COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Amy Pickett. (Filing fee $400.00; Receipt numbers LU011602; LU011603)¶
Pickett v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) et al, No. 5:20-cv-00232-H-BQ (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 1 · 2020-09-23 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 1 of
PageID 11
ORIGINAL
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DIST. OF TX
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2020 SEP 23 AM 9:21
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
DEPUTY CLERK [signature]
AMY PICKETT, Pro Se
Civil Action No.:
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
COMPLAINT
SCIENCES CENTER;
(Jury Demanded)
BARBARA CHERRY, individually and in her
official capacity as Department Chair of
5-20CV0232-H
Leadership Studies
3601 4th Street STOP 6264
Lubbock, TX 79430-6264
MICHAEL EVANS, individually and in his
official capacity as Dean of School of
Nursing,
3601 4th Street STOP 6264
Lubbock, TX 79430-6264
Defendants.
COMES NOW, Plaintiff AMY PICKETT, Pro Se, and hereby complains and alleges
against the above-named Defendants, based upon knowledge, information and a reasonable belief
derived therefrom, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
I am seeking damages and injunctive relief to remedy violations of my rights secured by
the Americans with Disabilities Act (·ADA·) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (·RA·), and
violations of my substantive and procedural due process rights secured by the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution by Defendants, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER (·TTUHSC· or the ·School·), School of Nursing Dean
1
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
2 of
of22
22 PageID
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 2
PageID 22
MICHAEL EVANS (·Dean Evans·) and Department Chair BARBARA CHERRY (·Dr. Cherry,·
and together with TTUHSC and Dean Evans, ·Defendants·). TTUHSC repeatedly failed to
provide me with the accommodations to which I was entitled and then penalized me for the
negative impacts of their failure and TTUHSC faculty·s hostility.
TTUHSC then dismissed me from both of my academic programs even though I did not
meet the criteria for academic dismissal. In dismissing me, Defendants failed to provide me with
the required notice and then failed to timely respond to my appeal, instead finalizing my dismissal
and removing me from the programs without considering my appeal. In doing so, Defendants
violated not only the ADA and RA, but also my right to substantive and procedural due process.
Accordingly, I now petition this Court for redress in the form of injunctive relief, damages, costs
and reasonable attorney·s fees in relation to the violation of my rights.
PARTIES
1. I am currently a resident of the State of Texas and, at all relevant times, I was a
student in TTUHSC School of Nursing·s post-Master·s Doctor of Nursing Practice (·DNP·) and
post-Master·s Family Nurse Practitioner (·FNP·) programs.
2. Defendant TTUHSC operates the Texas Tech University Health Sciences
Center·s DNP and FNP programs, public educational programs based at TTUHSC·s Lubbock,
Texas campus. TTUHSC·s chief executive officer maintains an office in Lubbock, Texas.
TTUHSC receives financial assistance from the United States Government.
3. Defendant Barbara Cherry was the Department Chair over the TTUHSC DNP
program. She is being sued in her individual and official capacities.
4. Defendant Michael Evans is the Dean of TTUHSC·s School of Nursing. He is
being sued in his individual and official capacities.
2
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 3 of
PageID 33
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
5. At all times herein, Defendants have been acting under color of law.
6. At all times relevant hereto, and in all the actions described herein, Defendants'
actions took place in the State of Texas, County of Lubbock.
7. Defendants did the acts and omissions hereinafter alleged in bad faith and with
knowledge that their conduct violated well established and settled law.
VENUE & JURISDICTION
8. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims set forth in this action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 (question of federal law) based upon 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as the claims
are based upon 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, 29 U.S.C. § 701, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
9. Supplemental jurisdiction over my pendant state law claims are proper pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), as there exist claims arising out of the same transaction and occurrence as
my federal claims.
10. Venue in this jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as Defendants
are located in this District and the events giving rise to my claims occurred therein.
