54 F. Supp. 3d 681
N.D. Tex.2014Background
- Shah, a UT Southwestern medical student, was dismissed after two completed years and portions of a third-year rotation; he alleged the grades and dismissal were biased by his ADHD and ethnicity.
- Dr. Vicioso assigned low/history-and-physical and low professionalism grades; Shah alleges personal animus tied to disability and ethnicity.
- Dr. Duval issued a subsequent failing rotation grade for professionalism, allegedly pre-determined and influenced by Vicioso’s earlier grade.
- Dr. Shah (senior) submitted a letter supporting the assessments to the SPC, allegedly to appease superiors and conceal arbitrary reports by a junior.
- The SPC dismissal relied on Shah’s alleged professionalism violations; Shah appealed, claiming ADHD-related impairments and requests for accommodations were ignored; final appeal denied.
- The court grants several dismissals based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, qualified immunity for individuals, and § 504 Rehabilitation Act denial, and IIED dismissal, but allows Shah to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment immunity bars claims against UT Southwestern | Shah relies on Ex parte Young to seek injunctive relief | UT Southwestern is an arm of the State; Ex parte Young does not apply | Eleventh Amendment bars Shah’s §1983/ADA/breach/IIED claims against UT Southwestern |
| Qualified immunity for procedural due process claim against individuals | Shah was denied meaningful process before dismissal | Shah received more process than required; procedural protections met | Individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity; procedural due process claim dismissed |
| Qualified immunity for substantive due process claim against individuals | Defendants’ academic decisions violated substantial due process rights | Academic judgments are protected; no substantial departure from norms | Individual defendants entitled to qualified immunity; substantive due process claim dismissed |
| Rehabilitation Act claim against UT Southwestern | ADHD impairment caused discrimination under §504 | Discrimination not solely due to disability; causation not shown | Rehabilitation Act claim dismissed against UT Southwestern |
| IIED claim against individual defendants/§101.106(e) | Dismissing, false statements harmed Shah’s emotional well-being | IIED not met; gap-filler tort not applicable here; §101.106(e) does not apply to UT Southwestern | IIED claim dismissed; leave to amend limited; 101.106(e) dismissal not granted to individuals |
Key Cases Cited
- Horowitz v. Board of Curators of Univ. of Missouri, 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (due process in academic dismissals varies with disciplinary vs academic reasons)
- Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (U.S. 1975) (notice and opportunity to respond required for disciplinary dismissal; not for purely academic)
- Regents of the Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (substantive academic review with deference to faculty judgment)
- Ewing, Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (U.S. 1985) (substantive due process protections in academic settings)
- Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 (U.S. 2001) (two-step qualified immunity framework; later not mandatory)
- Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (U.S. 2009) (abandoned mandatory two-step Saucier approach in qualified immunity)
- Soledad v. U.S. Dept. of Treasury, 304 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2002) (causation standard for Rehabilitation Act claims; discrimination must be solely due to disability)
- Hoffmann-LaRoche Inc. v. Zeltwanger, 144 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. 2004) (Texas Supreme Court on the proper use of IIED when other remedies exist)
- Horowitz v. Univ. of Missouri (Horowitz), 435 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1978) (academic dismissals and due process)