Mire v. LSU Health Sciences Center
Filing
44
ORDER AND REASONS- the Court GRANTS defendant's Motion 14 to Dismiss. Accordingly, Mire's claims against defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College arising under Title I of the ADA and ADAAA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any motion to dismiss Mire's Title II claims must be filed within 21 days of this order.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/13/16. (jjs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KRISTINA MIRE, MD
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 15-6965
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ET AL.
SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College (the LSU Board) moves to dismiss
plaintiff Kristina Mire, MD’s claims arising under Title I of the Americans
with Disabilities Act on grounds of sovereign immunity. For the following
reasons, the Court grants the LSU Board’s motion.
I.
BACKGROUND
In her Second Amended Complaint, Kristina Mire, MD alleges that the
LSU Health Sciences Center (LSU Health) discriminated against her based
on her disability, and that this conduct violated Titles I and II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008 (ADAAA). According to the complaint, Mire enrolled as a
medical resident at LSU Health in July 2006.1 Shortly after enrolling, Mire
sought treatment from a psychiatrist for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder. 2 She also developed insomnia, which impaired her effectiveness
as a resident.3 By December 2006, Mire’s supervisors described Mire as
inefficient and prone to oversleeping and tardiness.4 Mire was informed of
these concerns in January 2007. 5 In response, Mire revealed her insomnia
to her program director at LSU Health. 6
By March 2007, Mire’s psychiatrist suspected that Mire had an
Adjustment Disorder and prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic
medication.7 Mire, however, reacted negatively to the medications and soon
stopped taking them.8
In June 2007, Mire received more unfavorable
performance reviews.9 Mire disclosed her adjustment disorder to the Chief
Resident at LSU Health in July 2007. 10 Following this disclosure, Mire was
placed in a disciplinary program designed to remediate deficiencies in her
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
R. Doc. 27 at 2.
Id.
Id. at 3.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 4-5.
Id. at 5.
Id. at 6.
Id.
2
performance.11 As part of the disciplinary program, Mire was reevaluated by
her psychiatrist.12 Following this evaluation, Mire was diagnosed with major
depressive disorder and was once again prescribed medication. 13 Although
Mire continued to respond negatively to her medication, Mire’s program
director at LSU Health told Mire that she was required under the disciplinary
program to take all her prescribed medication. 14 In response, Mire requested
and received permission to visit another psychiatrist. 15
The second
psychiatrist confirmed Mire’s diagnosis of major depressive disorder,
adjusted her medication, and recommended a leave of absence. 16 Following
this diagnosis, Mire was placed on a modified schedule until November
2007, when she was placed on a more rigorous “in-patient call schedule.”17
From January to April 2008, Mire took a leave of absence from the
residency program.18 When she returned, LSU Health did not resume her
duties gradually, but instead placed Mire on “full on-call duty.”19 Following
her return, Mire once again had trouble performing her duties, and she was
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Id.
Id. at 7.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id.
Id. at 8.
Id.
3
placed on probation. 20 Mire appealed LSU Health’s decision to place her on
probation to an internal review body.21 This appeal was denied on June 19,
2008, and Mire was suspended from the residency program in August
2008. 22 LSU Health cited several reasons for the suspension, including
Mire’s alleged violation of the terms of her probation and unprofessional
behavior.23 Following a competency hearing and an administrative appeal
process, Mire was terminated by LSU Health. 24 The Dean of the LSU Health
Sciences Center School of Medicine “accepted and confirmed” Mire’s
termination on March 21, 2009. 25
Mire filed her initial complaint in this action, alleging violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, on December 21, 2015.26 Ten days later,
Mire amended her complaint to supplement and reword some of her factual
allegations. 27 In the initial and First Amended complaints, Mire named “LSU
Health Sciences Center, an agency of the State of Louisiana” as the only
defendant.28
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id.
Id.
Id. at 10.
Id.
Id.
Id.
R. Doc. 1.
R. Doc. 7.
Id. at 1.
