 and local rules and prejudices defense | Dismissed appeal for want of prosecution due to noncompliant, prejudicial briefing |
| Suitability of individual defendants under Title VII | Arredondo: asserted discrimination/retaliation against individual supervisors | Appellees: Title VII does not permit individual-capacity claims and record lacks evidence supporting individuals' liability | Affirmed dismissal — Title VII claims against individuals fail as a matter of law and lacked evidentiary support |
| Preservation and evidentiary support for FMLA/ADA claims (failure-to-accommodate) | Arredondo: court erred in granting summary judgment on FMLA and ADA accommodation claims | Appellees: issues were not properly preserved, waived, or lack factual support (e.g., no medical paperwork) | Affirmed — claims waived/not preserved or failed for lack of evidentiary support |
Key Cases Cited
- Tradewinds Envtl. Restoration, Inc. v. St. Tammany Park, LLC, 578 F.3d 255 (5th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts generally will not consider evidence not presented to the district court)
- Clark v. Waters, [citation="407 F. App'x 794"] (5th Cir. 2011) (pro se briefs are liberally construed but must comply with appellate rules)
- United States v. Wilkes, 20 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 1994) (pro se litigants must abide by Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure)
- Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (declining to consider non-compliant pro se brief when it prejudices appellee)
- Price v. Digital Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1988) (may consider non-compliant pro se brief where appellee suffered no prejudice)