Doe v. The University of Texas Health Science Center At San Antonio et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00453

Appendix

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION MARY UTHSCSA-PM DOE § Plaintiff § § vs. § § C.A. No. 5:19-cv-00453 DAE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER § AT SAN ANTONIO and § MARCEL NOUJEIM § Defendants ________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS APPENDIX Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page33 2 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 001 MARY DOE APPENDIX001 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page34 3 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 002 MARY DOE APPENDIX002 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page35 4 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 003 MARY DOE APPENDIX003 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page36 5 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 004 MARY DOE APPENDIX004 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page37 6 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 005 MARY DOE APPENDIX005 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page38 7 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 006 MARY DOE APPENDIX006 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page39 8 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 007 MARY DOE APPENDIX007 Case Case5:19-cv-00453-DAE 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document Document11-1 15-1 Filed Filed08/27/19 09/23/19 Page Page40 9 of of60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 008 MARY DOE APPENDIX008 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 10 41 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 009 MARY DOE APPENDIX009 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 11 42 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 010 MARY DOE APPENDIX010 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 12 43 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 011 MARY DOE APPENDIX011 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 13 44 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 012 MARY DOE APPENDIX012 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 14 45 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 013 MARY DOE APPENDIX013 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 15 46 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 014 MARY DOE APPENDIX014 Case 5:19-cv-00453-DAE Document 15-1 11-1 Filed 09/23/19 08/27/19 Page 16 47 of 60 68 MARY DOE APPENDIX 015 MARY DOE APPENDIX015 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 016 HENSLEE* & GORMAN, pllc DATE: September 11, 2018 To: Jack C. Park, JD, Assistant Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio Fax Transmission # (210) 567-3869 From: Terry P. Gorman, Esq. Re: CAUSE NO. MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE § Plaintiff § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF vs. § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER § AT SAN ANTONIO § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant __________________________________________________ Attached please find a courtesy copy of the referenced lawsuit which was electronically filed this afternoon. If you would like to accept service of this matter, please let me know. Also, upon the entry of as protective order, the identity of Mary Doe can be disclosed. Number of Pages (including cover page): 16 • Retired. NO HARD COPY MAILED IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL (972) 235-4700 THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW: IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE, AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA THE U.S. POSTAL SERVICE. THANK YOU. 901 Mopac Expressway South, Suite 300  Austin, Texas 78746 Tel 512-320-9177 tgorman@school-law.co  www.school-law.co  Fax 512-597-1455 MARY DOE APPENDIX016 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 017 Electronically filed on September 11, 2018, awaiting assignment of case and court information. CAUSE NO. MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE § Plaintiff § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § vs. § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS § THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER § AT SAN ANTONIO § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant § _____________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff "MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE" to file her "Plaintiff's Original Petition" as follows: PREAMBLE Plaintiff has been the victim of ongoing discrimination in her workplace and school based on Plaintiff's ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disabilities. After endless attempts to stop such discrimination, Plaintiff now files this action for relief pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973); 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972); 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and the denial of equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A. DESIGNATION OF DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Discovery for the following claims should be conducted under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190. 1 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX017 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 018 B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, VENUE, & RELIEF SOUGHT 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the following matter because this is a civil action, and this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant with regard to Plaintiff's request for damages. 3. Venue is appropriate in Bexar County, Texas because it is the domicile of Defendant and the County where the underlying issues continue to occur. 4. In accordance with Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby announces that Plaintiff seeks damages of over $ 1,000,000.00. C. PARTIES AND SERVICE 5. Plaintiff "MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE" ("MaryD") is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Because of the privacy issues involved in this matter, MaryD is hereby exercising her rights to proceed with this matter anonymously. 6. The need to protect the identity of Plaintiff MaryD does not hinder the defense of this matter by Defendant, for the facts are well known to the Defendant. When applying the applicable tests (created by Texas jurisprudence) to balance the needed protection of privacy versus any inconvenience to the Defendant, the protection of MaryD's privacy prevails. 