Alfred v. Harris County Hospital District
Filing
19
OPINION on Liability. (Signed by Judge Lynn N. Hughes) Parties notified. (ghassan, 4)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICTUnited States District Court
OF TEXAS
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Donna Alfred,
Plaintiff,
versus
Harris County Hospital District
doing business as
Harris Health System,
Defendants.
January 07, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk
Civil Action H-I5-0569
Opinion on Liability
1.
Introduction.
Donna Alfred took leave from work under the self-care provision of the Family Medical
Leave Act. While on leave, her employer, Harris Health System, received complaints about her
management style. When she returned to work she was demoted. She says that she was
demoted because she took leave. She asks the court for damages and reinstatement. Harris
Health is sovereignly immune; Alfred's claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
2.
Background.
Alfred worked as a senior manager in the Patient Financial Services Department of
Harris Health. After five years of employment, she requested leave to undergo surgery. The Act
allows an employee to take leave to care for herself - the "self-care provision" - or to care for
someone else - the "family-care provisions." FromJune 5 to July
2I, 20I4,
she took leave
under the self-care provision.
A few weeks before returning to work her supervisor sent an electronic message, onJuly
9,
20I4,
outlining a "hornets nest of complaints" about her management. When she returned
to work onJuly
22, 20I4,
she was demoted.
3.
Alfred's Complaint
On March 3, 2.0 I 5, Harris Health removed this case and waived its immunity from suit.
At the initial conference, Harris Health asserted that it was sovereignly immune to Alfred's
claim because it was brought under the self-care provision of the Act; however, it conceded that
it would not be immune to claims brought under a family -care provision. Alfred promptly asked
to amend her complaint to include a claim under a family-care provision.
She said that Harris Health had recently disclosed that she had mentioned her mother's
health as a reason for accepting the demotion. She said that this showed, although the message
is dated after her return from leave, that she actualry took leave to care for her mother - a familycare provision. Alfred's justification for accepting a demotion does not categorically change the
provision under which she requested and took leave. She was not allowed to amend her
complaint.
She now, again, asks the court to let her amend her complaint because she says her
demotion was causally connected to leave to care for her mother. She pleads for the court to
allow her to conduct discovery to illuminate information that she already knows - or would
have known a long time ago if it were true. She has testified that: (a) she only requested Act
leave once from Harris Health, (b) she took that leave to care for herself, (c) her retaliation claim
arises from that leave, and (d) she never discussed her need for leave to care for her mother with
Harris Health. She never requested leave under a family-care provision; what's not asked cannot
be interfered with, restrained, or denied. Taken at her word, the only leave she requested or
took under any provision of the Act was for self-care.
She may not amend her complaint.
4.
Immuniry from Liabiliry.
Judicial perversions of the Eleventh Amendment deprive a court of subject jurisdiction
over claims against a state that arise from the self-care provision of the Act. \Nhen determining
whether it has jurisdiction, a court is not limited to the complaint. It may evaluate the entire
record to incorporate undisputed facts and to preliminary resolve disputed facts.
f
Harris Health is a subdivision of the State ofTexas. ' States are immune from liability
for claims that arise from the self-care provision of the Act. { Alfred took leave for self-care
provision to undergo and recover from a surgery herself. Harris Health is immune from liability.
Alfred also asks for reinstatement to her position. The law bars every recitation of her
claims or relief she seeks. 3
The court does not have subject jurisdiction over Alfred's claims because Harris
Health is sovereignly immune.
3.
Conclusion.
Alfred's claims arise from the self-care provision of the Act. The Constitution precludes
her claims for damages and equitable relief from this court's jurisdiction. Her claim will be
dismissed with prejudice.
Alfred filed a baseless suit at law and obliged the defendant to repeatedly respond to new
pleadings with unsupported allegations. Pleading in the alternative is fine for legal theories, but
it is not for facts - facts the party knows and has sworn to. A party representing a single fact as
both true and false does not create a fact issue; it engenders an ethical one.
Signed onJanuary 7,2016, at Houston, Texas.
Lynn N. Hughes
United States DistrictJudge
1 Tex.
Canst. art IX, § I4.
2
Coleman 'V. Ct. of App. of Md., 132 S.Ct. 1327, 1332 (2012).
3
Bryant 'V. Tc.xas Dept. ofAging and Disabiliry Seroices, 781 F. 3d 764, 769 (5th Cir. 2015).
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?