throbber

`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID 1Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 1 of 21 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`
`
`JOHN DOE,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS
`HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, DR.
`FRANK FILIPETTO, in both his official
`capacity and his individual/personal
`capacity, DR. EMILY MIRE, in both her
`official capacity and her individual/personal
`capacity, and DR. THOMAS MOORMAN,
`in both his official capacity and his
`individual/personal capacity.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
`
`
`
`Plaintiff John Doe (“Doe”) files this Original Complaint against the University of North
`
`Texas Health Science Center, Dr. Frank Filipetto, and Dr. Emily Mire (“Defendants”) and would
`
`respectfully show the Court the following:
`
`I.
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, John Doe is an individual residing in the State of Texas. For privacy
`
`reasons involved in this matter, Doe hereby exercises his right to proceed with this matter
`
`anonymously. Defendants’ unlawful and intentional conduct has harmed Doe’s reputation and his
`
`ability to complete his education and pursue his chosen profession. If Doe were not permitted to
`
`proceed anonymously, then Doe would have no effective way to obtain redress for Defendants’
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID 2Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 2 of 21 PageID 2
`
`unlawful conduct through the use of government power without amplifying the harm caused by
`
`Defendants and further damaging Doe’s career prospects. The need to protect the identity of Doe
`
`does not hinder the defense of this matter because the facts are well known to Defendants. When
`
`balancing the need to protect Doe’s privacy against any inconvenience to Defendants, the
`
`protection of Doe’s privacy is paramount and prevails.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant University of North Texas Health Science Center (“UNTHSC”) is an
`
`institution of higher education pursuant to Chapter 105 of the Texas Education Code. UNTHSC
`
`may be served with process through its President; Michal R. Williams, DO, MD, MBA; at the
`
`University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd. EAD-840, Fort Worth,
`
`Texas 76107.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Dr. Frank Filipetto is a resident of the State of Texas and is the Interim
`
`Dean and was the Assistant Vice Dean for the Texas College of Osteopathic Medicine which is
`
`part of UNTHSC at all relevant times herein and may be served with process at the University of
`
`North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd. EAD-840, Fort Worth, Texas 76107,
`
`or wherever he may be found.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant Dr. Emily Mire is a resident of the State of Texas and is the Executive
`
`Director, Student & Academic Success for UNTHSC’s Division of Student & Academic Affairs
`
`Executive Team at all relevant time herein and may be served with process at the University of
`
`North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd. EAD-840, Fort Worth, Texas 76107,
`
`or wherever she may be found.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Dr. Thomas Moorman is a resident of the State of Texas and is the Vice
`
`President for Student Affairs at UNTHSC at all relevant time herein and may be served with
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID 3Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 3 of 21 PageID 3
`
`process at the University of North Texas Health Science Center, 3500 Camp Bowie Blvd. EAD-
`
`840, Fort Worth, Texas 76107, or wherever he may be found.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because this matter
`
`involves a federal question, specifically claims and causes of action that arise under 42 U.S.C. §§
`
`12131–12134 and 29 U.S.C. § 794, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act and amendments
`
`to the Rehabilitation act; 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the U.S. Constitution.
`
`7.
`
`Venue in this judicial district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because one
`
`or more of the Defendants reside in this district, and this is the district in which a substantial part
`
`of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.
`
`III.
`
`FACTS
`
`A. Background
`
`8.
