Wren v. Midwestern State Univeristy

REGINA WREN, Plaintiff, v. MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERISTY, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00060-O-BP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WICHITA FALLS DIVISION

June 25, 2019

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are Defendants Midwestern State University, Keith Williamson, James Johnston, Kathleen Williamson, Debra Walker, Julia Knauff, and Kristina Halberg's Second Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) filed March 8, 2019, their Corrected Brief in Support (ECF No. 37) filed March 11, 2019, and Plaintiff Regina Wren's Brief in Opposition of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 46) filed March 25, 2019. Pursuant to Special Order No. 3, the case was referred on April 30, 2018 to the undersigned for pretrial management, including the determination of non-dispositive motions and issuance of findings of fact and recommendations on dispositive motions. (ECF No. 5). After considering the pleadings and applicable legal authorities, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O'Connor GRANT Defendants' Second Motion to Dismiss; DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against MSU and the individual Defendants in their official capacities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiff's claims against the Defendants in their individual capacities for failure to state a claim; and DECLINE to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Regina Wren ("Wren"), a nursing student formerly enrolled in MSU's Family Nurse Practitioner program ("FNP"), sued Defendants Midwestern State University ("MSU"); Keith Williamson ("Williamson"), Medical Director; Debra Walker ("Walker"), Graduate Coordinator; Julia Knauff ("Knauff"), Associate Professor; and Kristina Halberg ("Halberg"), Instructor for alleged discrimination and retaliation against Wren based on her disability status and race. Wren's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") focused on MSU's immunization and double-grading policies that she contended were used against here and caused her to fail a required clinical practicum that eventually led to her withdrawal from the FNP. On January 23, 2019, the undersigned recommend that Judge O'Connor grant Defendants' first motion to dismiss, but allow Wren an opportunity to file an amended complaint within the fourteen days allotted for objections to the recommendation. Wren timely filed her Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), adding two new defendants, James Johnston ("Johnston"), Dean, Provost, and Vice President for Academic Affairs at MSU and Dr. Kathleen Williamson ("Professor Williamson"), Chair, MSU Wilson School of Nursing. (See ECF No. 25). Wren's theories of recovery against the Defendants in the SAC are substantially similar to her FAC. Wren has, however, abandoned her claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985 and state-law claims for defamation and libel.

The following narrative is taken from the SAC. In the Fall of 2011, Wren enrolled in the three-year FNP offered by MSU at the Wilson School of Nursing. (ECF No. 25 at 7). Before being admitted to the FNP and accruing clinical hours, a nursing student, like Wren, must submit a compliance packet that showed proof of immunization or a qualified exemption from immunization. (See id. at 9). In September 2011, Wren submitted her employer's immunization records to the Vincent Health Center ("VHC"), the campus student health clinic that determinedwhether submittals complied with MSU's immunization policy. (Id. at 7-8). Wren alleges the 2011 compliance packet "indicated" an approved exemption to the flu vaccine. (Id. at 8). Apparently, Wren's application was acceptable to MSU because Wren was admitted into the FNP and progressed without incident until the Spring 2013 semester. (Id. at 7).

Some of the FNP courses require a clinical practicum in addition to classroom instruction. In the Spring of 2013, Wren took a Health Assessment course that required a clinical practicum exam. Wren did not receive a passing grade on the clinical practicum exam, and as a result, she did not earn a passing grade for the Health Assessment course after her classroom and clinical practicum scores were averaged. (Id. at 7). Because it was a required course, Wren was unable to progress in the FNP until she earned a passing grade. MSU did not offer the Health Assessment course again until the spring of 2014 so Wren did not enroll in any classes during the 2013 summer and fall semesters. (Id.). Wren reenrolled in the Health Assessment course and passed in the spring of 2014. (Id. at 8). She took and passed classes during the summer and submitted another compliance packet to be enrolled in the FNP I course.