11. Costs and attorney's fees are sought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
12. I was a successful registered nurse with over 10 years of experience.
13. In 2008, I was medically diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(·ADHD·) while I was finishing my registered nursing degree at Weatherford College.
14. In 2016, while I was working as a nursing instructor at TTUHSC, I chose to pursue
doctorial education, applied and was accepted to enroll in TTUHSC's DNP program in the summer
of 2016.
15. The DNP program is a primarily online post-master's degree program designed for
3
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 4 of
PageID 44
working professionals. As a result, students take a limited number of courses at one time.
16. I was academically excelling in the DNP program and in 2017 I decided it would be
beneficial to pursue a separate post-master's certificate as a Family Nurse Practitioner
simultaneously, as was permitted by TTUHSC. Following my acceptance and enrollment in the
FNP program, I was then scheduled to graduate from the DNP program in May 2019, and then
graduate from the FNP program in August 2019.
17. The DNP and FNP programs at TTUHSC are separate and distinct programs.
Students can be enrolled in one or the other, or both at the same time. The programs have differing
coursework and academic requirements and separate admissions processes, as well as separate and
unconnected graduation requirements and timelines.
18. Knowing that my ADHD required me to work incredibly hard to counter its
negative effects and the addition of a second program would add to my academic demands, I
decided to seek reasonable accommodations from TTUHSC and filed paperwork with TTUHSC's
ADA office supporting my request in May 2017, before my FNP program was to begin. My
request noted the impact of my ADHD on my ability to focus and complete academic tasks under
time limited conditions such as testing.
19. Students at TTUHSC who require reasonable accommodation submit their request
to TTUHSC's ADA office. The ADA office reviews the request and supporting documentation
and determines whether the student is a qualified student with a disability under the ADA and RA,
and what reasonable accommodations the ADA office agrees the student requires and to which the
student is entitled.
20. Following the ADA office's determination, the student is issued a "Letter of
Accommodation" ("LOA") stating that the student has been approved for and is entitled to the
4
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 5 of
PageID 55
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
specified accommodations. The student provides this LOA to their professors who are then
required under TTUHSC policy and procedures to provide the specified accommodations.
TTUHSC's ADA office determines the necessity of and entitlement to the accommodations while
TTUHSC's faculty are the ones who actually provide the accommodations on behalf of TTUHSC.
A student must request accommodations each semester and receive a new LOA.
21. TTUHSC agreed that I was a qualified student with a disability under the ADA and
RA and was entitled to and required reasonable accommodations; including extended time on tests,
an alternative, quiet test environment with reduced distractions and note-taking assistance through
the provision of copies of the class lecture power point or professor's lecture notes. TTUHSC
issued me a LOA noting my need for and entitlement to these accommodations in time for my fall
2017 semester during which I was enrolled in both the DNP and FNP programs.
22. My fall 2017 semester went well, and I did not experience any difficulty receiving
the accommodations to which I was entitled when I requested them. As a result, I again earned all
As and continued to hold a 4.0 GPA despite my disability and the increasing academic demands.
I did similarly well in my spring 2018 courses, earning an A and my first B.
23. However, in summer 2018, I encountered substantial difficulty with TTUHSC and
its faculty, particularly in the DNP program. I requested, received and timely provided my LOA
to my professors for my summer 2018 courses in the FNP program.
24. Prior to the summer 2018 semester, I had not asked for accommodations in my
DNP courses, fearing negative reactions from my professors. However, in summer 2018, my
health issues were exacerbated, and I finally sought accommodations from the DNP program by
providing my LOA to my advisor and professors. Unfortunately, following my disclosure of my
disability and need for accommodations, I encountered the negative reactions and hostility I had
5
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 6 of
PageID 66
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
feared.
25. Following my request for accommodations in summer 2018, TTUHSC questioned
my clinical hours for course 7311. Yet, I was completing and reporting those clinical hours.
