Mire v. LSU Health Sciences Center, No. 2:2015cv06965 - Document 44 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS- the Court GRANTS defendant's Motion 14 to Dismiss. Accordingly, Mire's claims against defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College arising under Title I of the ADA and ADAAA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any motion to dismiss Mire's Title II claims must be filed within 21 days of this order.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 9/13/16. (jjs)

Download PDF
Mire v. LSU Health Sciences Center Doc. 44 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA KRISTINA MIRE, MD CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-6965 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (the LSU Board) m oves to dism iss plaintiff Kristina Mire, MD’s claim s arising under Title I of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act on grounds of sovereign im m unity. For the following reasons, the Court grants the LSU Board’s motion. I. BACKGROU N D In her Second Am ended Com plaint, Kristina Mire, MD alleges that the LSU Health Sciences Center (LSU Health) discrim inated against her based on her disability, and that this conduct violated Titles I and II of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the ADA Am endments Act of 20 0 8 (ADAAA). According to the complaint, Mire enrolled as a Dockets.Justia.com m edical resident at LSU Health in J uly 20 0 6. 1 Shortly after enrolling, Mire sought treatm ent from a psychiatrist for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. 2 She also developed insom nia, which im paired her effectiveness as a resident. 3 By December 20 0 6, Mire’s supervisors described Mire as inefficient and prone to oversleeping and tardiness. 4 Mire was inform ed of these concerns in J anuary 20 0 7. 5 In response, Mire revealed her insom nia to her program director at LSU Health. 6 By March 20 0 7, Mire’s psychiatrist suspected that Mire had an Adjustm ent Disorder and prescribed antidepressant and antipsychotic m edication. 7 Mire, however, reacted negatively to the m edications and soon stopped taking them . 8 In J une 20 0 7, Mire received more unfavorable perform ance reviews. 9 Mire disclosed her adjustment disorder to the Chief Resident at LSU Health in J uly 20 0 7. 10 Following this disclosure, Mire was placed in a disciplinary program designed to remediate deficiencies in her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 R. Doc. 27 at 2. Id. Id. at 3. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 4-5. Id. at 5. Id. at 6. Id. 2 perform ance. 11 As part of the disciplinary program , Mire was reevaluated by her psychiatrist. 12 Following this evaluation, Mire was diagnosed with m ajor depressive disorder and was once again prescribed m edication. 13 Although Mire continued to respond negatively to her m edication, Mire’s program director at LSU Health told Mire that she was required under the disciplinary program to take all her prescribed medication. 14 In response, Mire requested and received perm ission to visit another psychiatrist. 15 The second psychiatrist confirm ed Mire’s diagnosis of m ajor depressive disorder, adjusted her medication, and recommended a leave of absence. 16 Following this diagnosis, Mire was placed on a m odified schedule until Novem ber 20 0 7, when she was placed on a m ore rigorous “in-patient call schedule.”17 From J anuary to April 20 0 8, Mire took a leave of absence from the residency program . 18 When she returned, LSU Health did not resum e her duties gradually, but instead placed Mire on “full on-call duty.”19 Following her return, Mire once again had trouble perform ing her duties, and she was 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Id. Id. at 7. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. Id. at 8. Id. 3 placed on probation. 20 Mire appealed LSU Health’s decision to place her on probation to an internal review body. 21 This appeal was denied on J une 19, 20 0 8, and Mire was suspended from the residency program in August 20 0 8. 22 LSU Health cited several reasons for the suspension, including Mire’s alleged violation of the term s of her probation and unprofessional behavior. 23 Following a com petency hearing and an adm inistrative appeal process, Mire was term inated by LSU Health. 24 The Dean of the LSU Health Sciences Center School of Medicine “accepted and confirm ed” Mire’s term ination on March 21, 20 0 9. 25 Mire filed her initial com plaint in this action, alleging violations of the Am ericans with Disabilities Act, on December 21, 20 15. 26 Ten days later, Mire am ended her com plaint to supplem ent and reword som e of her factual allegations. 27 In the initial and First Am ended com plaints, Mire nam ed “LSU Health Sciences Center, an agency of the State of Louisiana” as the only defendant. 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Id. Id. Id. at 10 . Id. Id. Id. R. Doc. 1. R. Doc. 7. Id. at 1. 4 The LSU Board filed its m otion to dism iss on grounds of sovereign im m unity on February 22, 20 16. 29 On March 15, 20 16, Mire filed a m otion for leave to file a second amended com plaint. 