COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center filed by Schyler Grodman. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number ATXNDC-14016671) Clerk to¶

Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:23-cv-00210 (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 1 · 2023-09-07 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SCHYLER Z. GRODMAN, M.D.,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER
Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Schyler Grodman, M.D. (“Grodman”) files this Original Complaint against
Defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (“Defendant”), because Defendant
discriminated against Grodman based on his disability, and hereby states as follows:
I.
1.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1367.
2.

Venue is proper in the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division because the

causes of action alleged occurred within this District.
3.

Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on June 13, 2023. See
Ex. A (EEOC Determination and Notice of Rights). Plaintiff files this suit within (90) days of
receiving the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.
II.
4.

THE PARTIES

At all relevant times, Grodman was a resident of the State of Texas. Grodman

resides in the State of New Jersey.
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 1 OF 25

5.

Defendant is a state-related university which receives federal financial assistance

located at 3601 4th Street, Lubbock Texas 79430.
III.
6.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY-RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR

Whenever in this pleading it is alleged that Defendant or its agents or employees

did any act or thing, or failed to do any act or thing, it is meant that Defendant’s vice principals,
officers, Clinical Competency Committee (“Committee”) members, servants, employees, agents,
or representatives did any act or thing, or failed to do such act or thing, or that such act or thing or
omission was done in the course and scope of that person’s employment at Defendant, and/or in
the furtherance of Defendant’s interests, or with the full authorization, permission, tolerance,
and/or ratification of Defendant was done in the normal routine of the accepted, tolerated, or
permitted conduct, customs, and/or practices of Defendant’s officers, owners, servants, employees,
and/or representatives.
7.

Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Grodman in the relevant period were

principally brought about by and through Dr. Samer Zaid-Kaylani (“Kaylani”), the former director
of Defendant’s Pediatrics Residency Program, and various members of Defendant’s faculty and
Committee including: Dr. Anders Leverton, Dr. Smita Bhaskaran, Dr. Shannon Dr. Herrick, Dr.
Stacy Steans, Dr. Srilatha Alapati, Dr. Olubunkunola Adesanya, Dr. Muhammad Subhani, Dr.
Enas Shanshen, Dr. Johnnie Faircloth, Dr. Jenda Arawiran, Dr. Alison Lunsford, and Dr. Mandy
Griffin.
IV.
A.

FACTS

Grodman’s Disabilities and Symptoms.
8.

Grodman is disabled and has been diagnosed with the following conditions:

attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”), Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”),
depression, and social anxiety. Grodman was clinically diagnosed with ADHD when he was three
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 2 OF 25

years old and has taken ADHD medication for his condition since he was five. At the time of
Grodman’s dismissal by Defendant, he was at the near maximal 24 hour recommended dosage of
his medication.
9.

Grodman’s disability includes the combination of the effects of Grodman’s ADHD,

along with his ASD, anxiety, and depression diagnosis—all of which impact Grodman’s major life
activities separately and by exacerbating Grodman’s symptoms related to his ADHD.
10.

Grodman’s ADHD substantially limits one or more of Grodman’s major life

activities, including his learning, memory, sleep, and productivity. In its active state, and in the
absence of mitigating measures like sufficient medication, Grodman’s ADHD condition
significantly limits Grodman’s major life activities. It severely restricts Grodman’s concentration
and memory. Grodman’s ADHD medication also impacts and affects his major life activities
including work and his personal life. Grodman’s common ADHD symptoms include depression,
anxiety, social withdrawal, impaired concentration, memory problems, fatigue, and physical and
emotional reactions, including increased negative symptoms as the medication’s effect wears or
when the dosage is insufficient (causing Grodman to have to adjust dosages from time to time).
In addition, the medication has side effects that substantially limit his sleeping and wakefulness.
11.

As a consequence of his disabilities, Grodman sometimes requires accommodations

in the form of extended time to complete particular tasks. And based on the facts above, at all
relevant times, Grodman was a person with an “actual” disability, a “record of” disability, and a
“regarded-as” disability, as defined by the ADA as amended, and by Chapter 21, as amended.
12.

In spite of these diagnoses, and with reasonable accommodations, Grodman

completed his undergraduate at the University of Pennsylvania, a Pre-Med Post-Baccalaureate
Program at Columbia University, and medical school at the College of Physicians and Surgeons

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 3 OF 25

at Columbia University, where he also received a masters degree. He also obtained
accommodations from the USMLE/NBME for the Step examinations and graduate school
admissions testing.
B.

Relevant Employment and Time Period.
13.

Defendant operates a Pediatric Residency Program (hereinafter the “Program”), the

mission and purpose of which is education. Residents of the Program are employed by Defendant.
Grodman was hired by Defendant to work in the Program as a Resident in 2019. Defendant
terminated Grodman’s employment on or around January 7, 2022. The acts of discrimination and
retaliation at the basis of this complaint occurred from the time of Grodman’s hiring by Defendant
to the date that Grodman’s termination was reviewed and wrongfully upheld by Defendant’s
Appeal Review Subcommittee, on or around April 2022. During all relevant times, Kaylani
remained the Program Director.
14.

