STRICKEN PER ORDER - DOC. NO. 13 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against All Defendants filed by Schyler Grodman. Clerk to issue summons(es).¶

Grodman v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, No. 5:23-cv-00210 (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 10 · 2023-11-22 · 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.,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER and DR. SAMER
ZAID-KAYLANI,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-00210-H

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Schyler Grodman, M.D. (“Grodman”) files this Original Complaint against Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center and Dr. Samer Zaid-Kaylani (together “Defendants”),
because Defendants 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

1343(a)(3)-(4), as this matter arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
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 filed this suit within (90) days of
receiving the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC.

1

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.
5.

Defendant Tech University Health Sciences Center (“Texas Tech” or the

“University”) is a state-related university which receives federal financial assistance located at
3601 4th Street, Lubbock Texas 79430.
6.

Defendant Dr. Samer Zaid-Kaylani (“Kaylani”) is an individual who was employed

by Defendant Texas Tech University as the Director of the Pediatric Residency Program and, upon
information and belief, is a Texas resident now residing in or near Dallas County. Defendant
Kaylani is sued solely in his individual capacity for certain claims for relief and for his ultra vires
acts, as set forth below.
III.

PERTINENT TEXAS TECH OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
7.

Defendant Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center has adopted operating

policies and procedures to “ensure full and equal access to individuals with disabilities to all Texas
Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC or University) programs.” Health Sciences
Center Operating Procedure, § 51.04 (Nov. 27, 2019).
8.

Texas Tech’s operating procedure further states that “TTUHSC is committed to the

full inclusion of all qualified individuals. As part of this commitment, persons with disabilities
will not be subject to discrimination or denied full and equal access to academic programs,
employment, activities, benefits, and services offered by the University on the basis of their
disability. This policy applies to all students, employees (faculty, staff, or student), patients,
volunteers, and visitors.” Id. (emphasis added).

2

9.

The definitions of “disability,” “qualified individual,” and “reasonable

accommodation” under Texas Tech policy substantially mirror federal requirements under the
Rehabilitation Act.
a. Disability – A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an
impairment.
b. Qualified Individual – An individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation,
has the requisite skills, experience, and knowledge, and can meet all essential requirements
of their program or perform all essential functions of their job/position.
c. Reasonable Accommodation – A modification or adjustment that:
(1) Will enable a qualified individual to participate in a Program and does
not make a fundamental alteration to Program requirements; or
(2) Will enable an individual to participate in the application process or to
perform essential job functions; or
(3) Will allow equal access to University Programs; and
(4) Does not create an undue hardship for the University.
10.

Under its policies, Texas Tech has the affirmative obligation to support disabled

individuals. See e.g., 51.04 (3)(b)(1), (2), and (5). “The University has a responsibility to identify
and maintain standards that are fundamental to its Programs while still ensuring access for
qualified individuals with disabilities. In meeting these obligations, the University: (1) Will
identify and establish the abilities, skills, and knowledge necessary for initial and ongoing
participation in its Programs, including employment, and evaluate individuals on that basis; (2)
Will inform individuals about the availability of accommodations . . . (5) Will make reasonable
modifications to the environment, policy, or practice, and/or provide reasonable auxiliary aids or
services.” Id. (emphasis added).
3

11.

Texas Tech policy includes provisions explicitly obligating Texas Tech to keep

disabled individuals informed about their rights and about the procedures available for submitting
complaints or appealing a “university decision.” See 51.04(3)(a)(7); see also 51.04 (3)(b)(7)
(stating that Texas Tech “will inform the [disabled] individual of the availability of any appeals or
complaint processes.”) (emphasis added).
IV.
12.

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.
13.

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.

4

V.
A.

FACTS

Grodman’s Disabilities and Symptoms.
14.

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
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.
15.

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.
16.

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.
17.

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
5

“regarded-as” disability, as defined by federal statutes, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act, the ADA as amended, and by Chapter 21, as amended.1
18.