`
`Doe began attending medical school in the fall of 2014 in the Texas College of
`
`Osteopathic Medicine (“TCOM”) and at UNTHSC.1 Doe’s first three years at TCOM were
`
`uneventful as Doe worked successfully to complete his medical degree. However, during Doe’s
`
`intensive fourth-year rotations, Doe began experiencing difficulties with
`
`the TCOM
`
`administration. Defendants had repeatedly failed to submit the necessary documentation to Doe’s
`
`fourth-year medical rotation sites.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants disputed the reasons for repeatedly failing their duty to submit the
`
`required paperwork and attempted to blame Doe. Doe had raised several complaints with the
`
`administration about failing to complete his paperwork, and, in response, Defendants’ Director of
`
`Student Services summoned Doe to appear before TCOM’s Student Performance Committee
`
`
`1See Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 105.401.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID 4Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 4 of 21 PageID 4
`
`(“SPC”). Doe was interrogated by the SPC as to why Doe failed to finalize his position with his
`
`fourth rotation site. In response, Doe explained that the failure to finalize his position with the
`
`fourth rotation site was not due to a lack of effort on his part but was due to the failure of
`
`Defendants to meet their obligation to submit the necessary paperwork.
`
`10.
`
` The SPC initially was called for a claim of unprofessional conduct initiated by
`
`Katy Kemp, who was the Director of clinical rotations. To Doe’s knowledge, the SPC did not issue
`
`or rule on any unprofessional conduct; the unprofessional conduct was never investigated or
`
`findings presented to the SPC, so no action was taken. Doe had passed the COMPLEX exam within
`
`three attempts, as permitted by TCOM’s policy, and the SPC interrorgated Doe for complaining
`
`about the administration’s failures to submit the proper documentation for his rotations. However,
`
`Doe informed the SPC about his sleep deprivation related to airway issues and side effects from
`
`sleeping pills that had been prescribed by UNTHSC physicians. The sleeping pills prescribed for
`
`insomnia dramatically worsened Doe’s sleep apnea and led to at least one aspiration event while
`
`sleeping. This event pushed Doe to exhaustion. The SPC ultimately characterized the disputed
`
`issues as being related to Doe’s health condition.
`
`11.
`
`Because of his health complications caused by sleep apnea, the dispute with
`
`TCOM, and the unexpected inquisition from the SPC, Doe requested a one-year medical leave of
`
`absence, as was recommended to Doe by the Student Health Physician because of his sleep
`
`deprivation. Doe’s request for a medical leave of absence was made on a signed university form
`
`that contained the conditions for such medical leave. Doe submitted the request for a medical leave
`
`of absence to Assistant Vice Dean Dr. Frank Filipetto, and Filipetto granted the request and
`
`returned the form signed by Filipetto on November 9, 2016 (the “medical LOA”). The SPC
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID 5Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 5 of 21 PageID 5
`
`accepted the medical LOA and, to Doe’s knowledge, there were no academic sanctions issued or
`
`voted on by the SPC.
`
`B. The State Due Process Action
`
`12.
`
`According to the terms of Doe’s medical LOA, Doe was required to notify
`
`UNTHSC of his intention to re-enroll at TCOM by July 2017 (the “Re-enrollment Deadline”).
`
`However, before Doe had an opportunity to re-enroll, Doe was formally dismissed by Defendants.
`
`Defendants dismissed Doe in violation of the medical LOA, prior to the expiration of the Re-
`
`enrollment Deadline, and without any notice or opportunity to participate by Doe. Doe properly
`
`appealed the decision; however, Doe’s request was immediately denied without any meaningful
`
`opportunity for Doe to be heard.
`
`13.
`
`Because Doe understood that he was supposed to comply with the terms of the
`
`medical LOA that he had received from Dr. Filipetto, Doe believed that Defendants had acted
`
`arbitrarily in dismissing him in failing to follow UNTHSC’s policies and conditions set forth in
`
`the medical LOA without notice or a hearing. Thus, Doe sued Defendant UNTHSC and the official
`
`capacity defendants for depriving Doe of due process by arbitrarily dismissing him from TCOM
`
`prior to the time in which Doe was allowed to re-enroll in classes under the terms of the medical
`
`LOA. This action will be referred to as the “State Due Process Action.”
`
`14.
`
`The 153rd Judicial District Court granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed UNTHSC
`
`and the official capacity defendants on the ground that the state court petition failed to state
`
`sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction over UNTHSC, given that the dismissal was non-
`
`disciplinary and considered to be “academic” in nature.
`
`15.