2 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX018 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 019 7. At such time as the Court might agree on procedures designed to protect the privacy of Plaintiff MaryD, MaryD's identity shall be disclosed. 8. Defendant THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO ("UTHSCSA") is a public university operating in the State of Texas and may be served with citation by serving the President as follows: The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio c/o William L. Henrich M.D., President 7703 Floyd Curl Drive San Antonio, Texas 78229-3900 D. GENERAL BACKGROUND 9. Plaintiff MaryD is a highly educated and well respected medical professional attending graduate school, as an international student, in the State of Texas at Defendant UTHSCSA. 10. For reasons that can only be attributed to her ethnicity, national origin, gender, and disabilities, Plaintiff MaryD has suffered under a "Reign of Terror" (defined hereafter) organized, authorized, and implemented by various agents and administrators employed by Defendant UTHSCSA. Further, the Board of Regents for Defendant UTHSCSA has condoned such Reign of Terror. 11. Examples of the harassment, retaliation, and discrimination suffered by Plaintiff MaryD include but are in no manner limited to the following: 3 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX019 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 020 (a) physical assault against Plaintiff MaryD, including but not limited to an administrator of Defendant grabbing MaryD and forcibly placing her in a chair; (b) unlawful restraint by locking Plaintiff MaryD inside an office with her aggressor and refusing to allow her to leave; (b) the stalking of Plaintiff MaryD, including but not limited to endless inappropriate emails, text messages and telephone calls; (c) racial insults directed to Plaintiff MaryD, including but not being limited to negative comments about Plaintiff's race and national origin; (d) the sexual harassment of Plaintiff MaryD, including but not limited to unprofessional text messages requesting personal photographs, inappropriate text messages and emails containing music with graphic lyrics of a sexual nature, unprofessional and inappropriate telephone calls wherein an official and agent of Defendant UTHSCSA expressed his "love" for MaryD, unwanted and inappropriate physical touching, inappropriate and unprofessional comments about MaryD's physical appearance, and being told by an official and agent of Defendant UTHSCSA that such male administrator "protects" another female student because he is "sleeping with her;" (e) improper sexual innuendo towards Plaintiff MaryD, including but limited to the aforementioned text messages and emails; (f) verbal abuse of Plaintiff MaryD, including but not limited to telling MaryD "you are nothing," constantly insisting that MaryD resign from the graduate program, and telling 4 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX020 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 021 MaryD that her residency would be made a "living hell" is Mary D elects to continue (g) the refusal to investigate complaints and prosecute as to criminal matters as alleged by Plaintiff MaryD; (h) the utilization of trumped-up, kangaroo-court investigations as a form of intimidation of Plaintiff MaryD; (i) making ridiculous and unnecessary demands on Plaintiff MaryD's educational requirements, including but not limited to requiring a doctor's note for one (1) and two (2) days absence (contrary to Defendant UTHSCSA's written policy requirements), requiring MaryD to work excessive overtime (i.e., in excess of 12 hours), and requiring MaryD to attend meetings and work after suffering physical injuries; (l) Plaintiff MaryD being denied the right and opportunity to perform her educational activities as MaryD deemed fit and appropriate; (m) continued threats of termination of Plaintiff MaryD from the graduate program; (n) manipulation of work scheduling to harass Plaintiff MaryD; and (o) other intimidating communication tactics directed towards Plaintiff MaryD. For the purposes hereof, the foregoing shall be collectively referred to as "UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror." 5 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX021 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 022 12. UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror directed towards Plaintiff MaryD is an intentional violation of Title IX, Section 504 and Section 1983. 13. As a direct result of UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror, Plaintiff MaryD's mental health has deteriorated and is likely to continue to deteriorate. 14. Plaintiff MaryD has also suffered severe physical, emotional, and economic harm as a result of UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror and shall suffer future physical, emotional, and economic harm. 15. Defendant UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror was committed intentionally and in bad faith. 16. As a result of Defendant UTHSCSA's Reign of Terror directed at Plaintiff MaryD, Plaintiff was forced to engage an attorney and pursue this action to redress such wrongs. 17. Plaintiff MaryD is not aware of any required administrative remedies that must be pursued prior to the filing of this matter. Even if such remedies do exist, the actions of Defendant make it clear that any such efforts would be moot. 18. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff MaryD bringing these claims have been met. 6 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX022 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 023 E. PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION 19. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts set forth in Article D: GENERAL BACKGROUND hereof. COUNT ONE: TITLE IX 20. The sex-based harassment articulated in the Plaintiff MaryD's' Factual Allegations are so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that Plaintiff MaryD has been deprived access to educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school. 