As a Resident of the Program, Grodman’s duties (at the time the discrimination

occurred) included being responsible for coordinating the care of multiple pediatric patients on the
team Grodman was assigned to. Grodman also performed the initial assessments of the patients
and actively participated in all aspects of pediatric patient treatment and care, including history
and physical, diagnostic and therapeutic planning, procedures, writing orders, interactions with
family, and maintaining medical records.
C.

Defendant’s Awareness of Grodman’s Disability.
15.

During the first two years, Kaylani also worked extensively with Grodman as the

program director. Kaylani asked questions about Grodman’s health conditions and disabilities.
At one point, Kaylani even confessed that Grodman shared attributes with his daughter, describing
them as both bright but with “social issues.” Grodman was uncomfortable sharing details of his

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 4 OF 25

disabilities but disclosed his diagnosed disabilities, including his ADHD diagnosis, his struggle to
adjust his medications, and the nature of the impact that his disabilities had on his personal life
and work.
16.

Since the beginning of his work, Grodman also disclosed that he received

accommodations including extra time on all standardized testing and all USMLE exams, to which
Kaylani expressed no knowledge. Grodman also disclosed his disability to his designated mentor,
Dr. Sharon Herrick (“Herrick”) who was and remains the Chair of the Pediatrics Department at
Texas Tech-Amarillo as well to Dr. Angelo Wong (“Wong”), a development Pediatrician during
his rotation through her service in his first year of residency.
17.

Upon information and belief, Kaylani also informed all program leadership about

Grodman’s disabilities, or all program leadership became aware of Grodman’s disabilities
independently. Thus, Defendant no doubt had knowledge of Grodman’s disabilities, or otherwise
recognized his behaviors as symptomatic of his disabilities. See, e.g., February 7, 2021 email from
Dr. Shanshen (a member of the leadership committee of Defendant) observing that “I think there
are some behavioral/psychiatric issues as well that might be affecting [Grodman’s] performance.”
(emphasis added).
18.

Defendant was aware of Grodman’s disabilities and the impact those disabilities

had on Grodman’s ability to perform his obligations. During Grodman’s first two years of his
residency, and after Grodman disclosed the nature of his disabilities to Defendant, Grodman
received several informal accommodations from Defendant. Kaylani also knew that Grodman had
been given extra time on exams throughout medical school and on all licensing examinations.
With this knowledge, Defendant, by and through Kaylani, represented to Grodman that no such
accommodations were necessary, and that the results of the internal examinations were for

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 5 OF 25

educational purposes only and that those scores “would never be used against [Grodman].”
Finally, Defendant also knew that Grodman was already on ADHD medication and that, given the
duration of action of the medications, long stretches of scheduled work needed to be carefully
monitored.
19.

Given Defendant’s knowledge of Grodman’s disabilities, and especially during

Grodman’s second year, Defendant provided informal accommodations tailored to Grodman’s
disabilities and requests, including but not limited to:

20.

•

additional regular meetings with Grodman’s mentor;

•

supervised calls and close monitoring, including additional review of all
orders;

•

built-in, additional, detailed feedback from faculty and supervisors, (which
Grodman continually requested);

•

major scheduling
scheduling;

•

planned, additional Committee meetings to discuss Grodman’s progress;
and

•

supplemental meetings, phone calls, and talks to discuss call preparation.

adjustments,

including

accommodated

rotation

With the help of these tailored accommodations, and through his own

determination, Grodman’s work performance during his first two years of residency was
satisfactory (Grodman was promoted twice). And given these prior experiences, Dr. Grodman
reasonably expected the Program to be responsive and collaborative regarding accommodations.
21.

At the end of his second year, Grodman was fully supported for competitive

fellowship applications. In fact, after Grodman’s successful promotion to the third and final year
of his residency, both Kaylani, the Department Director, and Dr. Herrick, the Department Chair,
wrote positive letters of recommendation supporting Grodman’s candidacy for a post-graduation
pediatric fellowship.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 6 OF 25

D.

Grodman’s Final Year of Residency.
22.

On August 28, 2021, during Grodman’s final year of residency, Grodman tore his

Achilles tendon during a soccer game organized by Kaylani. Despite the injury, Grodman fulfilled
full duties as a resident, using a walking boot, until surgery, after which he requested and was
given time off. Afterward, Grodman was limited to utilizing a scooter to always get around until
early October when he was permitted to use crutches. At that time, he needed to undergo physical
therapy until around Thanksgiving without any diminution of responsibilities.
23.

