DaSilva v. Mental Health Mental Retardation Authority Of Harris County
Filing
25
OPINION on Summary Judgment terminating 21 . DaSilva was the victim of a phenomenon remarkably uncommon in government - supply and demand. For a brief time, perhaps, the supply of mid-level bureaucrats has outstripped demand. She will take nothing from the authority. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNffiD STATES DISTRICT COURT
Erika Ramos DaSilva,
Plaintiff,
'VCTSUS
Mental Health and Mental Retardation
Authority of Harris County,
Defendant.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Opinion on Summary Judgment
1.
Introduction.
A woman reapplied for ajob after resigning her position. The agency did not rehire her.
She says that it discriminated against her because of her mental disability. Because she has no
facts to support her claims, she will take nothing.
2.
Background.
Erika Ramos DaSilva has bipolar and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. She
worked as a rehabilitation clinician at Mental Health and Mental Retardation Authority of
Harris County from November of
2009
until October of
2010.
In October of
2010,
she
resigned, citing personal reasons.
In February of 201 2, DaSilva applied for a case,manager position at the authority. After
interviewing twice, the authority offered DaSilva the job, contingent on a background check.
After a brief background investigation and internal discussions, the authority rescinded its offer
and reorganized the department, eliminating the new position.
After the reorganization, the authority had a different case,manager opening. DaSilva
submitted her resume and cover letter on April 16,
2012.
She applied formally inJune. Before
interviews began, the authority froze all hiring. The fiscal year was ending and the authority was
concerned that money would not be available for new positions. The authority canceled
DaSilva's scheduled interview inJuly.
On April I 8, 20 I 2, DaSilva filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission saying that the authority rescinded her offer and did not hire her
because of her mental disability. DaSilva sued saying that the authority did not hire her because
of her mental disability.
3.
Mental Disabiliry.
DaSilva says that she suffers from attention deficit and hyperactivity and bipolar
disorders. She says that her symptoms include problems focusing, racing thoughts, delusions,
poor concentration, inability to communicate clearly, and a lack of interest in paperwork.
While perhaps causally related to her disorders, these symptoms are hardly unique to
them. The law does not rely on magic words or labels to determine whether someone is
disabled. DaSilva must show that her affiictions substantially impair her daily living. r
A lack of interest in completing paperwork is universal, not indicative of a disability.
Bipolar disorder or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder may well be proper bases for legal
disabilities, but only ifit substantially impairs DaSilva's functions in life. Her symptoms amount
to work irritants, not life impairments.
Dasilva says that the authority knew that she had the two disorders. Knowledge is not
enough. She has not shown that the authority regarded her as impaired because of them. 2
4.
Similarry Situated.
DaSilva has not shown a similarly situated applicant who was treated differently. The
authority has not hired anyone for either position, let alone, someone who does not have
bipolar or attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders.
She says that the authority has conspired to defeat her suit. She says that it has left
positions open for over a year to prevent her from showing that she was treated less favorably
than similarly-situated people without bipolar and attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders.
r
42
U.s.c. § 12I02.
This claim is illustrative of the case - it has no factual support. DaSilva may not infer
discrimination from unfounded generalizations that do not rebut the authority's reasons for not
hiring her.
5.
Qy.alifications.
DaSilva says that she was well qualified for the case manager positions. She was not.
She made up portions of her employment history on her online applications and
resume. She invented a job along with its corresponding responsibilities to fill a gap in her
employment history. DaSilva's applications and communications with the authority reveal a
lack of integrity - a requirement of all authority employees.
DaSilva says that the authority is attempting to retroactively justify not hiring her
because it learned of her fabrication after its decision. She conflates a qualification with a
disqualification.
Her claim is predicated on the assumption that the authority discriminated against her.
She has not shown a fact to substantiate her assumption, nor has she shown facts to establish
a prima facia case of discrimination. DaSilva's admitted dishonesty precludes her from meeting
her burden.
DaSilva also says that the authority is inventing qualifications in order to hide its
invidious discrimination. Not only has DaSilva not shown facts to substantiate her claims of
discrimination, but it is utterly unreasonable to say that honesty, even if not stated expressly,
is not a valid qualification. The authority, in its employee handbook, requires ethical conduct
of all employees. Even without the handbook, honesty and integrity are universally assumed by
employers. No reasonable employer would knowingly hire a dishonest person, nor retain one
once it discovered his dishonesty.
6.
Pretext.
DaSilva says that the authority's justifications for not hiring her were pretextual. She
says that the authority' 5 e-mails expressed enthusiasm about hiring her and that the human
resources department worked together to do their job.
E-mails, no matter how enthusiastic, amount to nothing in the face of hard accounting.
No matter how fervently the authority wanted to hire DaSilva, it simply could not afford her.
•
DaSilva's claims of a human resources plot are unsupported by facts. Contrary to her
conjecture, it is imminently reasonable that the department charged with hiring would know
the financial situation of the authority and would be able to stop hiring people if there was no
i
money to pay them.
7.
Conclusion.
DaSilva was the victim of a phenomenon remarkably uncommon in government -
supply and demand. For a brief time, perhaps, the supply of mid-level bureaucrats has
outstripped demand. She will take nothing from the authority.
'3'D-fI.
Signed onAugu~ 2015, at Houston, Texas.
I
I
f
I
I
f
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?