26. Further, despite having submitted the LOAs to my professors and despite my
repeated requests, there were numerous instances where professors failed to provide me with the
copies of lecture notes and power points as required by my LOA.
27. I additionally encountered difficulty with my DNP advisor, Jeanette Crenshaw,
who was insisting that I provide her with all assignments for her to review a week before they were
normally due to be graded. While advisors in the DNP program routinely reviewed student
assignments, the timing and conditions of that review were to be determined individually, based
on student needs. I disclosed my disability and need for accommodations to Dr. Crenshaw, who
was my DNP advisor, in an effort to explain why the earlier deadline Dr. Crenshaw was requesting
would be difficult to complete as I required more time due to my disability. This ultimately led to
a conflict of interest having Dr. Crenshaw as my DNP advisor and as a course facilitator.
28. However, Dr. Crenshaw refused to work with me or adjust the requested deadlines
to accommodate me. Further, once the DNP faculty learned of my need for accommodations, I
was suddenly graded more harshly in my DNP courses and under different standards than those
applied to other students even though I had previously earned As.
29. During that summer 2018, I underwent surgery for a medical issue, preventing me
from working for a time. TTUHSC, as both my employer who had approved leave under the
Family Medical Leave Act and school for programs in which my employment hours were
connected to my academic clinical requirements, were aware of this need.
30. While I was out, and before I had returned to work, I received a letter from
6
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 7 of
PageID 77
TTUHSC accusing me of falsifying my clinical hours for one of my summer 2018 DNP courses,
course 7311, and recommending that I be dismissed from the DNP program.
31. I was shocked and alarmed. Despite being out for surgery, I had completed all of
the reported clinical hours and there was no basis for claiming I had falsified them.
32. I attended the hearing and proved that I had successfully completed the clinical
hours, and TTUHSC permitted me to stay.
33. That same semester, I took an incomplete in my second course, course 6201, as an
accommodation for my medical condition requiring surgery and time out of work and class and as
a result of my increasing ADHD and related anxiety which had been exacerbated by the events of
the summer. The incomplete moved my due date for my primary paper to sometime in September
2018, during the fall semester.
34. As a result of balancing the additional demands of my fall 2018 courses on top of
the incomplete and my exacerbated symptoms, as well as technical difficulties, I submitted my
paper for course 6201 approximately 30 hours late. The syllabus for 6201 provided that a student
submitting a paper a day late would have one letter grade deducted from their grade, and this was
the policy implemented with all other students.
35. Despite the syllabus and the policies applied to all other students for late
submissions, and without any justification other than I had required additional time due to my
medical conditions, the course 6201 professor, Cindy Acton, immediately gave me a zero on the
assignment. Initially, Professor Acton told me that I was given a zero because I was late. As a
major portion of my grade, this resulted in me failing the course.
36. I appealed the failing grade, which was granted. However, I was informed that the
highest grade I could receive on the assignment was a 79, a two letter grade deduction for late
7
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 8 of
PageID 8
8
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of22
22 PageID
submissions under the syllabus.
37. Professor Acton ·re-graded· the assignment. Despite the instructions from the
outcome of the appeal, and in apparent retaliation, the professor again immediately gave me
another 0, this time claiming the zero was because I had not incorporated feedback from Dr. Cherry
and Dr. Crenshaw, my advisor and the course facilitator, who had reviewed a draft of the paper, a
requirement that did not apply to other students.
38. I again protested and asked for someone else, who was not clearly hostile to me, to
grade the assignment in accordance with TTUHSC policy. TTUHSC policy required that a second
faculty member, who was not the course facilitator, blind grade the paper. The course facilitator
would then meet with the two evaluators and attempt to reconcile the grades.
39. However, rather than assign a second faculty member to blind grade the paper, Dr.
Crenshaw, the course facilitator, graded the paper herself. Working under the edict that the top
grade would be a 79, Dr. Crenshaw · who was clearly aware of the comments she had made to me
and whether I had incorporated that feedback · determined that I should receive a 59.
