`
`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