In addition, from September 8, 2021 to October 14, 2021, Grodman had almost a

dozen post-residency fellowship interviews, which required extensive preparation and often lasted
all day. Post-residency fellowship programs are extremely competitive and the placement of
residents in such fellowship programs has a material effect on standing and prestige of residency
programs such as Defendant’s.
24.

The combined stress on Grodman from these interviews, his injury, and his

continued full obligations was significant. The two faculty members closest to Grodman (and who
had recently provided positive letters of recommendation on behalf of Grodman), Herrick and
Kaylani, both acknowledged in writing that they noticed a change during this time. Herrick wrote
in an evaluation that Grodman “Seems distracted in community clinic.” Kaylani wrote also to the
Committee that: “I am not sure what is going on with Zane since he came back from Dallas in
September[.]” Kaylani also characterized Grodman’s behavior during this time as “senioritis.”
E.

Defendant Discontinues Successful Accommodations.
25.

Despite the ongoing stressors and during this critical time, Defendant made a

turning-point decision to fully discontinue the informal accommodations provided by Defendant.
Upon information and belief, Defendant determined that even if Grodman was successfully placed

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 7 OF 25

into a fellowship program, Grodman’s disabilities, and the manifestations of those disabilities,
would somehow negatively affect Defendant’s standing.
26.

Thus, discontinuing these necessary informal accommodations was discriminatory

and the first retaliatory action taken against Grodman on the basis of his disabilities, and because
of Grodman reporting his disabilities and health concerns to Kaylani. Defendant discontinued
these accommodations knowing (and hoping) that it would negatively affect Grodman’s ability to
perform his obligations in the program, especially with all the additional stressors of Grodman’s
final year.
27.

At no time during the fall of 2021, until December 17th, did Grodman ever receive

a warning, or any written notice that any disciplinary actions were even contemplated or that his
status or job were in jeopardy. Grodman was also given no notice or explanation for why these
important (and successful) accommodations had been withdrawn altogether.
28.

Upon information and belief, Defendant withdrew the informal accommodations to

manufacture a basis on which to terminate Grodman. See Email from Raphael Mattamal dated
December 5, 2021 (stating that Grodman would be a “poison pill to any program that actually
takes him for future [Defendant] residents.”) (emphasis added). Dr. Mattamal’s communications
clearly show Defendant’s motivation in using Grodman’s disability, and the withdrawal of these
key accommodations, as a basis to terminate him.
F.

Defendant’s Pretextual Plan to Suspend Grodman Based on His Disabilities.
29.

Upon information and belief, Grodman’s termination was predetermined,

beginning with Defendant’s decision to withdraw all accommodations. Defendant never meant to
give Grodman any chance to remediate or be heard.

Defendant’s discriminatory actions

culminated in the following way:

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 8 OF 25

•

December 5-6: Immediately after difficult on-call duty when Grodman
was ill, Kaylani sends the Committee an “Urgent and highly confidential”
email requesting an “urgent vote” to place Grodman on “immediate
probation with possible path to termination.” During the same email
exchanges, Kaylani labels Grodman as a “dangerous resident,” thus
prejudicing the Committee and limiting dissent. See Exs. B-G (email from
Kaylani and Committee’s responses). Despite the above, Grodman
remained on full duty without any modifications.

•

December 10: Kaylani met with Grodman, along with Lawson, Program
administrator, and discussed Grodman’s insufficient dosage of ADHD
medication. However, during this conversation, Kaylani mostly berated
Grodman, accusing him of “being a physician who does not take medicine.”
At that time, Grodman asked if there was any possibility that he would not
finish his residency on time. He was told that residency ends on June 30.
Grodman took that as a sign that his career was not in jeopardy. He was not
informed of the Committee’s action 5 days earlier. Again, despite the
above, Grodman remained on full duty without any modifications.

•

December 17: Grodman is first informed about disciplinary actions,
Defendant skips remediation, and places Grodman on probation. See Ex. J
(Notice of Probation). Despite the above, Grodman remained on full duty
without any modification.

•

December 17-23: Defendant pressures Grodman into continuing his
ongoing night shifts without opportunity for any kind of remediation or the
opportunity to seek professional help, including help in adjusting his
medications.

•

December 23: Defendant suspends Grodman, forcing Grodman to remain
isolated on campus during winter break. The suspension letter states that an
investigation will take place. No record of any investigation exists. See Ex.
K (Notice of Suspension).1

•

December 27: Grodman formally requests accommodations, including
medical leave to adjust his medications. See Ex. L (Formal Request for
Accommodations).

1 The Program’s same pattern of improper conduct continued throughout its disciplinary actions against Grodman.

After summarily suspending Grodman on December 23, the Program forced Grodman to remain isolated on campus
and neither (1) provided Grodman with support (2) nor provided Grodman with an opportunity to seek support. Many
other these issues may have also been factors in the tragic outcome for one of the Institution’s family medicine
residents, Dr. Aaron Chen, who it is widely known struggled with depression and apparently died by suicide in or
around October 2022 after leaving a didactics session.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 9 OF 25

•

30.

