Charles v. Wal-Mart LA

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-30213

Latarsha Charles,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C.,

Defendant—Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 6:18-CV-559

Before Davis, Stewart, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff Latarsha Charles appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendant Wal-Mart Louisiana, L.L.C.
(“Wal-Mart”). We dismiss the appeal.
Charles brought suit against Wal-Mart under Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In May of 2015, Charles underwent back

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 10, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Case: 20-30213 Document: 00515668677 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/10/2020

No. 20-30213
2
surgery which required her to take leave from her job as an assistant manager
at Wal-Mart in Lafayette, Louisiana. Wal-Mart gave Charles one year of
medical leave before Charles’s physician cleared her for work around July
2016. Charles’s work limitations included a six-hour work day, a four to five-
day work week, and a 15-pound lifting restriction.
Upon her return to work, Charles was not allowed to continue as an
assistant manager because she could not perform essential assistant manager
duties with her restrictions. Wal-Mart, instead, offered to help reassign
Charles to a different position and explored several options with her
including positions such as pharmacy technician, tire and lube service writer,
optical technician, personnel coordinator, and training coordinator. Wal-
Mart gave Charles 12 weeks leave to pursue this reassignment. Charles
expressed some limited interest in Vision Center and tire and lube positions
at four particular stores, but Wal-Mart advised her each week that such
positions were not open. The only position that Charles actively pursued was
a Vision Center position at the New Iberia Wal-Mart. Charles was told
through a co-worker at her store’s Vision Center that a Vision Center
position at the New Iberia store might open within a few days. This particular
Vision Center position, however, was never available. Charles did not pursue
other options, and at the end of the 12-week leave, she was terminated. Based
on these events, Charles alleges that Wal-Mart did not provide her
reasonable accommodations under the ADA.
Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Charles
did not establish a prima facie disability discrimination case or, alternatively,
did not establish pretext for her termination. The district court found there
was no genuine issue of fact that Charles could not perform the essential
functions of an assistant manager, and that the Vision Center position she
requested was unavailable. Further, the district court found that there was no
genuine issue of fact that Wal-Mart terminated Charles for a legitimate, non-
Case: 20-30213 Document: 00515668677 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/10/2020

No. 20-30213
3
discriminatory reason. Accordingly, the district court granted Wal-Mart’s
motion, reasoning that Charles did not establish a prima facie case under the
ADA and that she could not establish that her termination was pretextual.
Charles appealed the ruling pro se.
Charles’s brief does not adequately address any alleged error
committed by the district court. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure
28(a)(8)(A), an appellant must brief an argument that contains “contentions
and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the
record on which the appellant relies.” We liberally construe pro se litigants’
briefs; however, pro se litigants must still “brief the issues and reasonably
comply with the standards of Rule 28.”
1

The bulk of Charles’s brief is a long recitation of facts under the
heading, “Statement of the Case.” At the end of the brief, Charles provides
a summary of the argument which provides a one-and-a-half-page outline of
legal conclusions related to the ADA. No authority on the ADA is cited, and
no argument is made as to why the district court erred in granting summary
judgment.
The appeal is therefore DISMISSED for want of prosecution.

1
Arredondo v. Univ. of Tex. Med. Branch at Galveston, 950 F.3d 294, 298 (5th Cir.
2020) (quoting Clark v. Waters, 407 F. App’x 794, 796 (5th Cir. 2011)).
Case: 20-30213 Document: 00515668677 Page: 3 Date Filed: 12/10/2020