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
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.
19.

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.
20.

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

1

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, codified as 29 U.S.C. § 794, notes that the standards used
to determine whether discrimination has taken place shall be the standards applied under Title I of
the Americans with Disabilities Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794(d).
6

and physical, diagnostic and therapeutic planning, procedures, writing orders, interactions with
family, and maintaining medical records.
C.

Defendant’s Awareness of Grodman’s Disability.
21.

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
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.
22.

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.
23.

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).

7

24.

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
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.
25.

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:

26.

•

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
8

satisfactory (Grodman was promoted twice). And given these prior experiences, Dr. Grodman
reasonably expected the Program to be responsive and collaborative regarding accommodations.
27.

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.
D.

Grodman’s Final Year of Residency.
28.

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.
29.

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.
30.

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

9

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.
31.

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
into a fellowship program, Grodman’s disabilities, and the manifestations of those disabilities,
would somehow negatively affect Defendant’s standing.
32.

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. 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.
33.

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.
34.

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

10

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.
35.

Upon information and belief, Grodman’s termination was predetermined, without

any notice of hearing to Grodman, beginning with Defendant’s decision to withdraw all
accommodations. Instead, the program director repeatedly assured Grodman that everything was
fine. Defendant never meant to give Grodman any notice that his residency was in jeopardy,
chance to remediate, or chance be heard. Defendant’s discriminatory actions culminated in the
following way:
•

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 explicitly 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. Grodman was not given any details regarding the
specific reasoning or terms behind his probation.

•

December 17-23: Defendant pressures Grodman into continuing his
ongoing night shifts without opportunity for any kind of remediation or the

11

opportunity to seek professional help, including help in adjusting his
medications.

36.

•

December 23: Defendant suspends Grodman, again without notice as to the
cause, 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).2

•

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

•

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). Grodman was never given a full
description of the grounds for his termination or any chance to advocate for
himself.
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, without any notice or communication
with Grodman, authorized Grodman’s termination, exacerbating a hostile environment whereby
all due process, fairness or consideration of any kind of remediation was destroyed.3
37.

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

2

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.
3

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 lifeand 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.

12

specifics of Grodman’s disabilities. The letter stated the major elements that Grodman needed to
improve were test scores (without any mention of extra time that had been granted in the past and
of which Kaylani had full knowledge) as well as, vaguely, “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.
38.

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.
39.

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 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

13

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.”4
40.

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.”
41.

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
conduct arising from his disabilities (and conduct for which Defendant had provided Grodman
with accommodations) during his first year, and throughout his residency.
42.

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.

4

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.
14

G.

Grodman Formally Requested Reasonable Accommodations Before Termination.
43.

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.5
H.

Defendant’s Plan to Terminate Dr. Grodman was Discriminatory.
44.

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.

5

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 six 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.
15

45.

After receiving the Probation Letter,6 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 twelve-hour shifts and hoped that Grodman
had no opportunity to seek assistance.

Nevertheless, Grodman formally requested

accommodations and specifically requested that Defendant consider his disability in evaluating
both probation and termination.
46.

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.
47.

First, Grodman had no notice of Defendant’s plan to terminate him until his

termination was already decided. When he received Defendant’s notice of probation, he was not

6

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, Kaylani
moved to dismiss Grodman just six days after he was informed of his probation (6% of his
probationary period). There was no time or opportunity for 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.
16

aware that the Committee had already voted to terminate Grodman, that Grodman had been labeled
a “dangerous resident” by the Defendant Clinical Competency Committee (the “Committee”) and
that Grodman would be suspended only six days later. Second, Defendant’s plan failed to provide
Grodman with any notice as to the imminent destruction of his medical residency, 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.
48.

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

Committee, disclosed to the full competency committee the extent of his 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.
49.

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.
50.

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

17

Defendant procedures, a resident is required to be 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).
51.