January 4: Ignoring Grodman’s formal request for accommodations and
request for leave, Defendant votes to terminate. See Exs. M-N (Termination
Letter and Disciplinary Action Form).
The evidence shows that upon receiving the program director’s prejudicial request

for an “urgent vote” to place Grodman on “immediate probation with possible path to termination,”
on December 5, 2021, Committee members immediately authorized Grodman’s termination,
exacerbating a hostile environment whereby all due process, fairness or consideration of any kind
of remediation was destroyed.2
31.

The probation letter given to Grodman on December 17, 12 days after the vote

instigated by Kaylani to place Grodman on “probation with a path to termination,” recognized the
specifics of Grodman’s disabilities. The letter major elements that needed improvement were test
score improvement (without any mention of extra time that had been granted in the past and of
which Kaylani had full knowledge) as well as specifically noting “attention to detail and follow
up with attendings”, all manifestations of Grodman’s disabilities including ADHD. The letter
demonstrated Kaylani’s weaponization of Grodman’s disabilities against him.
32.

Defendant deliberately and willfully ignored Grodman’s disabilities, requests for

accommodations, and had predetermined to terminate Grodman almost two weeks before ever
placing Grodman under probation (and as early as December 5, 2021), all while deliberately
keeping Grodman in dark about their career destroying intentions and then, continued to obfuscate
and act in a disingenuous manner about the looming termination proceedings.

2 Grodman’s suspension and subsequent termination entirely lacked any considerations required under the ADA or by

ACGME guidelines. Even though termination is the most severe and life- and career-altering sanction possible and
should be considered only as a last resort, Defendant managed to terminate Grodman in less than three weeks after
the date it first placed him on expedited probation.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 10 OF 25

33.

Defendant’s illegal and improper refusal to consider Grodman’s requests for

accommodations and medical leave before terminating Grodman demonstrates a discriminatory
motivation to fire Grodman. Defendant’s refusal to consider accommodations (because according
to Defendant, the result would have been the “same”) was a result of a fundamental (and
discriminatory) misunderstanding of the nature of Grodman’s disabilities, especially alarming
since the primary disability is essentially a common pediatric condition. This fundamental
misunderstanding and underlying prejudice led Defendant to take the position that manifestations
of Grodman’s disabilities were deliberate and that Grodman’s disabilities made Grodman
inherently incapable of practicing medicine. See, e.g., Kaylani’s statement that “No extra time at
this point, months or years would prepare [Grodman] for independent safe practice.”; see also Dr.
Mattamal’s email stating “Whether this is due to a medical issue, psychiatric issue, or severe
personality deficit, I don’t know and honestly don’t care at this stage.”3
34.

Defendant’s refusal to acknowledge Grodman’s disabilities, including Defendant’s

belief that Grodman’s disabilities were deliberate is accurately captured by its position and
response to the EEOC: “Grodman was aware of the terms of his probation, and while it is
unfortunate that Grodman chose to violate those terms so soon after being put on probation, the
timing of Grodman’s dangerous behavior reflects nothing about Defendant much less
discriminatory intent.”
35.

Despite Defendant’s narratives to the contrary, Defendant’s adverse employment

actions entirely focused on the manifestations of Grodman’s disabilities. In fact, Defendant’s
January 4, 2022 termination letter admits that Defendant’s decision was based on Grodman’s

3 Just five months earlier, Grodman received positive evaluations from both Kaylani and Mattamal, further evidencing

Grodman’s unawareness of Defendant’s plan to label him as a “dangerous resident” and terminate him.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 11 OF 25

conduct arising from his disabilities (and conduct for which Defendant had provided Grodman
with accommodations) during his first year, and throughout his residency.
36.

Defendant knowingly lied and purposely misled Grodman regarding ongoing

disciplinary actions against him. Moreover, Defendant falsified the documentation relating to
Grodman’s ultimate termination, omitting the important fact that Grodman had been removed
from a prior observation over 18 months prior to his probation. See Exs. H-I, M-N. At the time
of his recommended termination, Defendant stated that Grodman was placed on observation, then
probation and finally suspension, clearly ignoring that Grodman was taken off observation, had
shown improvement and had been promoted to third year and received positive recommendations
from Committee members, including the Program Director and Department Chair.
G.

Grodman Formally Requested Reasonable Accommodations Before Termination.
37.

Shortly after receiving the probation notice, which for the first time, made Grodman

aware that his job was in jeopardy, Grodman immediately began the process of formally requesting
accommodations, including medical leave, in order to adjust his medications. Grodman made
several reasonable requests for accommodation, including a 30-day leave of absence in order to
adjust his medications, and other standard accommodations for someone with ADHD, including
extra time on exams (which is a standard request for those with ADHD); thirty days to consult
with his therapists regarding counseling and treatment, an opportunity to develop a real
remediation plan for any perceived performance issues, receipt and discussion of performance
expectations, real-time feedback, mentoring, and time for these proposals to address the program’s
concerns. See Ex. L (Request for Accommodations). Importantly, Grodman further sought to have
his disability considered in connection with his threatened termination.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 12 OF 25

38.