40. Then, inexplicably, given the clear hostility of my 6201 professors as shown
through the initial refusal to provide me my accommodations and subsequent refusal to abide by
the syllabus when I required an incomplete, or to abide by the decision on the grade appeal, as well
as the requirements of TTUHSC policy, TTUHSC insisted on simply averaging the grades given
by the two professors. Thus, my grade still was negatively impacted by the hostility of the first
professor, and I received a 29.5.
41. Further, the hostility and arbitrariness of the first professor·s grade was made clear
by my grade on the presentation of this paper. The grading of the paper was an intermediate step
to presenting the paper, initially to a faculty member. I received an 89 on my presentation of the
8
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 9 of
PageID 99
paper, indicating the paper did indeed meet program standards.
42. The averaged grade of 29.5 caused me to receive a C in 6210, a grade for which the
DNP program awarded no credit. Similarly, I had increased difficulty in my other courses as a
result of TTUHSC's failure to provide me with necessary accommodations and downgrading of
my assignments following my requests for accommodations.
43. I again requested and timely provided my LOA to my professors for my fall 2018
courses. The LOA again notified professors that I was entitled to extended time, an alternate
testing location and note-taking assistance.
44. After receiving the LOA, Dr. Wendy Thal, the professor for one of my FNP
courses, course 5440, acknowledged the LOA and stated I would receive extended time.
45. However, on October 2, 2018, when I sat for a course 5440 examination that began
at 9:00 a.m., I noticed right away that the extra time I had been granted pursuant to the LOA had
not been allotted.
46. I immediately stepped out of the test and attempted to contact both Dr. Wendy
Thal and Dr. Virginia Miller, the two professors for the course, but I was unable to reach them and
could only leave voice messages.
47. I then attempted to contact Ms. Karen Ganus, the Director of the Office of Student
Services who handles ADA issues, but Ms. Ganus was in a meeting, so I left a message for her as
well.
48. At or about 9:30 a.m., Dr. Miller called me and said she would talk to the
Information Technology Department and have the start time of my test reset for 10:00 a.m.
However, when Ms. Ganus telephoned me at 9:45 a.m., I explained that as a result of the pressure
and stress caused by the testing issue and my heightened anxiety and related ADHD symptoms, I
9
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 10
10 of
PageID 10
10
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
needed more time to calm down than restarting at 10:00 a.m. would allow.
49. Ms. Ganus indicated that the test would be reset to being at 10:30 a.m. However,
while I was speaking to Ms. Ganus, Dr. Miller again called me and left a voicemail for me saying
that they would not make any more changes to the start time of the exam beyond the change already
made.
50. At 10:30 a.m., with my anxiety still at its peak, I was not ready to begin the exam but
felt that I could not ask for another postponement in light of Dr. Miller's voicemail.
51. Due to TTUHSC's initial failure to provide me with the reasonable
accommodations that I had been granted by the school's ADA office, and the resulting turmoil in
trying to resolve the situation in real time, I suffered severe anxiety that, coupled with my ADHD
symptoms, caused me to receive a 62% on the first exam for course 5440.
52. I requested that, to address the failure to provide accommodations, I be permitted
to retake my first exam. My request was denied.
53. I then requested that, again to address the failure to implement my accommodations
and the resulting negative impact on my exam performance, I would be permitted an extra
opportunity to replace my first exam grade with my comprehensive exam grade. My request was
again denied, and TTUHSC refused to address the negative impact of their failure to provide my
accommodations on my exam grade.
54. Unfortunately, I was unable to recover from that first exam and experienced severe
migraines during my second exam due to the extreme anxiety that was triggered by TTUHSC's
past failure to provide my reasonable accommodations and their subsequent mishandling of the
situation.
55. In addition, my fall 2018 professors again failed to provide me with the class
10
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 11
11 of
PageID 11
11
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
lectures or power points, thereby denying me the reasonable accommodations TTUHSC's ADA
office had identified as accommodations that were necessary and to which I was entitled.
