Finality and Deference in ADA Termination Appeals: Conner v. Noxubee County

Introduction

Conner v. Noxubee County Board of Supervisors, decided May 23, 2025 by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 24-60503), addressed two core questions: first, whether the district court entered a final, appealable judgment disposing all of plaintiff’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and second, whether that court clearly erred in finding that the plaintiff’s termination was based on insubordination rather than discrimination on account of her disability.

Plaintiff‐Appellant Samantha Conner, a disabled former assistant comptroller, sued her employer, Noxubee County, claiming that its directive to stop disinfecting her workspace with Lysol—invoked by a coworker’s complaint—violated the ADA. After a two-day bench trial, the district court entered a memorandum opinion containing 75 detailed findings of fact and legal conclusions, dismissed Conner’s ADA claims with prejudice, and closed the case. Conner, proceeding pro se, appealed, challenging jurisdiction, evidentiary rulings, and nearly every factual finding.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit affirmed. First, it held that the district court’s “Final Judgment” disposing “all of Conner’s claims with prejudice,” together with the judge’s designation of the order as final, satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) as an appealable final decision.

Second, on the merits, the appellate court applied the “clear‐error” standard (Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6)) to the district court’s credibility‐based factfindings and concluded they were “plausible in light of the record as a whole.” Conner’s version did not compel rejection of the district court’s determination that she was terminated for insubordination.

Third, Conner’s arguments about omitted claims were forfeited for lack of briefing under Fifth Circuit rules governing pro se appellants. Fourth, the court reviewed the exclusion of an audio recording for abuse of discretion and found any error harmless, as the recording was largely inaudible or cumulative of admitted testimony.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Finality and Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (appeals from “final decisions”); Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 (1981); Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978); Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1977) (Rule 54(b) requirement); McLaughlin v. Miss. Power Co., 376 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2004) (judgment deemed final if intent to dispose of all claims is clear).
Bench‐Trial Findings and Clear Error: Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(1) (detailed findings required in non‐jury trials); Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6) (review for clear error); United States v. Ekanem, 555 F.3d 172 (5th Cir. 2009); United States v. Caldwell, 448 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2003); Guzman v. Hacienda Records, 808 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir. 2015); Streber v. Comm’r, 138 F.3d 216 (5th Cir. 1998).
Forfeiture and Pro Se Briefing: Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se must comply with Rule 28); Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995); Quintanilla, 114 F.4th 453 (2024).
Evidentiary Rulings and Harmless Error: Adams v. Mem’l Hermann, 973 F.3d 343 (5th Cir. 2020); Nunez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 604 F.3d 840 (5th Cir. 2010); Connolly v. Farmer, 484 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1973).

Legal Reasoning

Jurisdiction: The Fifth Circuit emphasized that “final decision” under § 1291 requires resolution of all claims on the merits. Where multiple claims exist, a district court must either enter a Rule 54(b) certification or, by clear language in its judgment, demonstrate intent to dispose of every claim. Here, by titling its order “Final Judgment,” dismissing all claims “with prejudice,” and subsequently referring to it as “final,” the district court unambiguously intended finality.

Deference to Factfinding: Bench‐trial findings are reviewed under the “clear‐error” standard, which applies especially when credibility determinations are involved. The appellate court may not reweigh evidence or substitute its own view—only if the record leaves a “definite and firm conviction” of mistake may a factual finding be disturbed. The Fifth Circuit found each of the 75 findings plausible, so Conner’s contrary version of events did not overcome the heavy presumption of correctness.

Forfeiture by Pro Se Litigant: Though Conner listed 17 issues, she provided no briefing or authority on the purportedly omitted claims. Under Rule 28 and Fifth Circuit precedent, a claim not squarely argued is forfeited—even for a pro se appellant who must nonetheless supply briefing and legal support.

Harmless‐Error Doctrine: The district court excluded an audio recording, but the portions that were audible were either immaterial or cumulative of admitted testimony. Because the exclusion did not affect Conner’s “substantial rights,” reversal was unwarranted.

Impact

This decision underscores two enduring principles: first, courts will strictly enforce finality requirements to maintain a clear appellate path; second, appellate review remains highly deferential to trial‐court factfinding, particularly in bench trials. For ADA claimants, it signals that challenging an adverse employment action on appeal requires more than alternative factual narratives—clear demonstrations of reversible error are essential. Employers likewise gain reassurance that legitimate, non‐discriminatory reasons (e.g., insubordination) will be upheld where supported by detailed findings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Final Decision (28 U.S.C. § 1291): A district court order ending litigation on the merits so nothing remains except to execute the judgment. Partial orders must include a Rule 54(b) certification or clear language disposing every claim to be appealable.
Rule 54(b): Allows appeal of fewer than all claims only if the court “expressly determines there is no just reason for delay.”
Bench‐Trial Findings (Rule 52): In non‐jury trials, the judge must set out specific factual findings and legal conclusions, which are reviewed for “clear error” – a very deferential standard.
Clear Error: A finding is not reversed unless the appellate court is left with a firm conviction a mistake was made.
Harmless Error: Even if a trial‐court ruling was wrong, it will not lead to reversal unless it affected a party’s substantial rights.
Forfeiture vs. Waiver: Simply listing an issue without argument or authority results in forfeiture (loss) of that argument on appeal, even for self‐represented litigants.

Conclusion

Conner v. Noxubee County affirms that appellate courts will police the finality of lower‐court judgments rigorously and defer heavily to trial‐court factfinding, especially where credibility is at stake. It also reinforces that pro se litigants must still meet briefing standards or risk forfeiture. For employees asserting ADA claims, the decision highlights the importance of clearly connecting every adverse action to the disability and marshaling evidence that could overcome the clear‐error presumption. For employers, it affirms that discipline based on insubordination, documented with precise factual findings, will survive appellate scrutiny.