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 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 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.”7 Throughout Grodman’s improper and
expedited termination based on disciplinary measures, Texas Tech and Kaylani abandoned internal
policy and professional judgment.
52.

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

7

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.”
18

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.
53.

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).
54.

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
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).
55.

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

February 2021,8 Defendant 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.”). These
8

Despite the appeal hearing, no defects in the improper termination process were cured. For
example, the hearing panel did not consider or weigh Grodman’s formal request for
accommodations, and completely ignored the serious procedural defects of Grodman’s termination
and disciplinary measures. Instead, the hearing was only an extension and further deprivation of
Grodman’s rights, and used to further mislead Grodman into thinking that Texas Tech was
extending an opportunity for Grodman to be able to resign. But such an opportunity was not
granted. Moreover, the hearing was expressly not de novo and granted complete weight and
deference to the earlier improper decision to terminate Grodman.
19

reasons were different than the reasons presented to Grodman for his probation and suspension
before termination. 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. H-I (Letter of Observation and Letter Regarding
End of Observation).
56.

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.
57.

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 force 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.

20

58.

Defendant knew but either ignored or disregarded that Grodman was under

extraordinary stress and needed to adjust his medication, yet 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.
59.

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

accommodations it had provided on previous calls in earlier years but, instead, intensified
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.
60.

During the expedited, pretextual 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 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

21

opportunity to adjust and optimize the dosage and timing of his ADHD medication, which
remained unadjusted for extended periods.9
I.

Texas Tech’s Discrimination Continues Even After Grodman’s Termination.
61.

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
never 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.10

9

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.
10

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.

22

62.

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
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.
63.

The net effect on the discrimination and recrimination against Grodman was that

Grodman received 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 of Defendant,
Grodman will never have the ability to practice medicine.
VI.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN
VIOLATION OF THE REHABILITATION ACT
(Against Texas Tech)
64.

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

paragraphs.
65.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination by

recipients of federal grants, contracts, and other federal financial assistance. Defendants, including
their respective departments, agencies, and other instrumentalities, are recipients of federal funds.
45 C.F.R. § 84.3(f).
66.

The Rehabilitation Act provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o otherwise qualified

individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability,

23

be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794.
67.

The Rehabilitation Act has been implemented by regulations, providing, inter alia,

that recipients of federally funded programs and activities shall not, “on the basis of handicap, be
excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to
discrimination under any program, services or activity which receives Federal financial
assistances.” 45 C.F.R. § 84.4 (a).
68.

69.

Prohibited discrimination includes but is not limited to:
•

denying a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to
participate in or benefit from an aid, benefit, or service 45 C.F.R. §
84.4 (b)(1)(i).

•

affording a qualified person with a disability an opportunity to
participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or services that is not
equal to that afforded others. 45 C.F.R. § 84.4 (b)(1)(ii).

•

providing a qualified person with a disability with an aid, benefit, or
service that is not as effective as that provided to others. 45 C.F.R. §
84.4 (b)(1)(iii).

•

perpetuating discrimination or otherwise limiting a qualified disabled
person in the enjoyment of any privilege, advantage or opportunity
enjoyed by others receiving an aid, benefit, or service. 45 C.F.R. §
84.4 (b)(1)(v)(vii).

•

utilizing criteria or methods of administration that subject qualified
persons with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, or
have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing
accomplishment of the objectives of recipient’s program or activity
with respect to persons with disabilities. 45 C.F.R. Part 84; (b)(4).

Defendant’s actions constitute an ongoing and continuous violation of the

Rehabilitation Act and its supporting regulations and continue to inflict irreparable harm on
Grodman.

24

70.

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

major life activities. Grodman’s disability and its consequential limitations were known by
Defendant Texas Tech.
71.

Defendant refused to allow Grodman reasonable accommodations, the opportunity

to adjust his medications, and medical leave, despite other employees having such
accommodations.
72.

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.
73.