30 The Magistrate J udge granted Mire’s m otion on March 30 , 20 16. 31 In her Second Am ended Com plaint, Mire adds Dr. Bonnie Dressell and Dr. Ricardo Sorenson as defendants in their official capacities as LSU Health em ployees. 32 The Second Am ended Com plaint also asserts claim s under both Title I and Title II of the ADA and m akes m odest changes to Mire’s factual allegations. 33 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) requires dism issal of an action if the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject m atter of the plaintiff’s claim . Motions subm itted under Rule 12(b)(1) allow a party to challenge the court’s subject m atter jurisdiction based upon the allegations on the face of the com plaint. Barrera– Montenegro v. United States, 74 F.3d 657, 659 (5th Cir. 1996); see also Lopez v. City of Dallas, Tex., No. 0 3– 2223, 20 0 6 WL 29 Id. R. Doc. 15. 31 R. Doc. 26. 32 R. Doc. 27 at 1. 33 Id. Mire’s original and First Amended com plaints alleged violations of the ADA and ADAAA generally, but did not specify any Titles. 5 30 1450 420 , at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 24, 20 0 6). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) m otion to dism iss, the court m ay rely on (1) the com plaint alone, presum ing the allegations to be true; (2) the com plaint supplem ented by undisputed facts; or (3) the com plaint supplemented by undisputed facts and by the court’s resolution of disputed facts. Den N orske Stats Oljeselskap As v. HeereMac Vof, 241 F.3d 420 , 424 (5th Cir. 20 0 1); see also Barrera– Montenegro, 74 F.3d at 659. The plaintiff bears the burden of dem onstrating that subject m atter jurisdiction exists. See Paterson v. W einberger, 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981). When exam ining a factual challenge to subject m atter jurisdiction that does not im plicate the m erits of plaintiff’s cause of action, the district court has substantial authority “to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.” Arena v. Gray bar Elec. Co., 669 F.3d 214, 223 (5th Cir. 20 12). Accordingly, the Court may consider m atters outside the pleadings, such as testim ony and affidavits. See Superior MRI Servs., Inc. v. All. Healthcare Servs., Inc., 778 F.3d 50 2, 50 4 (5th Cir. 20 15). A court’s dism issal of a case for lack of subject m atter jurisdiction is not a decision on the merits, and the dism issal does not necessarily prevent the plaintiff from pursuing the claim in another forum . See Cox, Cox, Filo, Cam el & W ilson, L.L.C. v. Sasol N . Am ., Inc., 544 F. App’x 455, 456 (5th Cir. 20 13). 6 III. D ISCU SSION Before considering the substance of the LSU Board’s argum ent that Mire’s Title I claim is barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent, the Court m ust resolve two prelim inary issues. A. Pre lim in ary Is s u e s First, as noted, Mire filed her Second Am ended com plaint—which asserts claim s under both Title I and II of the ADA—after LSU had already filed its m otion to dism iss. LSU’s m otion addresses only Title I claim s. The Court therefore considers the LSU Board’s m otion as addressed to only the Title I claim s asserted in the Second Am ended Complaint. See 6 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1476 (20 16) (“[D]efendants should not be required to file a new m otion to dism iss sim ply because an amended pleading was introduced while their m otion was pending. . . . [T]he court sim ply may consider the m otion as being addressed to the am ended pleading.”). Second, the parties dispute whether the LSU Board or LSU Health is the proper defendant in this case. The Court finds that the LSU Board, rather than LSU Health, is the proper defendant. Louisiana Revised Statutes Section 17:3215 lists “institutions under the supervision and m anagement” of the LSU board. La. Rev. Stat. § 17:3215 (20 11). These include “Louisiana 7 State University Health Sciences Center at New Orleans, which shall include m edical and related health schools and programs located in New Orleans.” Id.; see also La. Rev. Stat. § 17:1519.5 (20 10 ) (“The [LSU B]oard as a body corporate shall have authority to exercise all power to direct, control, supervise, and manage [LSU Health].”). Because LSU Health is an institution of postsecondary education under the control of the LSU Board, the Board is the proper defendant in a suit alleging m isconduct by LSU Health. See La. Rev. Stat. § 17:3351(A)(1) (20 15) (granting the LSU Board authority to “sue and be sued” on behalf of “institutions of postsecondary education under its control”); Delahoussay e v. City of N ew Iberia, 937 F.2d 144, 148 (5th Cir. 1991) (“Although the Board has the right to sue and be sued in its own nam e . . . the University does not.”); Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., No. 11-1126, 20 12 WL 629954, at *2 (E.D. La. Feb. 27, 20 12), aff’d, 714 F.3d 322 (5th Cir. 20 13) (“[I]t is the Board that has the capacity to be sued, and LSU and LSU Health were wrongly added as defendants because they lack said capacity.”); Huggins v. Univ. of Louisiana Sy s. Bd. of Supervisors, No. 0 8-1397, 20 0 9 WL 223272, at *5 (W.D. La. J an. 6, 20 