Evans v. Vanderbilt Univ. Sch. of Med.
| Decision Date | 04 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | 3:21-cv-00439 |
| Parties | BRENT EVANS, Plaintiff, v. VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE and VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Tennessee |
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc No. 31, “Motion”), supported by a Memorandum of Law (Doc. No. 32, “Memorandum of Law”). Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion, (Doc. No. 37 “Response”), and Defendants replied (Doc. No. 38 “Reply”). For the following reasons, the Motion will be GRANTED.
BACKGROUND[1]
In 2001, Plaintiff received a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder. (Doc. No. 22 at ¶ 8). Plaintiff began attending Vanderbilt University Medical School in 2009. (Id. at ¶¶ 10, 12). While in medical school, Plaintiff received treatment at Vanderbilt's Psychological and Counseling Center for his depression. (Id. at ¶ 12). He repeatedly met with Dr. Scott Rodgers, Dean of Students at VUSM, to discuss the treatment he was receiving for his depression. (Id. at ¶ 17).
In November 2012, Plaintiff suffered a severe relapse of his Major Depressive Disorder. (Id. at ¶ 19). From 2009 until 2012, Plaintiff's academic performance was excellent. (Id. at ¶ 16). After his relapse in November 2012, however, Plaintiff's academic performance began to suffer. (Id. at ¶ 20). His depression caused him to miss multiple shifts and activities necessary for credit towards his medical degree. (Id.). Despite being aware of Plaintiff's depression, VUSM was extremely critical of his performance during an Emergency Medicine clinical. (Id. at ¶ 21). Plaintiff tried to remediate the Emergency Medicine clinical between December 2012 and January 2013, but remediation, which included added coursework required of him to “make up” for his absences, was difficult to complete due to his depression. (Id. at ¶ 22).
Plaintiff's anxiety and depression thereafter increased. (Id. at ¶ 25). He sought the counsel of Dr. Rodgers through in-person meetings between November 23, 2012, and December 16, 2012. (Id.). Plaintiff inquired as to how he should approach remediating the Emergency Medicine clinical and how to best manage his severe depression and increased coursework. (Id.). Dr. Rodgers informed Plaintiff that he would need to “fix the problem” himself or he would not graduate from VUSM. (Id.). Dr. Rodgers failed to inform him that students had the option to withdraw from a course at any point prior to receiving a final grade. (Id. at ¶ 26). Plaintiff received a failing grade in the Emergency Medicine clinical. (Id.).
On December 17, 2012, VUSM's Promotions Committee placed Plaintiff on academic probation due to his failing grade in the Emergency Medicine clinical. (Id. at ¶ 30). The Promotions Committee informed Plaintiff that his probation would last until he had successfully completed the requirements for the Emergency Medicine clinical. (Id. at ¶ 31). Plaintiff continued to attempt to remediate the course by making up shifts throughout January 2013, but was unable to successfully do so because of symptoms related to his depression. (Id. at ¶¶ 22, 34). VUSM did not offer Plaintiff any accommodations or special consideration despite knowledge of his severe depression. (Id. at ¶ 34). On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff received a passing grade of 72% for the Emergency Medicine clinical. (Id. at ¶ 42).
On February 11, 2013, Dr. Kim Lomis[2] sent an email to Plaintiff stating that she was aware that Plaintiff did not attend his Primary Care clerkship. (Id. at ¶ 44). The next day, Plaintiff met with Dr. Lomis and reported to her that he had been seen at Vanderbilt's Psychological and Counseling Center for depression, and that his doctor (Dr. Nunn) would send a letter to Vanderbilt's Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, and Disability Services Office (“EAD”) regarding recommended accommodations later that day. (Id. at ¶ 45). On February 14, 2013, Dr. Nunn submitted medical documentation of Plaintiff's depression to the EAD. (Id. at ¶ 46). On February 15, 2013, the EAD informed Plaintiff that the accommodations requested by Dr. Nunn would be made available to him. (Id. at ¶¶ 46, 49). On March 25, 2013, the Promotions Committee granted Plaintiff a medical leave of absence until March 2014 to treat his depression. (Id. at ¶ 57). Plaintiff then commenced a medical leave of absence for the 2013-2014 academic year. (Id. at ¶ 59).