After Grodman’s suspension letter, upon our belief, members of the Pediatric

leadership started a malicious smear campaign against Grodman, labeling him a “baby killer.”
Such comments were even specifically to Committee members, and even to family members of
the Committee, such as Mattamal’s wife, a Family Medicine attending. In addition, following the
hearing in February, Mattamal. posted on social media that he had one of the worst days of his
professional life. Despite being one of Grodman’s critics, he testified under questioning from
Grodman, that he never gave Grodman an evaluation worse than “meets expectations” and that
when he asked when he saw a change in fall of 2021 while admitting he have Grodman a positive
evaluation just 6 months earlier. These rumors, in a small isolated medical community such as
Amarillo, clearly had a prejudicial impact on the hearing and on other medical professionals at the
hospital.
H.

Defendant’s Plan to Terminate Dr. Grodman was Discriminatory.
39.

On December 23rd, just six days after being placed on probation and after working

12-hour night shifts every single night, Grodman was suspended. See Ex. K. Grodman received a
notice of his suspension from the program, allegedly based on his performance on the three
overnight shifts.
40.

After receiving the Probation Letter,4 Grodman promptly began the process of

formally requesting accommodations, demonstrating that he was willing and able to remediate any
concerns that the program has without the need for the ultimate sanction of termination. At this
time, Defendant had placed Grodman in consecutive 12-hour shifts and hoped that Grodman had

4 Dr. Grodman’s probation period actually built in even more time than that; he was to be on probation from December

17, 2021 until March 24, 2022, which is 97 days. Despite this clear policy, Dr. Kaylani moved to dismiss Dr. Grodman
just six days after he was informed of his probation (6% of his probationary period). There was no time or opportunity
for Dr. Grodman to make use of what the probation ostensibly sought to teach him or seek external medical assistance,
particularly in light of the demanding night call schedule to which he was assigned during his nascent probationary
period.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 13 OF 25

no opportunity to seek assistance. Nevertheless, Grodman formally requested accommodations
and specifically requested that Defendant consider his disability in evaluating both probation and
termination.
41.

Defendant’s Suspension Letter alleged that Grodman’s performance was “seriously

compromised or may constitute a danger to patients” and stated that an investigation would take
place over the next month. See id. But internal Defendant emails show that such allegations had
been repeated for months, and that such an investigation never occurred. Any investigation would
only have shown that Grodman’s conduct did not lead to any bad outcomes whatsoever, but that
the patients were all stable or not otherwise in immediate danger. After all, Defendant had
purposefully scheduled these shifts at a time Defendant knew that Grodman was undermedicated,
and with the intention and anticipation that Grodman would violate the terms of his probation.
Indeed, Defendant’s conduct was part of its unfair and expedited plan to force Grodman out of the
program, even if it meant using Grodman’s disabilities against him.
42.

First, Grodman had no notice of Defendant’s plan to terminate him until it was too

late. When he received Defendant’s notice of probation, he was not aware that he had been labeled
a “dangerous resident” by the Defendant Clinical Competency Committee (the “Committee”) and
that he would be suspended only six days later. Second, Defendant’s plan failed to provide
Grodman with any opportunity to remediate, or even an opportunity to be heard. In addition to
rushing his termination, Defendant ignored and failed to consider Grodman’s formal request for
accommodations, including a request for a medical leave to give Grodman the chance to adjust his
medications. Third, just as Defendant failed to consider Grodman’s timely request for
accommodations, there is no evidence that Defendant engaged in any decision-making process
prior to terminating Grodman.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 14 OF 25

43.

Several days before the date of his termination, Grodman, by letter to the full

Committee, disclosed to the full competency committee the extent of this psychiatric problems,
his need to take greater than recommended doses of his medication to cope with long shifts, and
formally requested reasonable accommodations that would permit him to reevaluate his
medication, including leave.
44.

Defendant did not provide Grodman with the forms on which Grodman submitted

that formal request for accommodations until only four days before Grodman was terminated.
Defendant denied Grodman’s request for reasonable accommodation, terminated him (without
even considering the request) and failed to offer any alternative accommodations.
45.

Defendant never afforded Grodman the same rights as all other employees,

including the right to take medical leave, etc., as Grodman had requested. In fact, the Program
violated its own internal policies in the process of terminating Grodman. Defendant’s policy states
that only if the resident fails to improve based on the matters identified during probation or engages
in further seriously deficient conduct, Defendant can seek to terminate the resident. Under
Defendant procedures, a resident is given at least sixty days (60) after probation before termination
is considered so that the resident can show improvement. Here, Defendant terminated Grodman
only 18 days after placing Grodman under Probation, completely ignoring Grodman’s request for
accommodations due to his disability (a fact which Defendant has admitted).
46.