`
`The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Texas
`
`has initially denied Doe’s petition for review. The State Due Process Action is currently pending
`
`a motion for rehearing before the Supreme Court of Texas.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID 6Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 6 of 21 PageID 6
`
`C. Discovery of the Acts Involved in Dismissing Doe from School Based on Filipetto
`and Mire’s beliefs that Doe was disabled
`
`16.
`
`On May 17, 2019, in response to discovery requests in the State Due Process
`
`Action, UNTHSC disclosed to Doe a letter (the “Filipetto Letter”) that had been signed by
`
`Defendant Frank Filipetto and, according to Defendants, had been purportedly sent to Doe. But
`
`Doe never received the Filipetto Letter in any format, and the Filipetto Letter contained additional
`
`conditions on Doe’s leave of absence that were never communicated to Doe. Additionally, the
`
`Filipetto Letter stated that Doe was on academic probation, even though Doe had not failed to meet
`
`any academic criteria (he passed his COMPLEX exam within three attempts as required by the
`
`school’s policy), and the SPC had agreed that its findings were related to Doe’s health
`
`complications, which had been caused in part by sleeping pills prescribed by UNTHSC physicians.
`
`Doe had never received the Filipetto Letter before May 17, 2019.
`
`17.
`
`After Doe had an opportunity to review the Filipetto Letter, Doe became aware that
`
`Defendant Dr. Frank Filipetto had intended to prevent him from returning from his leave of
`
`absence under any circumstances and that Filipetto had convinced the SPC to dismiss Doe through
`
`false representations about Doe’s academic standing and about Doe’s mental health.
`
`18.
`
`After the SPC had dismissed Doe from TCOM, Doe attempted to challenge the
`
`decision by meeting with UNTHSC faculty and staff, including Defendants Emily Mire, Thomas
`
`Moorman, and Frank Filipetto.
`
`19. Mire was the UNTHSC employee who called Doe on July 25, 2017 to inform him
`
`that UNTHSC had convened another committee hearing without him and had dismissed him from
`
`TCOM. In accordance with the conditions of the medical LOA that Doe had actually signed, Doe
`
`had already receieved clearance from a physician that he was fit to return to TCOM. The medical
`
`LOA had been accepted and signed by Filipetto, and it had been returned to Doe shortly after being
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID 7Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 7 of 21 PageID 7
`
`signed by Filipetto. Thus, the call from Mire before the end of July 2017 came as quite a surprise
`
`to Doe.
`
`20. Mire is an executive director on UNTHSC’s Student & Academic Affairs Executive
`
`Team, but she is not a physician. Nevertheless, Mire had told Doe that he should not continue his
`
`pursuit to become a doctor because, in her unqualified opinion, she believed Doe was depressed
`
`and suffering from bipolar disorder. Doe requested to meet with Dr. Mormon, and Doe met with
`
`Mire and Mormon on July 26, 2017.
`
`21.
`
`During the meeting with Mormon and Mire again discussed her opinion that Doe’s
`
`problems were connected with depression and bipolar disorder. Doe disagreed with Mire’s
`
`assertion that he was bipolar, but Mire continued to insist that, while she was not a physician, it
`
`remained her opinion.
`
`22.
`
`Dr. Mormon informed Doe that the SPC had dismissed him. Doe told Mormon that
`
`Doe had not been contacted about the contradictory deadline that UNTHSC was then alleging he
`
`had missed, and Doe asked that UNTHSC to address the discrepancy between this earlier, incorrect
`
`deadline and the one Doe had received. Mormon stated that one email was sent, but Doe never
`
`received such an email on any email account. Mormon told Doe that he could appeal the decision
`
`to Filipetto, and Mormon indicated he believed there was no reason for Filipetto to reject the
`
`appeal. Mormon further stated that Doe had plenty of time to graduate and that the administrative
`
`issues causing problems with clinical rotations had been resolved.
`
`23.