56. As a result of TTUHSC's repeated failures to accommodate me and the total lack
of support, my anxiety and ADHD symptoms continued to escalate throughout the fall 2018
semester. Among other resulting difficulties, I experienced severe panic attacks on both my third
and comprehensive exams. As a result of my panic attacks, I was unable to finish the exam, and
TTUHSC was unwilling to provide me with another testing opportunity. These difficulties
resulted in poor grades that are nowhere near an accurate reflection of my knowledge and skill, as
evidenced by my prior 4.0 GPA.
57. Subsequently, on December 18, 2018, I received a letter from Dean Evans
informing me that following a review of grades by the DNP Council, I was being dismissed from the
School of Nursing DNP Program.
58. The December 18, 2018 letter stated that:
Dismissal from TTUHSC School of Nursing PM-DNP Program will result
from the following circumstances:
· Students earning a ·C· or lower in two or more DNP courses in one
semester
· Students earning a ·C· or lower in the same DNP course twice
· Students earning a ·C· or lower in a second DNP course even
though one DNP course has been retaken and a satisfactory grade of
·B· or better has been obtained
· Cumulative semester or cumulative GPA less than 2.0 for two
consecutive semesters
It further stated, ·You have failed to meet one or more of the stated standards,· and the DNP
Council had recommended my dismissal.
59. Under TTUHSC policy, the Dean was charged with reviewing the recommendation
of the Council and rejecting, modifying or accepting it, and then issuing his decision to the student.
Dean Evans· letter to me represented his decision to dismiss me from the DNP program.
11
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 12
12 of
PageID 12
12
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
60. However, I met none of the stated criteria. I had received a C in one DNP course,
course 6210. My other lower grade was in an FNP course, course 5440, in a different program,
and, furthermore, in a different semester.
61. I did not earn two C or lower grades in two DNP courses, let alone two courses in a
single semester, in the same DNP course, or after having retaken another DNP course for having
received a lower grade. Nor was my GPA below 2.0 at any time.
62. Under TTUHSC's policy, the mechanism for a student to appeal an academic
dismissal is for the student to submit an appeal to the Dean. TTUHSC considers an appeal through
convening an appeal council. Neither the Department Chair nor the chair of the academic program
council participate or are present during appeal procedures, which are carried out in a limited
hearing. TTUHSC policy provides for no other mechanism to hear an appeal or student response
prior to implementation of a dismissal.
63. I timely appealed my dismissal under TTUHSC policy, but TTUHSC did not
respond to me in a timely manner.
64. TTUHSC's policy is that a student who has appealed a dismissal remains enrolled
and active, and able to continue coursework, until the appeal is resolved. Further, the December
18, 2018 dismissal letter did not indicate that I was being dismissed from the FNP program.
65. However, in early January 2019, TTUHSC cut off my access to my email and
cancelled all of my DNP advising appointments.
66. Dr. Barbara Cherry, the Department Chair, then gave me an ultimatum: I could
remain in either the DNP Program or the FNP Program, but not both.
67. I, concerned with TTUHSC's apparent treatment of my dismissal as final and total,
despite the fact that my appeal was still pending, and Dr. Cherry's ultimatum in light of the fact
12
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 13 of
PageID 13
13
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
that my enrollment in FNP should not have been in question, I emailed Dr. Cherry requesting
additional time to consider the ultimatum.
68. However, as I was sending this email to Dr. Cherry, I simultaneously received an
email from Dr. Cherry stating that, because she had not heard from me, TTUHSC·s dismissal of
me would stand. This decision was made without consideration of or response to my appeal or the
hearing that should have been convened under TTUHSC policy.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101, et seq., and SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, 29 U.S.C
§ 701, et seq.
(DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION)
Against Defendant TTUHSC and Defendants Evans and Cherry in their official capacities
69. Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 68, inclusive, are hereby
incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
70. Title II of the ADA provides that, ·no qualified individual with a disability shall,
by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
entity.· 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The ADA is a federal anti-discrimination statute designed to provide
a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against
individuals with disabilities.