Defendant’s refusal to consider accommodations (because according to Defendant,

the result would have been the “same”) was a result of a fundamental (and discriminatory)
misunderstanding of the nature of Grodman’s disabilities, including the belief that Grodman’s
disabilities were deliberate and the belief that that Grodman’s disabilities made Grodman
inherently incapable of practicing medicine. See, e.g., Kaylani’s statement that “No extra time at

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 15 OF 25

this point, months or years would prepare [Grodman] for independent safe practice.”; see also
Mattamal email stating “Whether this is due to a medical issue, psychiatric issue, or severe
personality deficit, I don’t know and honestly don’t care at this stage.”5
47.

Kaylani completely dismissed Grodman’s comments out of hand in the month

leading to termination. Defendant’s misunderstanding of and/or ambivalence toward Grodman’s
disabilities is further reflected in the facts. As program director of Defendant Kaylani endorsed
policy that downplayed and ignored the physical and mental needs of physicians, even the needs
of resident physicians with disabilities such as Grodman’s.

In Grodman’s case, Kaylani

demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of how Grodman’s disabilities were affecting his
performance and argued that Grodman’s disabilities were irrelevant because severe stress,
sickness, or even life-events were no excuse for poor performance or non-attendance.
48.

In fact, on at least one occasion, Kaylani improperly compared Grodman’s

disabilities with his own personal hardship stated the following:
“The answer is just no. Things happen. People die. People get sick. I had a very
rough week this week, and I’m just going to tell you, my wife had a miscarriage
last Thursday. It was hell, but her OB was so smart. I was out. I mean, as a parent
or somebody involved, you can’t think clearly that day […] And I said, I am on
service.” (emphasis added).
49.

Defendant and Committee members have even admitted that they did not consider

Grodman’s timely request in their decision to fire him and didn’t even have copies of his request
during their final meeting regarding Grodman’s termination. Even weeks before suspending
Grodman, the Committee expressed unwillingness to consider accommodations or to even

5 Defendant’s misunderstanding of Grodman’s disabilities, including the belief that Grodman’s disabilities were

deliberate is accurately captured by its position and response to the EEOC: “Grodman was aware of the terms of his
probation, and while it is unfortunate that Grodman chose to violate those terms so soon after being put on probation,
the timing of Grodman’s dangerous behavior reflects nothing about Defendant much less discriminatory intent.”

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 16 OF 25

consider that his undermedication of Grodman’s disability played any role in his issues (despite
setting forth specific characteristics in the probation letter to the contrary).
50.

Through statements of the Committee during Grodman’s appeal hearing in April

2021, Defendant has further admitted that it considered Grodman’s conduct since the beginning of
his residency in its decision to terminate him. (“This is a thing that has started July 2019 with all
the support that is possible. Deal with it. It hurts to hear that.”; “So this is not start at some
probation. This does not start. This is a continuum of problems that have happened.”). Defendant’s
reliance on Grodman’s prior (resolved) observation period (which concluded positively 18 months
prior to his probation), and on Grodman’s conduct throughout his residency, centering on
Grodman’s disabilities (while ignoring Grodman’s successful performance, improvement, and
promotions in the interim), further demonstrates Defendant’s discriminatory motives. See Exs. HI (Letter of Observation and Letter Regarding End of Observation).
51.

On or around January 7, 2022, Grodman’s employment was terminated.

Defendant’s termination letter admits that Defendant’s decision was based on Grodman’s conduct
arising from his disabilities (and conduct for which Defendant had provided Grodman with
accommodations) during his first year, and throughout his residency, despite the fact that Grodman
was never subject to any prior disciplinary action before being placed on probation in December
2021. (Termination Letter dated January 7, 2022, recommending Grodman’s termination due to
alleged performance “despite repeated counseling and close mentoring” and “unprofessional
conduct towards your patients and colleagues despite repeated attempts to assist you to improve
your interpersonal and communication skills.”) (emphasis added). Not surprisingly, the letter
did not state that Grodman was terminated due to his complaints about discrimination or
disabilities.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 17 OF 25

52.

Instead of providing any notice or of sincerely engaging in any interactive process,

Defendant ignored Grodman’s need and request for accommodations, and created an environment
that would for Grodman to fail due to his disabilities. Because the termination process is
extraordinarily severe—a professional death sentence—Defendant acted in complete disregard of
Grodman’s rights.
53.

Defendant knew but either ignored or disregarded that Grodman was under

extraordinary stress and needed to adjust his medication, Defendant scheduled Grodman for
consecutive full night shifts throughout this “probation” period. Defendant intentionally
maintained Grodman on this schedule, making it impossible for Grodman to re-adjust his
medication or seek related professional help, even when issues arose in the first and the second
of these shifts.
54.