`
`Doe sent Filipetto an appeal letter via email on July 31, 2017, and Doe met with
`
`Filipetto on August 3, 2017, to discuss the dismissal in an in-person meeting. During the meeting,
`
`Filipetto acted very disinterested and disrespectful toward Doe. Filipetto communicated to Doe
`
`that Filipetto considered himself to have the power to prevent Doe from graduating, and Filipetto
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID 8Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 8 of 21 PageID 8
`
`explicitly stated that he did not want Doe to become a doctor. Filipetto admitted that Doe’s
`
`academics had nothing to do with his dismissal and that he believed he could dismiss Doe for any
`
`reason. Filipetto stated that he believed Doe was depressed because he did not really want to
`
`become a doctor.
`
`24.
`
`Although Doe’s sleep apnea had previously caused depression that was situational,
`
`episodic, or otherwise intermittent in nature, but that depression was treatable, and, in fact, Doe
`
`was able to obtain treatment of his sleep apnea and manage his depression. Doe responded that
`
`Filipetto was wrong about the depression and made it clear that he did want to become a doctor.
`
`Nevertheless, Filipetto concluded that, after talking with Mire about Doe, he believed he should
`
`dismiss Doe.
`
`25.
`
`It is worth noting again: Mire is not a physician or psychiatrist with the proper
`
`training to diagnose Doe with bipolar disorder. Neither Filipetto nor Mire considered the opinion
`
`of Doe’s physician that Doe was in good health and fit to return to medical school. Instead,
`
`Filipetto and Mire regarded Doe as disabled and unfit to continue his course of study. Doe
`
`previously was unable to appreciate Filipetto and Mire’s direct involvement in his dismissal—
`
`which had previously been characterized as merely an administrative dismissal by UNTHSC—but
`
`disclosure of the Filipetto Letter in 2019 alerted Doe to the fact that Filipetto and Mire’s opinion
`
`that he was disabled had motivated them to meddle with his medical leave of absence and to
`
`orchestrate his dismissal.
`
`26. When UNTHSC eventually disclosed the Filipetto Letter to Doe on May 17, 2019,
`
`Doe learned that not only did Filipetto harbor a personal vendetta against Doe but also Filipetto
`
`went out of his way to use his office to convince the SPC to dismiss Doe through false
`
`representations about Doe’s mental health and Doe’s alleged receipt of the Filipetto Letter. Upon
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID 9Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 9 of 21 PageID 9
`
`information and belief, Filipetto communicated false information to the SPC about the nature of
`
`Doe’s mental health, conduct, and academic performance, and Filipetto falsely communicated to
`
`the SPC and other faculty that he submitted the Filipetto Letter to Doe. Filipetto targeted Doe with
`
`this conduct to ensure Doe’s separation from TCOM because Filipetto regarded Doe as a liability
`
`and unfit based on his opinion that Doe was disabled.
`
`27.
`
`Filipetto received Doe’s request to enter into the medical LOA, and Filipetto
`
`accepted, signed, and returned the medical LOA to Doe. By delivering the letter to Doe, Filipetto
`
`intentionally induced Doe into taking a full year leave of absence with the belief that he would be
`
`able to resume his course of study as long as he re-enrolled under the conditions set forth in the
`
`LOA by the end of July 2017. Upon information and belief, Filipetto knew that Doe would rely on
`
`the signed LOA and be unable to meet the additional standards in the Filipetto Letter. Filipetto
`
`drafted the Filipetto letter to have the appearance that Doe would receive it so that UNTHSC would
`
`punish Doe and dismiss him for failing to meet the requirements that he was never made aware of.