71. The RA provides that, ·No otherwise qualified individual with a disability ... shall,
solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance ....· 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The RA was enacted to ensure that handicapped
individuals are not denied jobs or other benefits because of prejudiced attitudes or ignorance of
others. Because the language of these two provisions is substantially similar, claims under both
13
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 14 of
PageID 14
14
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
acts are generally analyzed together.
72. TTUHSC receives federal financial assistance, as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 794,
through receipt of federal financial aid and other funds, and is a public entity. As such, it is subject
to the mandate of the RA and ADA and may not discriminate against a person because of her
disabilities.
73. I was a qualified individual with a disability. I suffer from ADHD as well as related
anxiety, which are qualifying disabilities. These disabling conditions substantially limit major
life activities, including learning, concentrating and working, because they cause difficulties in
focusing on more academic tasks, particularly under time pressures or in an environment with
many distractions or stressors. When exacerbated, they can manifest in panic attacks which have
prevented me from completing exams. As a result, I require medication as well as an environment
for testing free of excess distractions and stressors, extended time to accommodate my difficulties
with focus and need for extra processing time, and copies of notes or lectures to enable me to
equally access classroom presentations, thereby affecting my ability to function in my role as a
student at TTUHSC absent reasonable accommodations. I was otherwise able to perform the
essential functions for participation in TTUHSC·s curriculum with or without accommodations.
74. Further, I suffered additional medical problems requiring surgery in the summer
2018, limiting my ability to go to work or class because of the resulting physical limitations. I
required an accommodation of additional time to complete coursework during the semester as a
result.
75. Defendants discriminated against me on the basis of my disability when
Defendants:
a. Failed to provide the required note-taking assistance in my summer
14
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 15 of
PageID 15
15
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
2018 and fall 2018 courses;
b. Failed to provide the required extended time for my first exam in
course 5440 and then refused to provide me an opportunity to
participate in the exam with the accommodations I required or to
otherwise demonstrate my abilities and achievement without the
barriers imposed by TTUHSC·s failure;
c. Accused me of falsifying my clinic hours and dismissing me without
basis in August 2018;
d. Issued a grade of 0 for a day late assignment following my
incomplete in course 6210 and then deducting two letter grades from
my grade following successful appeal, having the same professor "re-
grade" the assignment and then counting the second 0 in my grade
despite clear evidence of the arbitrary and discriminatory nature of
the grade;
e. Dismissed me from both the DNP and FNP programs despite a
lack of asserted failure to meet standards in the FNP program or any
notice of dismissal from that program, despite the fact that I did not
meet the stated criteria for dismissal, and despite the fact that I only
had two low grades · in separate programs · were due to the
discriminatory acts of TTUHSC; and
f. Cut off my email access and canceled my advising appointments and
otherwise finalized my dismissal from both programs despite my
pending appeal and without a hearing.
15
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 16
16 of
PageID 16
16
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
76. Defendants wrongly discriminated against me in violation of my rights pursuant
to the ADA and RA, inflicting mental and emotional distress, resulting in mental and physical
post-traumatic distress, and causing further damage to my health, well-being, academic and
professional career, all because I was disabled.
77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful discrimination against
me, I sustained injuries and damages in an amount in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars
($75,000.00).
78. I am entitled to injunctive and declaratory relief to allow me immediate access and
participation in TTUHSC's DNP and FNP programs, free from discrimination.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (DENIAL OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS)
Against Defendants Evans and Cherry in their individual and official capacities
79. Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 78, inclusive, are hereby
incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
80. All persons residing in the United States are afforded the right to procedural due
process through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
81. I had a constitutionally protected property interest in my continued enrollment in
my education in TTUHSC's DNP and FNP programs. Further, I invested significant amounts of
money into paying for the education that I completed, strengthening my claim to the interest.