Moreover, during these nights, Defendant did not provide Grodman with

accommodations it had provided on previous calls in earlier years, but intensified heightened
aggression against Grodman, and continued to schedule Grodman for night shifts. In the end,
Defendant hoped that Grodman’s insufficient medication, lack of accommodations, and added
pressure would lead Grodman to make some mistake that violated the terms of Grodman’s
probation.
55.

During the expedited Probation period, Defendant intentionally deprived Grodman

of the chance to seek the professional help he needed, because Defendant had already decided to
terminate Grodman for reasons that had nothing to do with Grodman’s medical knowledge.
Defendant was aware that, at this point, Grodman was adjusting his ADHD medications, which
Kaylani expressly stated in his testimony at Grodman’s internal appeal hearing, for example,
Kaylani stated that “… I know that he’s been adjusting his ADHD medications on his own, because

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 18 OF 25

he had told me about that.” Defendant was aware that Grodman needed this help and that having
only completed a handful of 24-hour calls, Grodman had not had the opportunity to adjust and
optimize the dosage and timing of his ADHD medication, which remained unadjusted for extended
periods.6
I.

Texas Tech’s Discrimination Continues Even After Grodman’s Termination.
56.

In conversations with Christine Stutz, Defendant’s Graduate Medical Education

(“GME”) Officer, in late December and/or early January, Grodman was assured he could resign at
any time up to termination. As described above, however, Defendant immediately turned around
and issued Grodman’s termination. Later in January 2022, Defendant (by and through its
attorneys) informed Grodman’s (by and through his attorneys) that he will only be allowed to
resign if Grodman did not proceed with the appeal hearing before Defendant’s Appeal Review
Subcommittee. After the hearing, however, that same attorney said they would attempt to have “an
opportunity” to discuss Grodman’s case. Upon belief and information, however, that discussion
ever happened, and Dr. Grodman’s termination was upheld. Defendant’s attempt to block
Grodman’s right to appeal, and its unwillingness to even provide a forum to discuss the possibility
of resignation constituted further attempts to ensure Grodman’s termination from the program
based on his disabilities.7
57.

In October 2022, shortly after a copy of the contemplated complaint was sent to

Defendant, Grodman received a letter from the American Board of Pediatrics, notifying him they

6 For example, it became clear to Dr. Grodman and his treaters while Dr. Grodman was being assessed for reasonable

accommodations that his then-medication regimen was not effective beyond the first 8-10 hours, and thus an
adjustment of his medication would be needed to help him perform during longer shifts.
7 As outlined above, Grodman’s experience at the Program sheds light on multiple failings of both Defendant’s

Institution and Program regarding how residents, and particularly residents with disabilities who seek
accommodations, are treated. Interrelatedly, Grodman’s difficulty with long overnight shifts in light of his disabilities
highlight serious problems with the Defendant’s handling of resident well-being (especially regarding fatigue and
illness) despite the emphasis the ACGME began placing on those issues contemporaneously.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 19 OF 25

received notice from Defendant Texas Tech-Amarillo about his termination, upon information and
belief this notice had been sent by Kaylani, informing Grodman that he will have limited time to
complete a residency, otherwise the completed two and half years of his residency would be null
and void.
58.

The net effect on the discrimination and recrimination against Grodman, and

conferred on Grodman a professional death sentence. As Defendant well knows, residency
programs such as Defendant’s do not accept applicants who were terminated. Medical licensing
boards will not accept applications for state licensing if there is any disciplinary action pending in
the program. Rejection of one state medical board, regardless of its nature, must be reported to
any other medical board in seeking licensure. At this time, due to the discrimination and
recrimination, Grodman will never have the ability to practice medicine.
V.
59.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE ADA
Grodman repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs.
60.

The ADA prohibits discrimination by an employer against a qualified individual

with a disability in the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); 29
C.F.R. § 1630.4.
61.

The ADA defines discrimination as, inter alia, not making reasonable

accommodations to an otherwise qualified individual with a disability. 42 U.S.C. §
12112(b)(5)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9. The ADA defines “disability” as: “(A) a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a
record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment[.]” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12102(1). Under the 2008 amendments to the ADA, an individual is “regarded as” disabled when

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 20 OF 25

he is perceived as having a physical or mental impairment, regardless of whether the impairment
actually exists or is perceived to limit a major life activity. Id. § 12102(3)(A);
62.

“[M]ajor life activities include learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, and

working,” as well as “the operation of a major bodily function, including ... neurological, brain, ...
[and] endocrine ... functions.” Id. § 12102(2)(A)-(B). The ADA mandates that “[t]he definition of
disability be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals to the maximum extent permitted
by the terms of [the statute].” Id. § 12102(4)(A).
63.

Grodman has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more

major life activities.
64.