The above-described unlawful employment practices, which violated the

Rehabilitation Act, caused Grodman to lose the opportunity to become a licensed physician, and
other non-pecuniary benefits. Defendant Texas Tech committed these acts intentionally, and with
reckless indifference to Grodman’s legal rights under the Rehabilitation Act.
74.

Moreover, Grodman engaged in an activity protected by the Rehabilitation Act

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 further
engaged in an activity protected by the Rehabilitation Act 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.

25

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.
76.

Grodman began experiencing retaliatory actions by Defendant soon after he

informally requested reasonable accommodations. Finally, Grodman was terminated after he
submitted his formal request for reasonable accommodations.
77.

The Rehabilitation Act authorizes injunctive and equitable relief as appropriate to

remedy acts of discrimination against persons with disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2). Grodman
is entitled to injunctive and equitable relief, including reinstatement, to prevent continued violation
of the Rehabilitation Act.
VII.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE
PROCESS PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Against Defendant Kaylani, Individually)

78.

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

paragraphs.
79.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution provides that: “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.
80.

Grodman had a constitutionally protected property in his position at Texas Tech as

a Third-Year Resident in the Pediatrics Program. As a resident, Grodman enjoyed a broader
property interest in his position than continued receipt of a paycheck including his engagement in
experience, graduate medical school education, maintenance of his standing, completed residency
terms, and the opportunity to become a licensed physician.
26

81.

Beginning December 5, 2021, the date of the Committee’s “emergency” vote to

terminate Grodman, Grodman was deprived of his constitutionally protected procedural due
process rights to adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before termination of his protected
interest in his medical residency.
82.

The deprivations of Grodman’s constitutional interests that began on December 5,

2021, were done without any notice or process to Grodman, not even under the procedures required
by Texas Tech’s own policies, much less the constitutionally mandated sufficient notice and
opportunity to be heard before he was deprived of the protected interests at issue.
83.

As a Third-Year member of Texas Tech’s Residency Program, Grodman had a

constitutionally protected valid entitlement to continued employment at the University.
84.

Following his January 2022 termination from the University, Grodman’s career

prospects as a doctor have been conclusively destroyed.
85.

The termination process is extraordinarily severe and thus Texas Tech must comply

with various procedural and due process requirements. However, in Dr. Grodman’s case, Kaylani
wholly ignored these governing policies.
86.

Under Texas Tech’s internal policies, probation is determined by a committee at

Texas Tech (the “Clinical Competency Committee”), headed by the program director (Kaylani).
Only if the individual fails to improve based on the matters identified during probation or engages
in further seriously deficient conduct, then Texas Tech can seek to terminate the resident. Under
Texas Tech procedures, a resident is usually given at least sixty days (60) after probation before
termination is considered so that the resident can show improvement.
87.

Moreover, recognizing state requirements and the mandate of federal law, Texas

Tech has a non-discrimination policy and a specific policy covering the ADA (§ 51.04). Under

27

Texas Tech’s policy, it must not discriminate on the basis of a disability and must provide
reasonable accommodations. “When an employer does not engage in a good faith interactive
process, that employer violates the ADA – including when the employer discharges the employee
instead of considering the requested accommodations.” EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570
F.3d 606, 622 (5th Cir. 2009). This is exactly what happened here.
88.

During the probation and termination process, Grodman made at least two requests

for accommodation, including having Kaylani consider his disability in deciding his termination.
Yet Kaylani simply misled Grodman about the ongoing proceedings and refused to engage.
Kaylani never made any effort to accommodate Dr. Grodman, engage in the interactive process,
or even discuss Dr. Grodman’s requests for reasonable accommodation. This is because the results
of the CCC termination proceeding had been pre-determined by Kaylani and thus the reasons
justifying the termination were merely pretextual in nature. Again, the evidence of Kaylani’s lack
of total engagement includes the rapid speed by which Texas Tech instituted the termination
proceeding.
89.