82. Before dismissing a student for academic reasons, a university must afford the
student some meaningful notice of the faculty's dissatisfaction with my performance and the
danger to my continued enrollment and some meaningful opportunity to respond.
83. Defendants did not provide notice of either the DNP or FNP program's
dissatisfaction with my performance or danger to my continued enrollment prior to my dismissal.
16
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 17 of
PageID 17
17
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
In fact, Defendants failed to provide any notice at any point that I was being dismissed from the
FNP program.
84. The notice that Defendants did provide · which came only after it was determined
that I was to be dismissed · similarly did not provide meaningful notice, as it set forth standards
for academic dismissal that I did not meet.
85. Nor did Defendants provide me an opportunity to respond, either before or after the
decision was made to dismiss me. Though I timely submitted an appeal to Dean Evans, TTUHSC
did not timely consider it.
86. Before anyone at TTUHSC considered my appeal, I was removed as an active
student, with my advising appointments cancelled and my email access restricted.
87. Further, before anyone at TTUHSC considered my appeal and in contravention of
TTUHSC·s policy, Dr. Cherry · who did not receive the appeal and under TTUHSC policy would
not have been involved in consideration of the appeal · informed me that the dismissal would
stand.
88. In December 2018, I was dismissed from TTUHSC·s DNP and FNP programs
without any notice of any danger of dismissal in either program, without any notice at any point of
the dismissal itself with respect to the FNP program, and without any opportunity to respond to
dismissal from either program.
89. Defendants dismissed me without providing the process that I was due, in violation
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
90. Defendants acted under color of law in violating the Fourteenth Amendment, as
described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
91. As a result of Defendants· official policies, acts, omissions, and practices, I
17
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 18
18 of
PageID 18
18
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
have suffered irreparable harm because she was deprived of my right to procedural due process.
92. Defendants' actions and omissions proximately caused me to suffer damages, and
I continue to suffer damages, academically, financially and emotionally; including, by way of
illustration and not limitation, humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of professional
reputation, and permanent professional damage.
93. The acts, conduct, and behavior of Defendants have denied me my substantive due
process rights, by reason of which I was entitled to injunctive relief of immediate re-enrollment
in TTUHSC's DNP and FNP programs in Spring 2021.
94. The acts, conduct and behavior of each of the individual Defendants Evans and
Cherry in acting to deny me my procedural due process rights were performed knowingly,
intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously, by reason of which I was entitled to compensatory
and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities in a sum in excess of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00).
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER 42 U.S.C. §
1983 (DENIAL OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS)
Against Defendants Evans and Cherry in their individual and official capacities
95. Each of the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 94, inclusive, are hereby
incorporated by this reference as if realleged fully herein.
96. All persons residing in the United States are afforded the right to substantive due
process through the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
97. The protections of the Substantive Due Process clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment bar the government from taking arbitrary action that results in the deprivation of a
person's interest without reasonable justification.
98. I had a constitutionally protected property interest in my continued enrollment in
18
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 19
19 of
PageID 19
19
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
my education in TTUHSC·s DNP and FNP programs. Further, I have invested a significant
amounts of money into paying for the education that I completed, strengthening my claim to the
interest.
99. I was afforded rights under the Fourteenth Amendment·s substantive due process
clause that enables this Court to override a post-secondary public university·s academic decision
where the School·s actions were such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to
demonstrate that they did not actually exercise professional judgment when stripping me of that
protected property interest.
100. When viewed against the background of my entire career at the School, TTUHSC·s
policies, and TTUHSC·s discrimination, Defendants· dismissal of me from both the DNP and FNP
programs was arbitrary and capricious and an extreme departure from academic norms and had no
rational academic basis.
