1:25-cv-00594
W.D. Tex.Jul 7, 2025Background
- Jennifer Ferrell Brantley, a pro se plaintiff, sued the University of Texas at Austin (UT Austin) after being disciplined for repeatedly contacting a faculty member, despite explicit requests to stop.
- Brantley claimed her conduct stemmed from disability-related emotional distress and communication patterns that were misunderstood without sufficient accommodation from the university.
- She faced disciplinary sanctions, appealed unsuccessfully, and alleges ongoing negative impacts on her academic and professional opportunities.
- Brantley asserted a § 1983 procedural due process claim and multiple claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (discrimination, failure-to-accommodate, retaliation).
- UT Austin moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim), asserting sovereign immunity and insufficiency of Brantley’s pleadings.
- The court granted UT Austin’s motion, dismissing all claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction, and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign Immunity (§ 1983 claim) | § 1983 permits suit for denial of due process by public university | UT Austin is an arm of the State; sovereign immunity bars the claim | Sovereign immunity bars § 1983 claim |
| Sovereign Immunity (Rehab Act claim) | UT Austin waived immunity by accepting federal funds | Plaintiff failed to allege specific programs received federal funds | Immunity not waived; Rehab Act claims barred |
| Due Process under Fourteenth Amendment | Did not receive adequate process related to sanctions | Plaintiff received all process constitutionally required | Plaintiff received required process |
| Rehab Act Discrimination/Retaliation | Disciplined for disability-related conduct; failed to accommodate | Reasonable accommodation does not excuse rule violations | No plausible claim; accommodation not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1979) (42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (due process requires notice and opportunity to respond in school discipline contexts)
- Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 117 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 1997) (universal disciplinary rules can be enforced even if conduct is disability-related)
- Pernice v. City of Chicago, 237 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2001) (violations of general rules not excused by disability under ADA)
- Bercovitch v. Baldwin Sch., Inc., 133 F.3d 141 (1st Cir. 1998) (school need not suspend enforcement of disciplinary codes due to student's disability)