4
The LSU Board filed its motion to dismiss on grounds of sovereign
immunity on February 22, 2016. 29 On March 15, 2016, Mire filed a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint. 30 The Magistrate Judge
granted Mire’s motion on March 30, 2016. 31
In her Second Amended
Complaint, Mire adds Dr. Bonnie Dressell and Dr. Ricardo Sorenson as
defendants in their official capacities as LSU Health employees.32 The
Second Amended Complaint also asserts claims under both Title I and Title
II of the ADA and makes modest changes to Mire’s factual allegations. 33
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires dismissal of an action
if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim.
Motions submitted under Rule 12(b)(1) allow a party to challenge the court’s
subject matter jurisdiction based upon the allegations on the face of the
complaint. Barrera–Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir.
1996); see also Lopez v. City of Dallas, Tex., No. 03–2223, 2006 WL
Id.
R. Doc. 15.
31
R. Doc. 26.
32
R. Doc. 27 at 1.
33
Id. Mire’s original and First Amended complaints alleged violations of
the ADA and ADAAA generally, but did not specify any Titles.
5
29
30
1450420, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 2006). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion
to dismiss, the court may rely on (1) the complaint alone, presuming the
allegations to be true; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts;
or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts and by the court’s
resolution of disputed facts. Den Norske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac
Vof, 241 F.3d 420, 424 (5th Cir. 2001); see also Barrera–Montenegro, 74
F.3d at 659. The plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating that subject
matter jurisdiction exists. See Paterson v. Weinberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523
(5th Cir. 1981).
When examining a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction that
does not implicate the merits of plaintiff’s cause of action, the district court
has substantial authority “to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the
existence of its power to hear the case.” Arena v. Graybar Elec. Co., 669
F.3d 214, 223 (5th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, the Court may consider matters
outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits. See Superior MRI
Servs., Inc. v. All. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 778 F.3d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 2015).
A court’s dismissal of a case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not a
decision on the merits, and the dismissal does not necessarily prevent the
plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum. See Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel
& Wilson, L.L.C. v. Sasol N. Am., Inc., 544 F. App’x 455, 456 (5th Cir. 2013).
6
III. DISCUSSION
Before considering the substance of the LSU Board’s argument that
Mire’s Title I claim is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, the Court must
resolve two preliminary issues.
A. Preliminary Issues
First, as noted, Mire filed her Second Amended complaint—which
asserts claims under both Title I and II of the ADA—after LSU had already
filed its motion to dismiss. LSU’s motion addresses only Title I claims. The
Court therefore considers the LSU Board’s motion as addressed to only the
Title I claims asserted in the Second Amended Complaint. See 6 Wright &
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (2016) (“[D]efendants should
not be required to file a new motion to dismiss simply because an amended
pleading was introduced while their motion was pending. . . . [T]he court
simply may consider the motion as being addressed to the amended
pleading.”).
Second, the parties dispute whether the LSU Board or LSU Health is
the proper defendant in this case. The Court finds that the LSU Board, rather
than LSU Health, is the proper defendant. Louisiana Revised Statutes
Section 17:3215 lists “institutions under the supervision and management”
of the LSU board. La. Rev. Stat. § 17:3215 (2011). These include “Louisiana
7
State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans, which shall include
medical and related health schools and programs located in New Orleans.”
Id.; see also La. Rev. Stat. § 17:1519.5 (2010) (“The [LSU B]oard as a body
corporate shall have authority to exercise all power to direct, control,
supervise, and manage [LSU Health].”).
Because LSU Health is an
institution of postsecondary education under the control of the LSU Board,
the Board is the proper defendant in a suit alleging misconduct by LSU
Health. See La. Rev. Stat. § 17:3351(A)(1) (2015) (granting the LSU Board
authority to “sue and be sued” on behalf of “institutions of postsecondary
education under its control”); Delahoussaye v. City of New Iberia, 937 F.2d
144, 148 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Although the Board has the right to sue and be sued
in its own name . . . the University does not.”); Raj v. Louisiana State Univ.,
No. 11-1126, 2012 WL 629954, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 27, 2012), aff’d, 714 F.3d
322 (5th Cir. 2013) (“[I]t is the Board that has the capacity to be sued, and
LSU and LSU Health were wrongly added as defendants because they lack
said capacity.”); Huggins v. Univ. of Louisiana Sys. Bd. of Supervisors, No.