Grodman did, and still does, challenge the truth and integrity of Texas Tech’s

termination process, which was spearheaded by Kaylani, and its dismissal recommendation by the
Committee, which was made without the Committee even considering Grodman’s request for
accommodations. As such, these actions were taken without cause and were arbitrary and
capricious.
90.

As set forth more fully herein, Defendant Kaylani’s actions violated Grodman’s

right(s) not to be deprived of his property and/or liberty interests without due process of law as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

28

91.

As set forth more fully herein, Defendant Kaylani’s actions described above were

taken without cause and/or for reasons that were arbitrary and capricious, and alternatively were
outside the scope of Kaylani’s authority.
92.

As set forth more fully herein, Defendant Kaylani’s actions, in his individual

capacity, violated Plaintiff’s due process right(s) to be free from arbitrary and capricious
deprivations of property under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
93.

As set forth more fully herein, the constitutional violations against Grodman are of

an ongoing and continuous nature because Grodman remains unable to become a licensed
physician in Texas without reinstatement. To this day, even after leaving his post at Texas Tech,
Kaylani continues to interfere with Grodman’s prospects of becoming a doctor.
94.

In taking the actions against Grodman set forth more fully above, Defendant

Kaylani acted intentionally, maliciously, and unlawfully without providing Grodman procedural
and substantive due process in violation of governing law.
VIII. REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
95.

Grodman requests a jury trial.
IX.

96.

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.
97.

REQUESTED RELIEF

Grodman seeks equitable relief necessary to allow him to become a doctor and

make use of his years of medical education and preparation. After the improper termination by
Texas Tech, Grodman has sought to re-apply or transfer to other medical programs. However, as
part of any such application and admissions process, Texas Tech or Kaylani will send documents
reflecting the dismissal and Texas Tech’s explanation, including disciplinary documentation, and
29

will further deprive Grodman of his protected property interests by resulting in harm to Grodman’s
professional reputation, preventing him from being accepted at another medical school or program.
These mechanisms continue to prevent Grodman from obtaining a medical license and from
becoming a pediatrician.

Grodman requests reinstatement, and that Grodman’s records be

corrected so that his dismissal and/or disciplinary proceedings initiated by Texas Tech and Kaylani
during his third year no longer prevent Grodman’s acceptance as to any medical school or licensure
program.
98.

Upon information and belief, even more recently, Kaylani has contacted the

American Board of Pediatrics regarding Grodman’s disciplinary record at Texas Tech. These
actions and future actions by Texas Tech and Kaylani a continuation of all conduct complained
herein, including the wrongful termination, constitute ongoing violations of Grodman’s protected
interests. Defendants’ refusal to release academic records interferes with Grodman’s
constitutionally protected interest in attending medical school or another program. Indeed,
Defendants’ refusal to release Grodman’s records and previous letters of recommendation
precludes Grodman’s ability to provide the documents necessary to apply to other schools and to
be reinstated.
99.

Grodman was successfully promoted to his third year as a pediatrics resident, and

Texas Tech’s withholding of the academic records and recommendations issued at the end of those
two years constitute ongoing violations based on the conduct complaint herein. The wrongful
disciplinary measures implemented against Grodman during his third year should be stricken and
expunged and removed from Grodman’s record, and should not be further disclosed to Grodman’s
prospective schools and programs or licensing boards, such as the American Board of Pediatrics.
These corrections to Grodman’s record and the release of Grodman’s transcript and other academic

30

records showing Grodman’s fulfillment of two years of residency will remedy the prior and
ongoing violations alleged herein because it will allow Grodman to be reinstated and continue his
career.
XI.

PRAYER

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

Injunctive relief;

B.

Expungement of probation;

C.

Release of academic records;

D.

Reinstatement;

E.

Any further relief to which he may be justly entitled.

31

Date: November 22, 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 November 22,
2023.
/s/ Jeffrey M. Tillotson
Jeffrey M. Tillotson

32