Wren v. Midwestern State Univeristy
| Decision Date | 23 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:18-cv-00060-O-BP |
| Parties | REGINA WREN, Plaintiff, v. MIDWESTERN STATE UNIVERISTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Before the Court are Defendants Midwestern State University, Keith Williamson, Debra Walker, Julia Knauff, and Kristina Halberg's Motion to Dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 16), Brief in Support (ECF No. 17), and Appendix in Support (ECF No. 18) filed July 30, 2018 and Plaintiff Regina Wren's Brief in Opposition of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss filed August 21, 2018. 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 law, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that United States District Judge Reed O'Connor GRANT Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16), DISMISS Plaintiff's claims without prejudice, and allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file an amended complaint within the fourteen days allotted for objections to this recommendation. If, however, Plaintiff files an amended complaint within the prescribed time period, the Motion should be DENIED as moot, and the action should be allowed to proceed on the amended complaint.
Plaintiff Regina Wren ("Wren"), a nursing student who had been enrolled in MSU's Family Nurse Practitioner program ("FNP"), sued Defendant Midwestern State University ("MSU") and Keith Williamson ("Williamson"), Medical Director; Debra Walker ("Walker"), Graduate Coordinator; Julia Knauff ("Knauff"), Associate Professor; and Kristina Halberg ("Halberg"), Instructor (the "individual MSU Defendants" and collectively the "Defendants") for alleged discrimination and retaliation against Wren based on her disability status and race. Wren's First Amended Complaint ("FAC") focuses on MSU's immunization and double grading policies that Wren contends were used against here and caused her to fail a required clinical practicum that eventually led to her withdrawal from the FNP.
In the Fall of 2011, Wren enrolled in the three-year FNP offered by MSU at the Wilson School of Nursing. (ECF No. 7 at 3). Before being admitted to the FNP, Wren was required to submit a compliance packet that showed proof of immunization or a qualified exemption from immunization. Wren alleges that she has severe allergies that preclude her from obtaining certain vaccinations. (Id. at 18). 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 3).
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. Wren did not receive a passing grade in the clinical practicum, 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.). 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 until the Springof 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 4). 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 the Vincent Health Center ("VHC"), a campus student clinic. (Id.). VHC also required FNP students to show proof of immunization before being allowed to log clinical hours. VHC had concerns about Wren's immunization exemption. After reviewing the documents Wren submitted from her primary care physician, VHC denied her access to the clinic because the paperwork submitted did not comply with the state of Texas' statutory requirements. (Id. at 5). VHC allegedly asked Wren for medical records substantiating her severe allergic reaction to vaccinations. (Id. at 17). Wren neither submitted the appropriate medical records nor obtained the required vaccinations. (Id. at 5). She dropped the FNP I course in October 2014. (Id.). 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 6).
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, were switched to Halberg's clinical group for the FNP II course. (Id. at 7). Halberg's clinical group consisted of only three students, all of whom were female. The third student in Wren's group was Caucasian. (Id.).
Wren alleges that Halberg was immediately hostile to her and the other African-American student. (Id.). Despite Wren's allegations that she had received a grade of 100 from Walker on herfirst 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 when compared to Caucasian students. (Id. at 7-9). She alleges that the complaints were not finalized due to fear of retribution. (Id. at 7).
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 9). 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. (Id.). Wren also received a communication from the Wilson School of Nursing requesting compliance documents for vaccinations and a drug screen. (Id. at 8).
On the day of the clinical practicum examination, Wren and the other African-American student arrived at Halberg's clinic well before noon, but were forced to wait for over an hour in the lobby while the Caucasian student in their group was already seeing patients. (Id. at 9). Presumably, Halberg was waiting for Knauff so that Wren and the other African-American student could be "double graded." (Id.). Wren alleges that they were the only FNP II students to be double graded. (Id. at 10). Wren alleges that Halberg and Knauff were hostile and harshly critical of her and limited her to a single textual reference during the exam, which only lasted one hour. (Id. at 10-11). She claims that no other student was limited to a single reference. (Id. at 11). As a result, Wren and the other African-American student obtained a failing grade on the clinical practicum exam. (Id.). Wren's scores were 49 from Knauff and 53 from Halberg. (Id.).
Both students were instructed to retake the clinical practicum examination administered by a different instructor who allowed them to use more than one resource during the exam. (Id. at 12).Wren received an 83 on the second examination, but when her scores were averaged, she still failed to obtain a passing grade of 80. (Id.). Thus, even though the exam was only a midterm, she was not able to complete the course. Wren claims that she was coerced into withdrawing from FNP II. (Id. at 13).
Wren presents ten counts in her FAC (ECF. No. 7): (1) against all Defendants, violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("RA"), substantive due process and equal protection violations under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, free speech violations under the First Amendment, and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and violations of Title 25 of the Texas Administrative Code Section 97.62 ("Section 97.62"); (2) against MSU, Walker, Knauff, and Halberg, violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985; and state law claims for breach of implied contract, libel, and defamation; (3) against MSU, Knauff, and Halberg, the state law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (4) against MSU, the state law claim of fraud. Wren seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys' fees (although Wren is proceeding pro se) for Defendants' conduct that led to Wren's dismissal from the FNP.
After Wren filed her FAC, adding Defendant Williamson, Defendants filed the pending Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Wren responded to the Motion, but Defendants did not file a reply. The Motion is now ripe for disposition.
Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to move for dismissalof a complaint based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Because "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction[, t]hey possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). If a Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). In determining whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, a court...
To continue reading
Request your trial