0 9) (“[T]he University is not a juridical person subject to suit.”). Mire attem pts to resist this conclusion by citing the Louisiana State University Health Care Services Division Act of 20 0 3. La. Rev. Stat. §§ 8 17:1519-17:1519.15. That law, however, clearly provides that the LSU Board shall “own and operate the hospitals” organized under LSU Health and that “[o]peration and m anagement of the LSU H[ealth] hospitals shall be the responsibility of the [LSU B]oard.” La. Rev. Stat. § 17:1519.2 (20 16). The organizational changes im posed by the 20 0 3 law do not underm ine the LSU Board’s control over LSU Health, nor do they abrogate the clear com mand of Section 17:3351(A)(1) that the Board, rather than LSU Health, retains the exclusive power to “sue and be sued.” The LSU Board therefore rem ains the proper defendant in suits, such as this one, asserting m isconduct on the part of LSU Health or its employees. Having resolved these initial questions, the Court considers whether the Eleventh Am endm ent bars Mire’s Title I claim s against the LSU Board. B. Title I “The Eleventh Am endm ent bars citizens of a state from suing their own state or another state in federal court unless the state has waived its sovereign im m unity or Congress has expressly abrogated it.” Raj v. Louisiana State Univ., 714 F.3d 322, 328 (5th Cir. 20 13) (internal citations om itted). Louisiana has explicitly asserted its sovereign im m unity by statute. La. Rev. Stat. § 13:510 6(A) (20 10 ) (“No suit against the state or a state agency or political subdivision shall be instituted in any court other 9 than a Louisiana state court.”). This im m unity extends to certain State agencies as well as the State itself, and “[i]t is well-settled in the Fifth Circuit that institutions of higher education and their boards are arm s of the state entitled to im m unity.” Hall v. Bd. of Supervisors of Cm ty . & Tech. Colleges, 15-67, 20 15 WL 2383744, at *4 (E.D. La. May 18, 20 15); see also Raj, 714 F.3d at 328 (“[T]he LSU Board is an arm of the state and is im m une from suit under the Eleventh Am endment.”). Title I of the ADA protects qualified people with disabilities from em ploym ent discrim ination. 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (20 12). Because the LSU Board is an arm of the state, and Louisiana has not waived its sovereign im m unity, Mire’s Title I claim survives only if Congress has expressly and validly abrogated state im m unity for Title I claim s. Although Congress unequivocally expressed its intent to abrogate state im munity with respect to ADA claim s, see 42 U.S.C. § 1220 2 (20 12), the Suprem e Court has held that this provision exceeded Congress’s authority as applied to Title I of the ADA. Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Alabam a v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 374 (20 0 1). Accordingly, Congress has not validly abrogated Louisiana’s im m unity from Title I claim s, and Mire’s Title I claim against the LSU Board is therefore barred by the Eleventh Amendm ent. 10 C. Title II The Court, as noted, finds that the LSU Board’s m otion to dism iss does not address Mire’s Title II claim s, and it therefore does not reach the issue of whether those claim s are, like her Title I claim s, barred by the Eleventh Am endm ent. The Board, however, rem ains free to challenge this Court’s jurisdiction over the Title II claim s. See Calderon v. Ashm us, 523 U.S. 740 , 745 n.2 (1998) (“[T]he Eleventh Am endm ent is jurisdictional in the sense that it is a lim itation on the federal court’s judicial power, and therefore can be raised at any stage of the proceedings . . . .”). The Court further notes that under United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151, 159-60 (20 0 6), it m ust begin any inquiry into whether Congress’ abrogation of state sovereign im m unity applies in this case by exam ining the merits of Mire’s Title II claim , including the Board’s statute of lim itations defense. See Hale v. King, 642 F.3d 492, 498 (5th Cir. 20 11) (applying Rule 12(b)(6) standard as the first prong in the Georgia test); see also Jones v. Alcoa, Inc., 339 F.3d 359, 366 (5th Cir. 20 0 3) (“A statute of lim itations m ay support dism issal under Rule 12(b)(6) where it is evident from the plaintiff’s pleadings that the action is barred and the pleadings fail to raise some basis for tolling or the like.”). Accordingly, any m otion to dism iss on sovereign im m unity grounds m ust address the merits of Mire’s claim s, including the statute of lim itations issue. 11 IV. CON CLU SION For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS defendant’s Motion to Dism iss. Accordingly, Mire’s claim s against defendant Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College arising under Title I of the ADA and ADAAA are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJ UDICE. Any m otion to dism iss Mire’s Title II claim s m ust be filed within 21 days of this order. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _ _ _ _ _ day of Septem ber, 20 16. 13th _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 12

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.