997 F. Supp. 2d 613
S.D. Tex.2014Background
- Dr. Doris M. Jackson, a tenured associate professor at Texas Southern University (TSU), sued TSU and four individual faculty/administrators alleging age discrimination (TCHRA), denial of promised medical leave benefits (FMLA/state contract/estoppel theories), First Amendment retaliation for public criticisms of the College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (COPHS), and common-law assault by Dr. Abobo.
- Jackson alleges she publicly criticized COPHS administration (Board of Regents meetings and media) about student dismissals, faculty credentials, accreditation risks, and waste of public resources; she claims retaliation through burdensome teaching assignments, lower pay, committee exclusions, and efforts to force retirement/resignation.
- Jackson took medical leave for thyrotoxicosis; she alleges TSU confirmed FMLA eligibility but impeded her return, delayed/withheld pay, and reassigned duties upon return.
- She alleges Dr. Abobo assaulted her on TSU campus in Feb. 2012, causing injury; she sued him individually for assault/battery.
- Procedural posture: TSU moved to dismiss; Individual Defendants moved to dismiss. Court granted TSU’s motion (sovereign immunity) on age-discrimination and contract/quasi-contract claims; dismissed FMLA/self-care claim with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; denied individual-defendants’ motion as to assault claim but ordered plaintiff to supplement factual detail; granted individual-defendants’ motion as to First Amendment retaliation for failure to plead an adverse employment action under Fifth Circuit precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity / TCHRA & state-law contract/quasi-contract claims | Jackson argues TCHRA and state-law remedies permit her federal claims and/or she can proceed in federal court | TSU: Eleventh Amendment bars suit against state agency in federal court; Texas did not waive immunity for these claims | Court: Dismissed TCHRA and contract/quasi-contract claims against TSU for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction (sovereign immunity) |
| FMLA self-care / medical-leave remedies under state law | Jackson asserts promissory estoppel/contract/quantum meruit based on TSU communications and policies and alleges interference on return from leave | TSU & individuals: FMLA claims barred by Eleventh Amendment; Texas law provides no waiver for these contract-like claims in federal court | Court: Dismissed FMLA/self-care theory with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction; state-law contract/quasi-contract remedies barred by sovereign immunity (dismissed without prejudice to state court) |
| First Amendment retaliation (protected speech, adverse action, causation, qualified immunity) | Jackson alleges her public criticisms addressed matters of public concern and that retaliatory acts (requests to retire, pay/assignment actions) were motivated by her speech | Individual Defs: Speech was internal/job-related (Garcetti/Connick); alleged actions are not ‘‘ultimate employment decisions’’ under Fifth Circuit (Breaux) and thus not actionable; qualified immunity protects them | Court: Granted dismissal of §1983 First Amendment retaliation claim — plaintiff failed to allege an adverse employment action under Fifth Circuit standard; court did not reach qualified immunity but noted some allegations might involve matters of public concern |
| Assault claim against Dr. Abobo; TTCA §101.106 election of remedies / scope of employment | Jackson sues Abobo individually for battery arising from on-campus altercation | Defs: Even intentional torts can fall within scope of employment; if within scope, §101.106(f) forecloses individual-capacity suit and claim must be pursued (if at all) under TTCA against the governmental unit | Court: Denied dismissal without prejudice but ordered plaintiff to supplement facts about assault circumstances; if facts show assault occurred within scope of employment (e.g., while proctoring an exam), §101.106(f) would bar the individual-capacity suit and sovereign immunity would preclude recovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1890) (Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court by their own citizens)
- Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (U.S. 1984) (state consent to suit must be clear; suits against state agencies treated as suits against the state)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (U.S. 2000) (ADEA does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (U.S. 2006) (public employees’ job‑related speech is not protected by the First Amendment)
- Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (U.S. 1968) (balancing test for public employee speech on matters of public concern)
- Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2000) (in education context, teaching assignments, pay, and departmental matters are generally not "ultimate employment decisions" for First Amendment retaliation claims)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (qualified immunity analysis: courts may decide sequence of prongs flexibly)