`
`Upon information and belief, Mire communicated with Filipetto about this plan and agreed to
`
`prevent Doe from receiving the Filipetto Letter and/or convince the UNTHSC committee that Doe
`
`should be held to those unknown standards. Upon information and belief, Filipetto and Mire both
`
`knew that Doe would rely on the medical LOA and induced Doe into conducting himself under
`
`the medical LOA. Filipetto and Mire also knew that the UNTHSC committee would rely on the
`
`Filipetto Letter; Filipetto and Mire falsely represented that Doe had received the Filipetto Letter
`
`in order to induce the UNTHSC committee and/or UNTHSC administration into holding Doe to
`
`the standards under the Filipetto Letter.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant Dr. Thomas Moorman was aware of
`
`Filipetto and Mire’s plan, and Dr. Moorman agreed to refrain from exercising his authority to
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID 10Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 10 of 21 PageID 10
`
`intervene and allowed Filipetto and Mire to have Doe dismissed from TCOM. Dr. Mire told Doe
`
`that she was a close friend of Katy Kemp, who had accused Doe of unprofessional conduct before
`
`the SPC regarding Doe’s complaints about Kemp’s failures to provide Doe’s clinical rotation
`
`paperwork. Upon information and belief, Mire regarded Doe as depressed or bipolar to explain
`
`Doe’s complaints about Kemp’s administrative failures. Upon information and belief, because
`
`Moorman supervised Mire, Moorman agreed with Mire’s opinion that Doe was disabled by
`
`depression or a bipolar disorder and further agreed that he should be dismissed from TCOM.
`
`29.
`
`By deceiving both Doe and the UNTHSC committees, Defendants accomplished
`
`their goal of having Doe dismissed from TCOM. Ultimately, Filipetto, Mire, and Moorman
`
`regarded Doe as disabled and agreed to coordinate his dismissal from medical school and deny
`
`him the second chances and opportunities afforded to other students. UNTHSC regularly provides
`
`TCOM students with multiple opportunities to retake exams and courses in order to complete
`
`medical school. UNTHSC has even extended these opportunities to Doe’s peers who were caught
`
`cheating on national licensing exams and engaging in illicit drug use. Given the enormous
`
`financial investment the students make in medical school and the inevitable pressures that arise
`
`from individual extenuating circumstances, UNTHSC’s general policy and practice of leniency
`
`toward students is reasonable and understandable. Yet, although Doe had completed the majority
`
`of his medical school program and was attempting to complete his fourth year, UNTHSC, Filipetto,
`
`Mire, and Moorman regarded Doe as disabled and denied him the leniency and opportunities
`
`regularly afforded to other students. While Filipetto and UNTHSC would have extended more
`
`leniency to other students and afforded them an opportunity to continue in medical school,
`
`UNTHSC, Filipetto, and Mire took a hardline stance against Doe because Defendants regarded
`
`him as disabled. Defendants discriminated against Doe both on the basis of his temporary disability
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID 11Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 11 of 21 PageID 11
`
`and also on the basis of another disability that they regarded him as having. As a result, Doe was
`
`denied appropriate accommodations and other opportunities regularly afforded to other students.
`
`While Doe knew that Filipetto and Mire opposed his re-enrollment, the May 17, 2019 disclosure
`
`of the Filipetto alerted Doe to the fact that Defendants intentionally caused his dismissal and
`
`prevented his re-enrollment on the basis of his actual and perceived disabilities.
`
`IV.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`“REGARDED AS” CLAIM UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, § 504, 29
`U.S.C. § 794, AS AMENDED BY THE ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134
`
`The above paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, (“Section 504”)
`
`prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act
`
`Amendments Act of 2008 (the “ADAAA”), effective January 1, 2009, amended the Americans
`
`with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and included a conforming amendment to the Rehabilitation
`
`Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) that affects the meaning of “disability” in Section 504, which
`
`relies upon the expanded definition under the ADAAA.
`
`32.
`
`Section 504, as amended by the ADAAA and conforming amendments to the
`
`Rehabilitation Act, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs or activities that
`
`receive Federal financial assistance from the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically, Section
`
`504 provides:
`
`No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in
`section 705 (20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded
`from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under
`any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or
`activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.”
`
`29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID 12Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 12 of 21 PageID 12
`
`33.