08-1397, 2009 WL 223272, at *5 (W.D. La. Jan. 6, 2009) (“[T]he University
is not a juridical person subject to suit.”).
Mire attempts to resist this conclusion by citing the Louisiana State
University Health Care Services Division Act of 2003. La. Rev. Stat. §§
8
17:1519-17:1519.15. That law, however, clearly provides that the LSU Board
shall “own and operate the hospitals” organized under LSU Health and that
“[o]peration and management of the LSU H[ealth] hospitals shall be the
responsibility of the [LSU B]oard.” La. Rev. Stat. § 17:1519.2 (2016). The
organizational changes imposed by the 2003 law do not undermine the LSU
Board’s control over LSU Health, nor do they abrogate the clear command of
Section 17:3351(A)(1) that the Board, rather than LSU Health, retains the
exclusive power to “sue and be sued.” The LSU Board therefore remains the
proper defendant in suits, such as this one, asserting misconduct on the part
of LSU Health or its employees.
Having resolved these initial questions, the Court considers whether
the Eleventh Amendment bars Mire’s Title I claims against the LSU Board.
B. Title I
“The Eleventh Amendment bars citizens of a state from suing their own
state or another state in federal court unless the state has waived its
sovereign immunity or Congress has expressly abrogated it.”
Raj v.
Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 2013) (internal citations
omitted).
Louisiana has explicitly asserted its sovereign immunity by
statute. La. Rev. Stat. § 13:5106(A) (2010) (“No suit against the state or a
state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other
9
than a Louisiana state court.”). This immunity extends to certain State
agencies as well as the State itself, and “[i]t is well-settled in the Fifth Circuit
that institutions of higher education and their boards are arms of the state
entitled to immunity.” Hall v. Bd. of Supervisors of Cmty. & Tech. Colleges,
15-67, 2015 WL 2383744, at *4 (E.D. La. May 18, 2015); see also Raj, 714
F.3d at 328 (“[T]he LSU Board is an arm of the state and is immune from
suit under the Eleventh Amendment.”).
Title I of the ADA protects qualified people with disabilities from
employment discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (2012). Because the LSU
Board is an arm of the state, and Louisiana has not waived its sovereign
immunity, Mire’s Title I claim survives only if Congress has expressly and
validly abrogated state immunity for Title I claims. Although Congress
unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate state immunity with respect
to ADA claims, see 42 U.S.C. § 12202 (2012), the Supreme Court has held
that this provision exceeded Congress’s authority as applied to Title I of the
ADA. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374
(2001).
Accordingly, Congress has not validly abrogated Louisiana’s
immunity from Title I claims, and Mire’s Title I claim against the LSU Board
is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
10
C. Title II
The Court, as noted, finds that the LSU Board’s motion to dismiss does
not address Mire’s Title II claims, and it therefore does not reach the issue of
whether those claims are, like her Title I claims, barred by the Eleventh
Amendment. The Board, however, remains free to challenge this Court’s
jurisdiction over the Title II claims. See Calderon v. Ashmus, 523 U.S. 740,
745 n.2 (1998) (“[T]he Eleventh Amendment is jurisdictional in the sense
that it is a limitation on the federal court’s judicial power, and therefore can
be raised at any stage of the proceedings . . . .”). The Court further notes that
under United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159-60 (2006), it must begin
any inquiry into whether Congress’ abrogation of state sovereign immunity
applies in this case by examining the merits of Mire’s Title II claim, including
the Board’s statute of limitations defense. See Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492,
498 (5th Cir. 2011) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard as the first prong in the
Georgia test); see also Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 2003)
(“A statute of limitations may support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) where
it is evident from the plaintiff’s pleadings that the action is barred and the
pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling or the like.”). Accordingly, any
motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds must address the merits
of Mire’s claims, including the statute of limitations issue.
11
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss.
Accordingly, Mire’s claims against defendant Board of
Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical
College arising under Title I of the ADA and ADAAA are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any motion to dismiss Mire’s Title II claims must
be filed within 21 days of this order.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of September, 2016.
13th
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?