21. Defendant UTHSCSA created and/or subjected Plaintiff MaryD to a hostile educational environment in violation of Title IX, because: (a) Plaintiff MaryD is a member of a protected class; (b) Plaintiff MaryD was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of unwanted sexual advances, quid pro quo, and a hostile educational environment by an agent of Defendant UTHSCSA; (c) she was subjected to harassment based on her sex; and (d) she was subjected to a hostile educational environment created by the Defendant UTHSCSA's failure to properly investigate and/or address the physical assault, admitted unlawful restraint, and harassment. 22. Defendant UTHSCSA and its officials had actual knowledge of the physical assault, admitted unlawful restraint (in violation of Section 20.02 of the Texas Penal Code), and the resulting harassment of Plaintiff MaryD as shown by Defendant's 7 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX023 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 024 failure to investigate and discipline or prosecute Plaintiff MaryD's attacker in a timely manner and consistent with its own policy and federal and state law. 23. Defendant UTHSCSA's failure to promptly and appropriately respond to the alleged sexual harassment, resulted in Plaintiff MaryD, on the basis of her sex, being excluded from participation in, being denied the benefits of, and being subjected to discrimination in Defendant's UTHSCSA's education program in violation of Title IX. 24. Defendant UTHSCSA failed to take immediate, effective remedial steps to resolve the complaints of sexual harassment and instead acted with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff MaryD. 25. Defendant UTHSCSA persisted in its actions and inaction even after Defendant UTHSCSA had actual knowledge of the harm being suffered by Plaintiff MaryD. 26. Defendant UTHSCSA engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to discourage and dissuade students who had been sexually harassed or assaulted from seeking prosecution and protection and from seeking to have sexual harassment fully investigated. 27. Defendant UTHSCSA's policy and/or practice constituted disparate treatment of females (including Plaintiff MaryD) and had a disparate impact on female students (including Plaintiff MaryD). 8 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX024 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 025 28. Plaintiff MaryD has suffered emotional distress and psychological damage, and her character and standing in her community (and the international community) and further suffered from the harassment fostered as a direct and proximate result of Defendant UTHSCSA's deliberate indifference to MaryD's rights under Title IX. 29. Defendant UTHSCSA has engaged in intentional discrimination based on Plaintiff MaryD's gender as evidenced by the terms and conditions of Plaintiff MaryD's educational work requirements, including, but not limited to, MaryD's continued efforts to constructively remove MaryD from the graduate program. 30. Defendant UTHSCSA's conduct towards Plaintiff MaryD violates Title IX. 31. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Title IX, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer a loss of educational opportunities, benefits, prestige, and economic hardship. 32. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Title IX, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer mental and emotional distress, entitling her to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 33. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD was pursued with malice and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff MaryD's federally 9 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX025 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 026 protected rights, thereby entitling MaryD to punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. COUNT TWO: SECTION 504 34. Defendant UTHSCSA, which is a recipient of federal funding, intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff MaryD, who is a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, as evidenced by the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff MaryD's educational requirements, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff MaryD's continued efforts to constructively remove MaryD from the graduate program because of her recognized disabilities. 35. Defendant UTHSCSA's conduct towards Plaintiff MaryD violates Section 504. 36. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Section 504, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer economic hardship, benefits, and prestige. 37. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Section 504, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer mental and emotional distress, entitling her to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 10 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX026 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 027 38. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD was pursued with malice and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff MaryD's federally protected rights, thereby entitling MaryD to punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. COUNT THREE: Section 1983 39. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff MaryD has the right, as a student attending a publicly funded graduate school, to personal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws. 40. Defendant UTHSCSA's officials and agents were all state actors acting under the color of state law. 41. Defendant UTHSCSA and its agents subjected Plaintiff MaryD to violations of her right to personal security and bodily integrity and Equal Protection of Laws by: failing to investigate misconduct; failing to appropriately discipline those responsible; failing to adequately train and supervise; and manifesting deliberate indifference to the assault, admitted unlawful restraint, and ongoing harassment of Plaintiff MaryD. 42. Defendant UTHSCSA has and/or had unconstitutional customs or policies of a) failing to investigate evidence of criminal and tortious misconduct against students in the nature of violations of their right to personal security and bodily 11 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX027 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 028 integrity and b) failing to adequately train and supervise UTHSCSA employees with regard to maintaining, preserving and protecting students from violations of their right to personal security, bodily integrity, and Equal Protection of the Laws. 43. On information and belief, Defendant UTHSCSA has followed these unconstitutional customs and policies not only with regard to Plaintiff MaryD but also with regard to criminal and tortious misconduct committed against other UTHSCSA students. 