Grodman’s disability and its consequential limitations were known by Defendant.

Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer must engage in an interactive process
with the employee to identify the precise limitation resulting from the disability and identify
accommodations that overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3). Grodman disclosed
his disabilities including his ADHD and ASD to Kaylani and to the Committee.
65.

Defendant discriminated against Grodman in violation of the ADA when Defendant

denied Grodman ‘s informal and formal requests for reasonable accommodation and subsequently
failed to engage in an interactive process with Grodman (instead summarily terminating
Grodman). Defendant refused to allow Grodman reasonable accommodations, the opportunity to
adjust his medications, and medical leave, despite other employees having such accommodations.
66.

Defendant told Grodman he would be required to remain and take full night shifts

while other similarly situated employees were not required to do so. Grodman was high-risk for
depressive episodes, fatigue, and exacerbated symptoms of his disabilities. Grodman asked for,
inter alia, the reasonable accommodation for medical leave, just as Defendant had granted other

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 21 OF 25

Residents and employees in the past. Defendant said no. Instead, on January 7, 2021, Defendant
terminated Grodman.
67.

The above-described unlawful employment practices caused Grodman to lose the

benefits of employment and wages, and he has suffered distress, suffering, inconvenience, and
other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses. Defendant committed these acts intentionally, and with
reckless indifference to the Grodman’s legal rights.
VI.
68.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF TCHRA
Grodman repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs.
69.

Chapter 21 of the THCRA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. It also

requires reasonable accommodations for disabilities.
70.

Defendant discriminated against Grodman in violation of the THCRA when

Defendant denied Grodman’s informal and formal requests for reasonable accommodation and
subsequently failed to engage in an interactive process with Grodman (instead summarily
terminating Grodman). Defendant refused to allow Grodman reasonable accommodations, the
opportunity to adjust his medications, and medical leave, despite other employees having such
accommodations.
71.

Defendant told Grodman he would be required to remain and take full night shifts

while other similarly situated employees were not required to do so. Grodman was high-risk for
depressive episodes, fatigue, and exacerbated symptoms of his disabilities. Grodman asked for,
inter alia, the reasonable accommodation for medical leave, just as Defendant had granted other
Residents and employees in the past. Defendant said no. Instead, on January 7, 2021, Defendant
terminated Grodman.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 22 OF 25

72.

The above-described unlawful employment practices caused Grodman to lose the

benefits of employment and wages, and he has suffered distress, suffering, inconvenience, and
other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses. Defendant committed these acts intentionally, and with
reckless indifference to the Grodman’s legal rights.
VII.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
ADA, THE REHABILITATION ACT, AND TCHRA
73.

Grodman repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation in the preceding

paragraphs.
74.

Grodman engaged in an activity protected by the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and

the TCHRA when he asked for informal and formal reasonable accommodations due to his
disabilities, and for the Defendant to allow him to take medical leave to adjust his medications.
Grodman engaged in an activity protected by the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act and the TCHRA
when he met with Kaylani throughout his first two years and in December 2021 and communicated
the lack of adequate accommodations and when he filed an online complaint with the EEOC.
75.

Grodman suffered adverse employment actions and there is a causal connection

between the protected activity and the adverse action when he was summarily suspended and then
fired. It is connected to his protected activity as Defendant refused to reasonably accommodate
Grodman’s disabilities (based on Grodman’s informal and then formal request) and instead
manufactured a plan to cut off accommodations and force Grodman’s termination. Grodman began
experiencing retaliatory actions by Defendant soon after he informally requested reasonable
accommodations. Finally, Grodman’s was terminated after he submitted his formal request for
reasonable accommodations.
VIII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
76.

Grodman requests a jury trial.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 23 OF 25

IX.
77.

ATTORNEY’S FEES UNDER TITLE VII

Pursuant to Title VII, Grodman sues the Defendant for all reasonable attorney’s

fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this suit.
X.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE Grodman requests that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and
that Grodman be awarded:
A.

Injunctive relief;

B.

Back pay;

C.

Expungement of Probation;

D.

Reinstatement and/or front pay as appropriate;

E.

Compensatory damages;

F.

Pre- and post-judgment interest;

G.

Costs, litigation expenses, expert witness fees, and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

H.

Any further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 24 OF 25

Date: September 7, 2023,

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Jeffrey M. Tillotson
Jeffrey M. Tillotson
State Bar No. 20039200
jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com
Enrique Ramirez-Martinez
State Bar No. 24122158
eramirez@tillotsonlaw.com
TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON
1201 Main Street, Suite 1300
Dallas, Texas 75202
(214) 382-3041 Telephone
(214) 292-6564 Facsimile
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing Original Complaint and Jury Demand
was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system on September 7,
2023.
/s/ Jeffrey M. Tillotson
Jeffrey M. Tillotson

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

PAGE 25 OF 25