`
`“To state a claim for relief under Section 504, a plaintiff must allege that she or he
`
`was: (1) an ‘individual with a disability’; (2) ‘otherwise qualified’ for the program; and (3)
`
`excluded from, denied the benefits of, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under the program
`
`“‘solely by reason of her or his disability.’” Shaikh v. Tex. A&M Univ. Coll. of Med., 739 Fed.
`
`Appx. 215, 219 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)). “Under the Rehabilitation Act, an
`
`‘individual with a disability’ means any person who has a ‘disability,’ as that term is defined in
`
`the ADA.” Id. (quoting 29 U.S.C. §§ 794(a), 705(20)(B)).
`
`34.
`
`“The ADA defines ‘disability’ as: ‘(A) a physical or mental impairment that
`
`substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an
`
`impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment....’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12102(1)). “[M]ajor life activities include ... learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, ... and
`
`working,” as well as “the operation of a major bodily function, including ... neurological, brain, ...
`
`[and] endocrine ... functions.” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A)–(B). “The ADA mandates
`
`that ‘[t]he definition of disability ... be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals ... to
`
`the maximum extent permitted by the terms of [the statute].’” Id. (quoting 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 12102(4)(A).
`
`35.
`
`UNTHSC and TCOM constitute a program or activity receiving Federal financial
`
`assistance because UNTHSC/TCOM is an institution of higher education that is part of a university
`
`system of higher education that receives federal funds in the form of grants, tuition, and financial
`
`aid.
`
`36.
`
`Doe meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment”
`
`because Doe has been subjected to an action prohibited under the ADA because of an actual or
`
`perceived physical or mental impairment. Specifically, Filipetto and Mire concluded that Doe was
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID 13Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 13 of 21 PageID 13
`
`disabled by depression and a purported bipolar disorder, and, because Filipetto and Mire regarded
`
`Doe as disabled, UNTHSC viewed Doe as a liability to the medical school and determined to
`
`remove him from the program without regard to Doe’s actual ability to complete his studies and
`
`later practice medicine. Additionally, Defendants UNTHSC, Filipetto, and Mire intentionally
`
`denied Doe the leniency and opportunities ordinarily extended to other students because they
`
`regarded Doe as disabled by what they perceived to be depression and a bipolar disorder. However,
`
`Defendants disregarded and/or failed to consider the opinion of Doe’s physician that Doe was
`
`healthy and fit to return to medical school. Instead, Filipetto and Mire determined among
`
`themselves and agreed that Doe should be dismissed from TCOM because they perceived him to
`
`be disabled.
`
`37.
`
`Doe was otherwise qualified to continue his course of study in TCOM. Filipetto
`
`admitted to Doe that his academics were not the issue, and UNTHSC previously maintained that
`
`it had only administratively dismissed Doe because Doe failed to follow the conditions set forth in
`
`the Filipetto Letter, which were unknown to Doe until May 17, 2019, well after his dismissal. It
`
`was not until Doe received the Filipetto Letter that he realized that he would have been able to
`
`satisfy the additional requirements set out in the Filipetto Letter if Filipetto had actually sent him
`
`the letter. If Doe had received the Filipetto Letter, Doe would have rejected the additional
`
`conditions and the erroneous and wrongful academic-probation designation contained in the
`
`Filipeeto Letter, and Doe would have appealed the Filipetto Letter. If Filipetto had not interfered
`
`with Doe’s medical leave of absence, Doe would have satisfied the conditions in the Filipetto
`
`Letter and would not have been dismissed by the UNTHSC committee. Thus, setting aside Doe’s
`
`medical leave of absence under the LOA and his inability to satisfy the conditions of the Filipetto
`
`Letter that were never communicated to him because of Filipetto’s purposeful conduct in
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID 14Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 14 of 21 PageID 14
`
`withholding such information from Doe, Doe was otherwise qualified to continue in his fourth
`
`year at TCOM, as he had successfully done for three years.
`
`38.