In September 2014, Plaintiff returned to VUSM and enrolled in a Child and Adolescent Psychiatric clerkship but did not perform well in the clerkship. (Id. at ¶ 62). In October 2014, Plaintiff decided to return to his medical leave of absence out of an abundance of caution to his education and his patients. (Id. at ¶ 64). Plaintiff spoke with Dr. Bonnie Miller, Senior Associate Dean for VUSM, extensively about his need to return to his medical leave of absence. (Id. at ¶¶ 64-65). Plaintiff did not realize that those conversations did not amount to a formal request for a medical leave of absence. (Id.). On February 12, 2015, the Promotions Committee voted unanimously to dismiss Plaintiff from VUSM. (Id. at ¶ 70). On April 22, 2015, Plaintiff appeared before the Executive Board to appeal his dismissal from VUSM. (Id. at ¶ 72). That same day the Executive Board overturned Plaintiff's dismissal and recommended that Plaintiff be placed on a medical leave of absence. (Id. at ¶ 73).
In July of 2016, Plaintiff returned to full time coursework and successfully completed five courses. (Id. at ¶¶ 75, 76). In February 2017, Plaintiff enrolled in a Community Health course, and immediately began having attendance issues. (Id. at ¶¶ 78-81). On February 28, 2017, the Promotions Committee dismissed Plaintiff from VUSM, and Plaintiff immediately appealed his dismissal. (Id. at ¶ 83). On April 3, 2017, the Executive Board upheld Plaintiff's dismissal. (Id. at ¶ 84). On July 28, 2017, Plaintiff submitted a written grievance to the Office of the Chancellor, requesting reconsideration of his dismissal on the grounds that VUSM violated Plaintiff's rights as a student with a medical disability. (Id. at ¶ 90). The Office of the Chancellor forwarded Plaintiff's grievance to the EAD for investigation on August 9, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 91). From September 2017 to March 2018, the EAD investigated Plaintiff's claim of disability discrimination. (Id. at ¶ 96). The six months it took to complete the investigation significantly delayed Plaintiff's grievance process. (Id.).
As per the 2017-2018 Vanderbilt University Student Handbook: Complaint and Grievance Procedures - Complaint Procedure, the “EAD will conduct an investigation of allegations concerning prohibited discrimination (usually within ninety [90] business days) [and] will issue a finding to the appropriate University official, and will seek to resolve the matter.” The Handbook continues to say, “If the EAD is unable to complete the investigation within this time period, then the EAD will contact the complainant and provide an estimate time frame for completing the investigation.” (Id. at ¶ 97). The EAD's investigation took significantly longer than 90 business days. (Id.).
On March 9, 2018, the EAD reported to the Chancellor's Office that its investigation found no evidence of discrimination. (Id. at ¶ 99). On June 19, 2018, the Chancellor's Office referred Plaintiff's grievance to the Faculty Senate Committee. (Id. at ¶ 102). The 2017-2018 Vanderbilt University Student Handbook: Complaint and Grievance Procedures - Grievance Procedure, provides that “Upon ascertaining that the complaint procedure has been exhausted, the Chancellor's office shall refer the [student's] grievance to the Faculty Senate Committee on Student Affairs, usually within thirty (30) days during the academic year.” (Id. at ¶ 101). Plaintiff's grievance had been filed with the Chancellor's Office three (3) months before the Chancellor's Office referred his grievance to the Faculty Senate Committee on Student Affairs. (Id.).
On October 3, 2018, the Faculty Senate Committee held a three-to-four-hour hearing on Plaintiff's grievance. (Id. at ¶ 105). On June 5, 2020, the Faculty Senate Committee reported that Plaintiff's dismissal would be upheld and that the grievance process had concluded. (Id. at ¶ 112). The Faculty Senate Committee took nearly two years to report its decision. (Id. at ¶ 110). The 2017-2018 Vanderbilt University Student Handbook: Complaint and Grievance Procedures - Grievance Procedure, requires the Committee to complete its report in three weeks from the conclusion of the hearing, [3] as it provides:
On June 4, 2021, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in this Court against Defendants Vanderbilt University and Vanderbilt University Medical School. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff asserts seven counts against Defendants: “Violations of the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act of 2008” (failure to accommodate and disability discrimination) (Count I) “Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” (“Count II”); “Breach of...
To continue reading
Request your trial