Palms v. Texas Children’s Hospital: The Fifth Circuit’s New Rule on Appellate Forfeiture of Post-Accommodation Title VII Religious-Discrimination Claims

1. Introduction

In Palms v. Texas Children’s Hospital, No. 24-20174 (5th Cir. Aug. 11, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confronted an increasingly common scenario: an employer initially denies a religious accommodation request, the employee sues, and the employer then belatedly grants the accommodation. The majority opinion—designated for publication at the request of the dissent—affirms summary judgment for the employer, not on the merits of the Title VII claim, but because the employee “forfeited” her appellate challenge by inadequately briefing how the district court erred once the accommodation had been granted.

Judge Engelhardt’s vigorous dissent contends that the majority’s reliance on forfeiture doctrine deprives employees of a remedy for past discrimination and contradicts Supreme Court precedent stressing that Title VII reaches even “not-so-significant” harms. The decision thus creates a new, published rule in the Fifth Circuit: when an employer eventually accommodates a religious objection, an employee’s failure to contest the reasonableness of that ultimate accommodation in her appellate brief results in forfeiture of the entire failure-to-accommodate claim—even if earlier discriminatory conduct is undisputed.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Facts. Twenty-two-year employee Tisha Palms requested a religious exemption from Texas Children’s Hospital’s 2022 flu-shot mandate. The hospital denied the request, placed her on unpaid leave, and prepared to terminate her. The day before suspension, Palms filed suit; two days into the suspension, the hospital reversed course and granted an exemption (mask-wearing during flu season). Palms returned to work but continued her suit, seeking damages for the period of discrimination.
• District Court. Granted summary judgment to the hospital, holding that the granted accommodation defeated her Title VII claim.
• Majority Holding. The Fifth Circuit affirms. Relying on Rollins v. Home Depot, Brinkmann, and JTB Tools, the court holds Palms “forfeited” her appellate arguments by failing to address the district court’s reasoning or cite supporting authority regarding the adequacy of the accommodation.
• Dissent. Argues that the claim was not forfeited, that discrimination exists even if temporary, and that the majority misapplies forfeiture doctrine to escape addressing substantive Title VII law.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

Rollins v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 8 F.4th 393 (5th Cir. 2021) – establishes that issues inadequately briefed on appeal are forfeited. The majority treats Rollins as controlling “settled practice.”
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) – early articulation of forfeiture for failing to attack district-court reasoning.
JTB Tools & Oilfield Servs., L.L.C. v. United States, 831 F.3d 597 (5th Cir. 2016) – clarifies that failure to cite authority forfeits appellate issues.
Templet v. HydroChem Inc., 367 F.3d 473 (5th Cir. 2004) – de novo standard for summary judgment review (acknowledged but not engaged by majority).
Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 477 (2023) – Supreme Court reboot of the “undue hardship” test under Title VII religious-accommodation framework (referenced by dissent, though not by majority).
Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024) – reiterated by dissent for the proposition that Title VII protects against any discriminatory treatment, however brief.
Moussazadeh, Sibley, Wright – Fifth-Circuit religious-accommodation precedents showing lenient standards for sincerity; relied upon by dissent.

B. Court’s Legal Reasoning

1. Narrow Focus on Briefing. The panel majority expressly declines to consider whether the late accommodation mooted the claim, or whether past discrimination is compensable. Its sole inquiry: did Palms adequately brief why the district court erred in holding the accommodation “reasonable”? Concluding she offered “no citations to caselaw or relevant legal authority,” the court deems the argument forfeited.
2. No Exception for Religious-Accommodation Cases. The dissent urged an exception, contending that religious-discrimination claims implicate heightened interests and that the panel should conduct de novo review of the record regardless of briefing gaps. The majority rejects any “exception to Rollins.”
3. Publication and Precedential Weight. Initially unpublished, the opinion became precedential because the dissent requested publication under 5th Cir. Rule 47.5.2. The majority openly states it “would decline to publish” but is forced to, underscoring intra-panel tension and signalling to the bar that the rule announced is controlling circuit law.

C. Likely Impact

Heightened Appellate-Briefing Burden. Litigants in the Fifth Circuit must now directly challenge the district court’s reasoning, marshal authority, and specifically attack the reasonableness of any accommodation offered—else forfeit the claim, even when discrimination was undisputed.
Strategic Employer Conduct. Employers may be incentivised to grant belated accommodations after suit is filed, then argue mootness, reasonableness, or (post-Palms) rely on appellate forfeiture.
Damages for Past Discrimination Harder to Recover. Employees who obtain an accommodation mid-litigation must ensure their pleadings and appellate briefs explicitly seek damages for the interim period; failure to do so risks dismissal.
Inter-Circuit Tension. Other circuits have allowed claims for back-pay or nominal damages notwithstanding later accommodation. Palms’ forfeiture rubric could create a split if courts elsewhere reach the merits.
Interaction with Groff. The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision heightened the standard for employers’ “undue hardship” defense, but Palms shows that procedural pitfalls may eclipse substantive protections unless carefully navigated.

D. Complex Concepts Simplified

Title VII Religious Accommodation. Federal law requires employers to “reasonably accommodate” an employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose “undue hardship” on the business.
Prima Facie Case. The employee must show (1) sincere belief, (2) conflict with job requirement, (3) employer aware, (4) adverse action.
Summary Judgment. A pre-trial ruling that no genuine dispute of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as matter of law.
De Novo Review. On appeal, the court re-examines summary-judgment record without deference to district-court findings.
Forfeiture vs. Waiver. “Waiver” is an intentional relinquishment of a right; “forfeiture” is failure to timely assert it (e.g., by inadequate briefing).
Mootness. A case becomes moot if events give plaintiff all requested relief. The majority sidestepped mootness by resting on forfeiture.
Reasonable Accommodation. An adjustment that eliminates conflict between job duty and religious belief without significant cost or disruption.

4. Conclusion

Palms v. Texas Children’s Hospital does not decide whether a brief period of unpaid leave for refusing a vaccine violates Title VII. Instead, it forges a procedural precedent: in the Fifth Circuit, a post-suit accommodation combined with inadequate appellate briefing forfeits the employee’s entire religious-accommodation claim.

The decision underscores two practical lessons. First, employees and counsel must meticulously brief every element challenged below, including the “reasonableness” of any accommodation offered, or risk automatic affirmance. Second, employers confronted with accommodation disputes may deploy belated concessions as a litigation strategy, knowing that appellate forfeiture can extinguish liability for past harms if the employee’s briefing falters.

Whether other circuits will follow this forfeiture-centric approach—or whether future panels will revisit the tension highlighted by Judge Engelhardt between procedural doctrines and Title VII’s remedial purposes—remains to be seen. For now, Palms stands as binding authority and a cautionary tale: in religious-discrimination appeals, substance matters, but procedure is paramount.