101. Defendants asserted that I was dismissed because I met one of the following
criteria:
· Students earning a C or lower in two or more DNP courses in one
semester
· Students earning a C or lower in the same DNP course twice
· Students earning a C or lower in a second DNP course even though one
DNP course has been retaken and a satisfactory grade of B or better has
been obtained
· Cumulative semester or cumulative GPA less than 2.0 for two
consecutive semesters
102. I earned a C or lower in only one DNP course, and my GPA never fell below 2.0.
103. My other low grade was in the FNP program, an entirely separate program. Both
the DNP low grade and the FNP low grade were a direct result of TTUHSC·s discrimination
against me.
104. Defendants· stated basis for dismissal did not accord with the facts and was, at best,
19
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 20
20 of
PageID 20
20
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
based on the negative impact of TTUHSC·s continuing discrimination. An academic decision
based on discrimination or one clearly contradicted by the facts is not a legitimate exercise of
professional judgment.
105. Defendants further failed to timely respond to my dismissal appeal, which was filed
in accordance with all requirements of TTUHSC policy.
106. While my appeal was pending, and in contravention of TTUHSC·s policy, I was
removed as an active student, denied access to my email and had my advising appointments
cancelled.
107. Dr. Cherry then told me that I could only stay in the DNP program or in the FNP
program, but not both. However, when I asked for additional time to consider, Dr. Cherry abruptly
informed me that the decision to dismiss me would stand, and I was dismissed from both the DNP
and FNP programs.
108. Defendants finalized my dismissal without holding a hearing or considering my
appeal. The refusal to hear my appeal, particularly in light of the fact that I did not meet the
criteria for dismissal, and then the permanent dismissal of me from not only the DNP program as
specified in the December 18, 2018 dismissal letter but also the FNP program, for which I received
and Defendants provided or asserted no notice, communication, or basis, was arbitrary and
capricious, without exercise of professional academic judgment and an extreme departure from
academic norms, without rational academic basis.
109. Defendants acted under color of law in violating the Fourteenth Amendment, as
described herein in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
110. As a result of Defendants· official policies, acts, omissions, and practices, I
have suffered irreparable harm because I was deprived of my rights to be free from arbitrary,
20
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 21
21 of
PageID 21
21
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
capricious abuse perpetrated by state actors acting on behalf of the state.
111. Defendants' actions and omissions proximately caused me to suffer, and I
continue to suffer, damages academically, financially and emotionally; including, by way of
illustration and not limitation, humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of professional
reputation, and permanent professional damage.
112. The acts, conduct, and behavior of Defendants have denied me my substantive due
process rights, by reason of which I was entitled to injunctive relief of immediate re-enrollment
in TTUHSC's DNP and FNP programs.
113. The acts, conduct and behavior of each of the individual Defendants Evans and
Cherry in acting to deny me my substantive due process rights were performed knowingly,
intentionally, oppressively, and maliciously, by reason of which I was entitled to compensatory
and punitive damages against Defendants in their individual capacities in a sum in excess of
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00).
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), I demand a jury trial for all issues in
this matter.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, I pray that this Honorable Court enter judgment in my favor, and against
the Defendants: (a) for Injunctive Relief to reinstate me as a student in good standing at Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center's Doctor of Nursing Practice and Family Nurse
Practitioner programs in Spring 2021, free from discrimination; (b) for compensatory damages in
an amount in excess of SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) to be
determined at trial; (c) for punitive damages against the individual Defendants in excess of
21
Case
1 1 Filed
Page 22
22 of
PageID 22
22
Case5:20-cv-00232-H-BV
5:20-cv-00232-H-BVDocument
Document
Filed09/23/20
09/23/20 Page
of 22
22 PageID
SEVENTY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($75,000.00) to be determined at trial; (d) for interest;
(e) together with the costs and disbursements of this action and such other attorneys' fees, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and (f) further relief as justice requires.
DATED this 23rd day of September, 2020.
Pro Se
By
Amy Pickett
P.O. Box 543
Buffalo Gap, Texas 79508
apickett1010@yahoo.com
(682) 258-4558
22