Pickett v. Texas Tech Univ, 37 F.4th 1013

Background

Amy Pickett, a nursing graduate student with ADHD, enrolled in two distinct Texas Tech programs (DNP and FNP) and received Letters of Accommodation (LOAs) granting extra test time, private testing, and note-taking assistance.
She presented LOAs to FNP faculty earlier but later disclosed them to DNP faculty; afterwards she alleges increased hostility, denial of promised lecture notes, harsher grading, and an advisor’s refusal to extend a pre-submission review deadline.
A disputed paper was regraded under irregular procedures, resulting in a course "C" and loss of credit; Pickett was later dismissed from the DNP program though she alleges she did not meet the school’s stated dismissal criteria.
Pickett sued under Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (due process). Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting sovereign immunity and failure to state Fourteenth Amendment claims.
The district court denied dismissal in part (finding plausible Title II failure-to-accommodate and discrimination claims and a plausible substantive-due-process claim); defendants appealed only the denial of sovereign immunity and the due-process dismissal ruling.
The Fifth Circuit exercised jurisdiction only over the sovereign-immunity (ADA) issue, dismissed the interlocutory appeal as to substantive due process for lack of pendent jurisdiction, and held Pickett had plausibly pleaded some Title II claims but that certain failure-to-accommodate claims should have been dismissed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appellate jurisdiction over substantive-due-process claims (pendent appellate jurisdiction)	Pickett’s ADA and due-process claims are intertwined so appellate review of both is proper.	Defendants argued both claims are intertwined and thus appealable with the sovereign-immunity question.	Dismissed appeal as to substantive due process; pendent appellate jurisdiction not warranted (claims not "rare and unique").
Whether Title II abrogates state sovereign immunity here (whether Title II claims implicate the Fourteenth Amendment)	ADA abrogates immunity because defendants’ conduct violated Pickett’s Fourteenth Amendment property/liberty interest in continued education.	Defendants argued Congress did not validly abrogate sovereign immunity as applied and Title II does not reach the asserted conduct absent a Fourteenth Amendment violation.	Court assumed Pickett pleaded plausible Title II violations; because defendants failed to preserve the threshold question whether Pickett has a protected property interest, immunity was not sustained at pleading stage.
Failure-to-accommodate: denial of lecture notes (LOA accommodation)	Pickett alleged repeated failures to provide promised lecture notes despite LOAs.	Defendants offered rebuttal evidence and argued officers were not involved.	Survives pleading stage as to the Center (LOA established accommodation); claims against individual officers (Cherry and Evans) for this failure were dismissed for lack of personal involvement.
Failure-to-accommodate: advisor’s refusal to extend deadline	Pickett alleges advisor refused to adjust pre-submission deadline despite LOA-related need.	Defendants argued requests must go through centralized ADA office and officers were not responsible; verbal/ad hoc requests to faculty are insufficient.	Dismissed: plaintiff failed to show the Center (via its ADA office) knew of that specific need; individual officers not plausibly tied to that decision.
Disability-based discrimination under Title II	Pickett alleged animus: harsher grading after disclosure, false accusations, repeated procedural departures, and dismissal despite not meeting criteria.	Defendants argued legitimate non-discriminatory academic reasons supported dismissal and attacked factual sufficiency and lack of comparators.	Survives pleading stage: allegations plausibly show disability played a role; departures from policy and context make discriminatory motive plausible.

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (U.S. 2006) (Title II abrogation valid where conduct violates Fourteenth Amendment; otherwise requires congruence and proportionality)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (Section 5 congruence-and-proportionality analysis for Title II)
Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (ADA abrogation text acknowledged but limitations apply)
Swint v. Chambers Cnty. Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35 (U.S. 1995) (discusses "inextricably intertwined"/pendent appellate jurisdiction limits)
Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996) (limits on Congress’s power to abrogate state sovereign immunity)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdictional-first rule)
Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (academic-discipline decisions insulated unless substantial departure from norms)
Bennett-Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2005) (failure-to-accommodate framework in education)
Soledad v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury, 304 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard for conscious discrimination under Title II)
Smith v. Harris Cnty., 956 F.3d 311 (5th Cir. 2020) (elements for failure-to-accommodate under Title II)
Montez v. Dep’t of the Navy, 392 F.3d 147 (5th Cir. 2004) (limits on resolving fact disputes in jurisdictional motions when intertwined with merits)
Williamson v. Tucker, 645 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1981) (Rule 12(b)(1) may be decided on pleadings, pleadings plus undisputed facts, or on resolution of disputed facts)