Ezell v. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HONORABLE ERIC K. FANNING SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 5:16-cv-00938

Karen Ezell, a civilian respiratory therapist employed by the U.S. Army, alleges disability (schizophrenia, hypertension) and requested an accommodation (no night shifts) supported by medical documentation.
After eight months on the job, Ezell filed a formal EEO complaint (Feb. 1, 2013) alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation; she experienced a mental-health breakdown in June 2013.
Ezell alleges she missed promotions and pay increases after 2013; the Army issued a Final Agency Decision (FAD) denying her administrative claims on June 27, 2016.
Ezell sued the Department of the Army asserting violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)/Texas Labor Code.
The Army moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (jurisdiction/sovereign immunity) and 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim); the court treated the 12(b)(1) facial challenge first.
The district court concluded the United States has not waived sovereign immunity for ADA or TCHRA claims against federal agencies and dismissed all claims without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the 12(b)(6) motion was denied as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the federal government waived sovereign immunity for ADA claims against federal agencies	Ezell alleges ADA violations by the Army and proceeds to federal court after the FAD	The U.S. has not waived sovereign immunity for ADA suits against the federal government; the ADA excludes the United States as an "employer"	Court held sovereign immunity bars ADA claims against the Army; dismissed under 12(b)(1)
Whether the federal government waived sovereign immunity for TCHRA claims against a federal agency	Ezell invoked the TCHRA (Texas waiver of state sovereign immunity) as a basis for relief	The State of Texas’s waiver does not bind the federal government; no federal waiver shown for TCHRA claims against the U.S.	Court held sovereign immunity bars TCHRA claims against the Army; dismissed under 12(b)(1)
Whether Ezell exhausted administrative remedies / timely pursued federal claims	Ezell completed the EEO process and received a FAD before filing suit	Defendant argued failure to exhaust and other procedural defects in the alternative	Court did not decide exhaustion because it dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under sovereign immunity
Whether Ezell stated a plausible claim under Rule 12(b)(6)	Ezell alleges discrimination, failure to accommodate, harassment, and retaliation	Defendant alternatively argued claims were legally insufficient	Court denied 12(b)(6) motion as moot after resolving jurisdictional issue; merits not reached

Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir.) (courts decide 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attacks before merits)
Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1981) (facial 12(b)(1) attacks accept complaint allegations as true)
FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (sovereign immunity is jurisdictional)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (1983) (waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
Hendrickson v. Potter, 327 F.3d 444 (5th Cir. 2003) (the ADA excludes the United States as an "employer")
McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178 (1936) (plaintiff bears burden to establish jurisdiction)
Hercules Inc. v. United States, 516 U.S. 417 (1996) (sovereign immunity bars suit unless waiver is clear)
Warnock v. Pecos County, 88 F.3d 341 (5th Cir.) (claims barred by sovereign immunity must be dismissed under 12(b)(1))
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (facts must raise right to relief above speculation)
Home Builders Assn. of Mississippi v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006 (5th Cir.) (definition of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir.) (standards for considering evidence in 12(b)(1) challenge)
Norton v. Larney, 266 U.S. 511 (1925) (plaintiff must affirmatively plead jurisdiction)