`
`Doe was denied the opportunities and benefits of continuing in his fourth year at
`
`TCOM solely because UNTHSC, Filipetto, and Mire concluded that he was unfit as a result of
`
`their opinion that Doe was depressed and suffered from bipolar disorder. Doe completed all
`
`academic requirements for his course, and the SPC had previously concluded that any
`
`shortcomings of Doe were related to medical issues. Doe would have been able to successfully
`
`continue his fourth year of studies following the medical leave of absence “but for” UNTHSC,
`
`Filipetto, and Mire’s collaborative efforts to prevent Doe from re-enrolling in his courses for his
`
`fourth-year rotations by withholding the Filipetto Letter from Doe and misrepresenting to the
`
`UNTHSC committee the nature of Doe’s LOA. UNTHSC, Filipetto, and Mire engaged in this
`
`conduct because they concluded that Doe was disabled and unworthy to continue in TCOM by
`
`reason of their regard for Doe as being disabled.
`
`39.
`
`Because Defendants discriminated against Doe because of a disability, or their
`
`opinion that Doe was disabled, Doe suffered economic damages, reputational damage, severe
`
`emotional distress, and the loss of the ability to continue his education elsewhere and pursue his
`
`chosen profession. Defendants robbed Doe of all the valuable time, money, and energy that Doe
`
`spent working toward his medical degree at UNTHSC.
`
`V.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973,
`§ 504, 29 U.S.C.A. § 794, AS AMENDED BY THE ADAAA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12134
`
`The above paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Alternatively, Filipetto and Mire concluded that Doe should be dismissed from
`
`TCOM because of an actual situational, episodic, or intermittent disability in the form of
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID 15Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 15 of 21 PageID 15
`
`depression related to sleep deprivation for which Doe obtained treatment. This disability
`
`substantially limited major life activities including thinking, concentrating, sleeping, and
`
`communicating, but those limitations could be mitigated through treatment. Although Defendants
`
`knew that such depression was treatable and did not in fact interfere with Doe’s academics
`
`(Filipetto admitted to Doe that he had no academic deficiency), Defendants believed that Doe was
`
`unfit and unworthy to become a doctor associated with UNTHSC because of Doe’s depression.
`
`Because Defendants wanted Doe out of TCOM, Defendants induced Doe to take a medical leave
`
`of absence based on the LOA and then either manufactured the Filipetto Letter or purposefully
`
`withheld the Filipetto Letter from Doe in order to prevent him from continuing with his course of
`
`study and to convince the UNTHSC committee to dismiss Doe. Doe was otherwise qualified to
`
`continue his fourth year in TCOM, absent the intentional discrimination that caused his dismissal.
`
`Once Doe learned about the Filipetto Letter, Doe discovered that Mire and Filipetto not only
`
`opposed Doe’s re-enrollment, but also Defendants actively caused his dismissal because of his
`
`actual disability. As a result, UNTHSC, Filipetto, and Mire discriminated against Doe and
`
`prevented him from participation in and benefits afforded to other students in TCOM.
`
`VI.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER THE
`FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
`
`The above paragraphs are incorporated herein for all purposes.
`
`Doe is a member of a protected class because he is disabled or is regarded as
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`disabled by virtue of Defendants’ opinion that Doe suffers from depression and bipolar disorder.
`
`Additionally, Doe was disabled during and before his medical leave of absence as a result of his
`
`sleep apnea and its worsening caused by the sleeping pills prescribed by UNTHSC physicians.
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID 16Case 4:21-cv-00658-O Document 1 Filed 05/14/21 Page 16 of 21 PageID 16
`
`44.
`
`Doe is otherwise similarly situated to other students at UNTHSC who are not
`
`disabled. Doe completed three successful years in TCOM, and Doe had completed all of his
`
`academic requirements other than his fourth-year rotations. It is worth noting that Doe is a highly
`
`capable and accomplished student who had obtained degrees in finance and biology before medical
`
`school while maintaining a full-time job and publishing academic papers. Doe received treatment
`
`for his sleep deprivation and received a clean bill of health from his physician so that he should
`
`have been allowed to return to his fourth year of medical

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket