MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Proposed Order)Attorney Joseph Keeney added¶
Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:23-cv-00210 (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 5 · 2023-10-04 · PDF
Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.
Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID 82 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION SCHYLER Z. GRODMAN, M.D., Plaintiff § § § v. § Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00210-H § § TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY § HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER § Defendant § _____________________________________________________________________________ DEFENDANT’S PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS ______________________________________________________________________________ KEN PAXTON Attorney General of Texas BRENT WEBSTER First Assistant Attorney General GRANT DORFMAN Deputy Attorney General for Litigation JAMES LLOYD Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation KIMBERLY GDULA Deputy Chief, General Litigation Division RYAN KERCHER Deputy Chief, General Litigation Division JOSEPH D. KEENEY Attorney-In-Charge Texas Bar No. 24092616 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division -019 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 475-4090 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Joseph.Keeney@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID 83 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................. i Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii I. Background ....................................................................................................................................1 II. Issues in Dispute and Standards in Review ..................................................................................1 III. Argument ....................................................................................................................................2 A. Plaintiff’s Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate Claims under Title I of the ADA Are Barred by The Eleventh Amendment. .................................................................2 B. Plaintiffs’ Retaliation Claims under the ADA are Barred by the Eleventh Amendment. .....3 C. Plaintiffs’ Claims under the TCHRA are Barred by the Eleventh Amendment ............................................................................................................................3 IV. Conclusion .................................................................................................................................4 Certificate of Service ......................................................................................................................5 Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss i Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID 84 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985) .................................................................................................................... 3 Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001) .................................................................................................................... 2 Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 3 Emmons v. City Univ. of N.Y., 715 F.Supp. 2d 394 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ......................................................................................... 3 Hernandez v. Texas Dep't of Hum. Servs., 91 F. App'x 934 (5th Cir. 2004) (dismissing .............................................................................. 4 Karam v. Del. Div. of Serv. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 2010 WL 5343182 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2010)................................................................................ 3 King v. Texas Dept. of Human Svcs., ex rel. Bost, 28 S.W.3d 27 (Tex.App.—Austin, 2000) ................................................................................... 3 Martinez v. Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Com’'n, No. 4:20-CV-03706, 2021 WL 2302627 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2021) ............................................ 2 Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) ...................................................................................................... 2 Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Haldermann, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) ...................................................................................................................... 4 Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Service Center, 307 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 2 Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................... 2 Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533 (2002) .................................................................................................................... 4 Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss ii Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID 85 Shabazz v. Tex. Youth Com’n, 300 F.Supp. 2d 467 (N.D. Tex. 2003) ........................................................................................ 3 Sullivan v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 986 F.3d 593 (5th Cir.) ............................................................................................................... 2 U.S. v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1999) ...................................................................................................... 2 Wagstaff v. U.S. Dep’t Educ., 509 F.3d 661 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam ................................................................................... 3 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (West 2004) ........................................................................................................ 4 42 U.S.C. § 12101 ........................................................................................................................... 1 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) ............................................................................................................ 2 TEX. EDUC. CODE § 110.01 ............................................................................................................. 2 Rules Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) ....................................................................................... 1 Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss iii Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID 86 TO THE HONORABLE JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX: Defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (“Defendant” or “TTUHSC”), by and through their undersigned attorney, file this Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and in support thereof, respectfully show the Court as follows: I. BACKGROUND This case centers around the dismissal of Plaintiff Schyler Z. Grodman, M.D., from TTUHSC’s Pediatrics Residency Program. Pl’s Orig. Comp. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by TTUHSC as a Resident in 2019 and was terminated from employment in January 2022. Id. at ¶ 13. He alleges that he is disabled due to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, depression, and social anxiety. Id. at ¶ 8. He alleges that TTUHSC discriminated against him on the basis of his disability, failed to accommodate his disability, and retaliated against him for requesting disability accommodations. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts causes of action under: (1) Title I of the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“Title I of the ADA”); (2) chapter 21 of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”); and (3) the Rehabilitation Act. Because TTUHSC is a Texas state institution protected by the state’s sovereign immunity, the claims under the ADA and TCHRA are barred by the Eleventh Amendment. TTUSHSC respectfully requests the Court grant this Partial Motion to Dismiss and dismiss these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. II. ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW 1. Whether Plaintiff’s claims under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). 2. Whether Plaintiffs’ state law claims under the TCHRA should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss 1 Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID 87 Plaintiff has the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam). A defendant may challenge a court’s subject matter jurisdiction through a “facial attack” or a “factual attack.” See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981). Where, as here, a defendant challenges subject matter jurisdiction on the face of a complaint, the district court presumes the plaintiff’s factual allegations to be true and determines whether those allegations are legally sufficient to establish jurisdiction. See id. III. A. ARGUMENT Plaintiff’s Disability Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate Claims under Title I of the ADA Are Barred By The Eleventh Amendment. TTUHSC is a state institution protected by sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. See U.S. v. Tex. Tech Univ., 171 F.3d 279, 289 n.14 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The Eleventh Amendment cloaks Texas Tech University and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center with sovereign immunity as state institutions.”); TEX. EDUC. CODE § 110.01) (law establishing Texas Tech Health Sciences Center as state institution under control of Texas Tech Board of Regents). Plaintiff brought disability discrimination and failure to accommodate claims against his former employer under Title I of the ADA. Pl’s Orig. Comp. at ¶¶ 60–61 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)). It is well-settled that Title I of the ADA did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity, and that claims against state entities under Title I are therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Sullivan v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 986 F.3d 593, 596 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 216 (2021); Board of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (2001); Perez v. Region 20 Educ. Service Center, 307 F.3d 318, 331-32 (5th Cir. 2002) (dismissing ADA Title I claims against state entity on sovereign immunity grounds); Martinez v. Texas Health & Hum. Servs. Com’'n, No. 4:20-CV-03706, 2021 WL 2302627, at *3 (S.D. Tex. June 4, 2021) (dismissing both discrimination and failure to accommodate claims brought under Title I of the ADA under Eleventh Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss 2 Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID 88 Amendment). Eleventh Amendment immunity deprives courts of subject matter jurisdiction. See Wagstaff v. U.S. Dep’t Educ., 509 F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Because Title I of the ADA does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity, Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action, bringing claims for disability discrimination and failure to accommodate are barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the Court should dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. B. Plaintiffs’ Retaliation Claims under the ADA are Barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Employment retaliation claims under Title V of the ADA, like disability discrimination claims under Title I, are also barred by sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. See Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2001) (holding Eleventh Amendment bars ADA retaliation claim against state entity where claim predicated on alleged violations of Title I ); Shabazz v. Tex. Youth Com’n, 300 F.Supp. 2d 467, 473 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (applying Garrett to bar ADA retaliation claims); Karam v. Del. Div. of Serv. for Children, Youth and Their Families, 2010 WL 5343182, at *5 (D. Del. Dec. 15, 2010) (“Defendant is immune from Plaintiff's Title V claim because it is premised on Defendant's alleged violation of Title I.”); Emmons v. City Univ. of N.Y., 715 F.Supp. 2d 394, 408 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding ADA retaliation claim barred by Eleventh Amendment). Thus, Plaintiff’s retaliation claims under Title I of the ADA are similarly barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s ADA claim in his Third Cause of Action. C. Plaintiffs’ Claims under the TCHRA are Barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The State of Texas has waived its sovereign immunity in state courts for TCHRA violations. King v. Texas Dept. of Human Svcs., ex rel. Bost, 28 S.W.3d 27, 30 (Tex.App.—Austin, 2000). But Texas' waiver of sovereign immunity in its own courts is not a waiver of its Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts. Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 238 (1985). The Eleventh Amendment in fact bars the adjudication of pendent state law claims against nonconsenting Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss 3 Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID 89 state defendants in federal court. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Haldermann, 465 U.S. 89, 120 (1984). And the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367 (West 2004), which codified pendent jurisdiction, does not abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity. Raygor v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 541–42 (2002). Accordingly, disability claims brought under the TCHRA are barred in federal court by the state’s sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Hernandez v. Texas Dep't of Hum. Servs., 91 F. App'x 934, 935 (5th Cir. 2004) (dismissing disability claim along with gender and age discrimination claims). For these reasons, the Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action in its entirety and the TCHRA claim in the Third Cause of Action, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s ADA and TCHRA claims are barred by sovereign immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. Defendant, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court grant this motion and dismiss these claims. Respectfully submitted. KEN PAXTON Attorney General BRENT WEBSTER First Assistant Attorney General GRANT DORFMAN Deputy First Assistant Attorney General JAMES LLOYD Acting Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation KIMBERLY GDULA Deputy Chief, General Litigation Division RYAN KERCHER Deputy Chief, General Litigation Division Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss 4 Case 5:23-cv-00210-H Document 5 Filed 10/04/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID 90 /s/ Joseph Keeney Joseph Keeney State Bar No. 24092616 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 Telephone: (512) 475-4090 Facsimile: (512) 320-0667 Joseph.Keeney@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of Defendants’ Partial Motion to Dismiss was filed via the CM/ECF system on October 3, 2023, to: Jeffrey M. Tillotson Enrique Ramirez-Martinez TILLOTSON JOHNSON & PATTON 1201 Main Street, Suite 1300 Dallas, Texas 75202 (214) 382-3041 Telephone (214) 292-6564 Facsimile jtillotson@tillotsonlaw.com Eramirez@tillotsonlaw.com Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss /s/ Joseph Keeney JOSEPH KEENEY Assistant Attorney General 5