As part of the FNP I course, Wren was required to log 192 hours at a clinic with an approved instructor. (Id.). Wren's clinic and instructor were located in Dallas, Texas. (Id.). After enrolling in the FNP I course, VHC had concerns about Wren's immunization exemption and informed Wren that her employer's immunization records were not sufficient to prove the exemption applied to the tetanus and flu vaccines. (Id. at 9). VHC requested additional information concerning her immunization exemption from her primary care physician at the Dallas VA Medical Center. (Id.). After reviewing the documents Wren submitted and discussing them with her primary care physician, VHC denied her access to the clinic because the paperwork submitted did not comply with MSU's requirements. (See id. at 9). VHC allegedly asked Wren for medicalrecords substantiating her severe allergic reaction to vaccinations. (Id. at 9). Wren neither submitted the appropriate medical records nor obtained the required vaccinations. (Id. at 9). She dropped the FNP I course in October 2014. (Id. at 10). However, in November 2014, she submitted the proper affidavit that stated that she declined to be immunized for reasons of conscience. (Id.). Shortly thereafter, MSU accepted the affidavit, and Wren reenrolled in FNP I for the Fall 2015 semester. (Id. at 11).

After completing FNP I, Wren enrolled in the Spring 2016 FNP II course. Like FNP I, FNP II required students to log clinical hours and to complete a clinical practicum examination. Wren, who is African-American, and another African-American student (Wren refers to this student as "Student A"), were switched to Halberg's clinical group for the FNP II course. (Id.). Halberg's clinical group consisted of only three students, all of whom were female. The third student in Wren's group was Caucasian. (Id.). Although not entirely clear, Wren indicates the only student approved to accrue clinical hours in Halberg's clinic, which is in Wichita Falls, Texas, was a different Caucasian ("Student C") student who resided in Wichita Falls and was not part of Halberg's clinical group. (Id. at 12, 18). Confusingly though, Halberg is Student C's FNP II course instructor. (Id. at 12).

Wren alleges that Halberg was immediately hostile to her and Student A. (Id. at 11). Despite Wren's allegations that she had received a grade of 100 from Walker on her first major written didactic assignment, received a grade of 90 from Halberg on her first major written clinical assignment, and had an "A" average in both the classroom and clinical portions of FNP II, she, along with other students, filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights complaining about harsh grading practices in comparison to those experienced by Caucasian students. (Id. at 11-12). She alleges that the complaints were not finalized due to fear of retribution. (Id. at 12).

The day before Wren was to take the FNP II clinical practicum midterm examination, Halberg sent her an email indicating that her written clinical assignment was graded lower because she did not submit it on time. (Id. at 13). The email also informed Wren that she had failed to follow instructions to confirm the time of her clinical practicum examination at least twenty-four hours in advance, even though Wren alleges she and Student A had previously arranged to take the clinical practicum exam. (Id. at 12-13). Wren also received a communication from the Wilson School of Nursing requesting compliance documents for vaccinations and a drug screen. (Id. at 12).

On the day of the clinical practicum examination, Wren and Student A arrived at Halberg's clinic well before noon, but were forced to wait for over an hour in the lobby while Student C was seeing patients. (Id. at 13). At this time, Student C collected their clinical journals for Halberg. (Id. at 14). Presumably, Halberg was waiting for Knauff to arrive so that Wren and Student A could be "double-graded." (Id.). Wren and Student A were the only FNP II students in their class to be double-graded. (Id. at 14). When Wren asked Halberg why Knauff was there, he answered, "To help me with y'all." (Id. at 14). During the exam, which lasted one hour, Halberg and Knauff limited Wren to a single textual reference. (Id.). She claims that no other student was limited to a single reference. (Id.). As a result, Wren and Student A obtained a failing grade on the clinical practicum exam. (Id.). Wren scored a 49 from Knauff and 53 from Halberg. (Id.). After receiving the scores, Wren stated to Knauff, "This is why you are here, to fail us." (Id.). Knauff responded, "No[,] not you. You were doing so well." (Id.).

Both students retook the clinical practicum examination with a different instructor who allowed them to use more than one resource during the exam. (Id. at 15). Wren received an 83 on the second examination, but when her scores were averaged, she still failed to obtain a passinggrade of 80. (Id.). Even though the exam was only a midterm, she was precluded from completing the course. Wren claims that she was "coerced" into withdrawing from the FNP II course. (Id. at 16).

Wren raises many claims in her SAC against all Defendants for violations of ...