Allen v. Benson

691 F.Supp.3d 746

Tameka ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. Dr. Richard C. BENSON, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-807-ALM-KPJ

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division

Signed September 13, 2023

Tameka Allen, Wylie, TX, Pro Se.

Kimberly Ann Gdula, United States Attorney's Office, Dallas, TX, David Norris Miracchi, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

AMOS L. MAZZANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Came on for consideration the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action (the "Report") (Dkt. #31), this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommended granting in part and denying in part Defendants Dr. Richard C. Benson, Dr. Rafael Martin, Colleen Dutton, Ellen Ammons, Janette Bell, Sarah Dorsey, Agapito Garcia, Bradley Powell (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and the University of Texas at Dallas's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #15). The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff Tameka Allen's the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claims for money damages against the Individual Defendants be dismissed without prejudice and Plaintiff's ADA claims against University of Texas at Dallas be dismissed without prejudice in their entirety pursuant to Defendants' entitlement to sovereign immunity; and Plaintiff's ADA claims for injunctive relief against the Individual Defendants be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. The Magistrate Judge further recommended the Motion (Dkt. #15) be denied to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim against University of Texas at Dallas; and Plaintiff's Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim against the Individual Defendants be dismissed with prejudice sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). On August 7, 2023, Defendants filed Objections (Dkt. #36) to the Report.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the Objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, Defendants' Objections (Dkt. #36) are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's Report is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (Dkt. #15) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion (Dkt. #15) is GRANTED as follows: Plaintiff's ADA claims for money damages against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; Plaintiff's ADA claims against University of Texas at Dallas are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in their entirety pursuant to Defendants' entitlement to sovereign immunity; and Plaintiff's ADA claims for injunctive relief against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion (Dkt. #15) is DENIED to the extent it seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim against University of Texas at Dallas.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim against the Individual Defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

KIMBERLY C. PRIEST JOHNSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendants Dr. Richard C. Benson, Dr. Rafael Martin, Colleen Dutton, Ellen Ammons, Janette Bell, Sarah Dorsey, Agapito Garcia, Bradley Powell (together, the "Individual Defendants"), and the University of Texas at Dallas's ("UT Dallas" or "UTD", and together with the Individual Defendants, the "State Defendants") Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (the "Motion") (Dkt. 15). Plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 17) and the State Defendants filed a reply (Dkt. 19). For the reasons that follow, the Court recommends the Motion (Dkt. 15) be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. BACKGROUND

On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the complaint (Dkt. 1) asserting the Individual Defendants in their official capacities and UTD violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a)(1), 2000e(j) ("Title VII") and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 330, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117 ("ADA") by terminating Plaintiff's employment and refusing to grant Plaintiff a religious exemption and/or accommodation. See Dkt. 1 at 1-5. On October 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") (Dkt. 5) reasserting the Individual Defendants in their official capacities and UT Dallas violated Title VII and Title I of the ADA by terminating Plaintiff's employment and refusing to grant Plaintiff a religious exemption and/or accommodation. See Dkt. 5 at 5. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges the State Defendants refused to provide "reasonable accommodations for [Plaintiff's] sincerely held religious beliefs and terminated [her employment] without a dialogue process to further explain [Plaintiff's] beliefs and practices in lieu of the mandatory COVID-19 testing program." Id. at 6. Plaintiff asserts the following:

As a Christian, I believe in the practice of faith-based decision making and not fear-based decision making. Putting the fear of man above the fear of God is a dishonor to God, but God honors a man who chooses to fear Him and not man as exemplified in the bible in the book of Daniel 3 and Esther 3. Also, Proverbs 29:25 states, "The fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is kept safe. Fear-based decision making will only lead to entrapments that will impede freedom of choice.["] UTD's leadership used fear tactics to coerce testing by threatening disciplinary action for anyone who didn't participate in their mandatory COVID testing program. UTD's Consent/Enrollment form (sent to me via email, on June 23, 2021, from the Office of Human Resources) required my signature to consent to voluntary (freedom of choice) specimen testing. The form also stated that, consent would remain in effect until revoked in writing and "the test alone may not be sufficient to detect or rule out the possibility that you are infected with SARS-CoV-2 . . ."

Id. (emphases in original). Plaintiff alleges Dr. Richard Benson sent an email on August 16, 2021, informing staff and students at UT Dallas that they were required to participate in UT Dallas's COVID-19 testing program, and on September 22, 2021, Dr. Rafael Martin sent an email informing employees that they must test for COVID-19 via the on-campus testing program, as external testing results would not be accepted. See id.

Plaintiff further alleges she received an email on October 4, 2021, from Colleen Dutton informing Plaintiff that if she did not comply with the COVID testing mandate by October 6, 2021, Plaintiff would be subject to disciplinary action. See id. Plaintiff further asserts that she received an email on October 18, 2021, from UT Dallas's employee relations informing Plaintiff they had received her request for an exemption and "there were no exemptions to COVID testing." Id. (emphasis in original). Plaintiff asserts that on October 20, 2021, UT Dallas's Office of Human Resources emailed Plaintiff a "Declaration of Objection to Any COVID-19 Testing form which meted out [Plaintiff's] punishment for refusing to take the COVID-19 test," including that Plaintiff would not be permitted to work in-person or remotely and would be required to utilize vacation time while out of the office along with other disciplinary actions. See id. Plaintiff alleges that on November 1, 2021, she was informed by Bradley Powell that Plaintiff was placed on paid leave beginning October 21, 2021, until her vacation hours were exhausted, and Plaintiff asserts she was placed on unpaid leave beginning October 29, 2021, until her final termination on January 31, 2022. See id. at 6-7. Plaintiff asserts she was also informed by Janette Bell on November 18, 2021, that her thirty-day leave of absence had been extended by Plaintiff's department through January 31, 2022, and Plaintiff would not be permitted to work until she "submitted to the COVID test or UTD ended the COVID testing program." Id. at 7.

Plaintiff contends the COVID-19 test "didn't meet ADA standards of 'job relatedness and business necessity' " and the "COVID test used by UTD (Abbott Alinity-m) was issued a Class I device recall for producing false positive results." Id. Plaintiff alleges that on August 16, 2021, she "sent an email to the C19 Resource Group in the Employee Relations department asking who was the manufacturer of the test, and if the test was accurate along with other questions." Id. Plaintiff further asserts she informed Employee Relations on October 22, 2021, that the manufacturer of the Abbott Alinity-m COVID test issued an "Urgent Field and Safety Notice/Field Correction Recall." Id. Plaintiff asserts she corresponded with Ellen Ammons regarding testing and Plaintiff was informed that "UTD is moving forward with COVID testing. You were given the option to take a saliva test as an alternative to the nasal swab test, which you objected to." Id. Plaintiff alleges she was not allowed to work remotely even though she was in a "remote work agreement" with UT Dallas beginning June 1, 2021 until October 21, 2021, and she remained in possession of the remoting work equipment provided by UT Dallas until her termination on January 31, 2022. Id. at 8. Plaintiff asserts the Texas Workforce Commission informed Plaintiff she was not eligible for unemployment benefits...