44. Defendant UTHSCSA's policies and/or practices constituted disparate treatment of females and had a disparate impact on female students, such as Plaintiff MaryD. 45. Defendant UTHSCSA's conduct towards Plaintiff MaryD violates Section 1983. 46. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Section 1983, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer economic hardship, benefits, and prestige. 47. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD, in violation of Section 1983, has caused Plaintiff MaryD to suffer mental and emotional distress, entitling her to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX028 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 029 48. Defendant UTHSCSA's discriminatory conduct toward Plaintiff MaryD was pursued with malice and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff MaryD's federally protected rights, thereby entitling MaryD to punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. COUNT FOUR: PRE and POST JUDGMENT INTEREST 49. Plaintiff MaryD also requests pre and post judgment interest as may be allowed by applicable law. COUNT FIVE: EXEMPLARY AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES 50. As described, the actions of Defendant UTHSCSA entitle Plaintiff MaryD exemplary and punitive damages of which MaryD seeks $5,000,000. COUNT SIX: ATTORNEYS' FEES 51. Plaintiff MaryD should be awarded her reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred in relation to the foregoing as allowed by applicable law. F. REQUEST FOR JURY 52. Plaintiff MaryD hereby requests that a jury be empaneled, and, that the foregoing causes of actions and requests for relief be presented to such jury for resolution. 13 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX029 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 030 G. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 53. Plaintiff Jane D hereby requests that Defendant provide the applicable answers to the Request for Disclosure provided in Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. H. SELF-AUTHENTICATION 54. Plaintiff Mary D hereby invokes Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Self-Authentication. Therefore, this is deemed notice to Defendant that Plaintiff MaryD may use, in pre-trial or trial hereof, any pleading or document produced by Defendant. I. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE prays that citation be issued; that Defendant be cited to appear; that upon final trial hereof; that judgment be entered in favor of Plaintiff MaryD for the actual, consequential, and exemplary damages set forth herein including pre and post judgment interest; that Plaintiff MaryD be reimbursed her reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees required to bring this matter; that all costs of Court be taxed against Defendant; that all costs of Court be taxed against Defendant; and that Plaintiff MaryD have such further and other relief, general and special, both at law or in equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled. 14 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX030 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 031 Respectfully submitted, HENSLEE* & GORMAN, pllc By: Terry P Gorman, Esq. Texas Bar No. 08218200 tgorman@school-law.co Chigozie F. Odediran, Esq. Texas Bar No. 24098196 901 Mopac Expressway South, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 320-9177 Telecopier: (512) 597-1455 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF MARY UTHSCSA-MP DOE *Retired 15 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.09.11 MARY DOE APPENDIX031 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 032 Thu 10/4/2018 6:18 PM To: Seitz, Stefanie D; Cc: Veve, Mia; Blankmeyer, Bonnie L; You forwarded this message on 10/9/2018 10:21 AM. Dear Dr. Seitz One of the documents provided to the committee by Dr. Deahl was a letter written to Dr. Dodge from OMFR faculty which contained a discriminatory accusation. I met Dr. Blankmeyer on 10.01.2018 regarding this subject and I asked for a meeting With Dr. Deahl in her presence. The objective of the meeting was to be sure that all the faculty are aware of this letter and do agree with the content of it. Dr. Blankmeyer on 10.02.2018 informed me in an email that Dr. Deahl refused to participate in this meeting to discuss the issue. The faculty declined any conversation and refused to provide explanations for this accusation. The letter states that: I said that there is no humanity in the program and the same statement was said by the shooter of youtube who killed 4 people and then killed herself. The letter states that I am erratic, dangerous, and unpredictable. I am concerned that I am being discriminated against because the youtube shooter was identified as an Iranian woman. I am concerned how this accusation impacts me and how faculty views me and other Iranian students of UT Health. I would like to ask you to consider my grievance from all OMFR faculty for discrimination based on my ethnicity. Thank you Regards! Dr. MARY DOE APPENDIX032 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 033 To: Dr. Oral Maxillofacial Radiology Resident From: Dr. Stefanie Seitz Assistant Dean for Students Date: 11/5/2018 Subject: Investigation of Discrimination Complaint Brought by Dr. against the Oral Maxillofacial Radiology Program Summary of the Complaint On October 4th, Dr. (Complainant) filed a formal grievance through email against the Oral Maxillofacial Radiology Program (OMR) with the concern that the Faculty within the program were engaging in discrimination because of her nationality and gender. Dr. alleges that the OMR faculty are discriminating against her based on a letter submitted to Dean Dodge months earlier that stated in part that Dr. Poorsatter had said "on several occasions "there is no humanity in this program" (email dated 4-3-18; and said verbally to faculty and in meetings). This same statement was repeated by the YouTube shooter who recently shot 4 people, injuring them, and shot and killed herself." Dr. was "concerned that I am being discriminated against because the YouTube shooter was an Iranian woman." The letter also stated that the faculty believed Dr. Poorsattar's "behavior is erratic, dangerous, unpredictable, unprofessional and has no place in a UT System learning environment." The formal grievance did not include how she was affected due to the alleged discrimination. Investigative Process Dr. Stefanie Seitz conducted this investigation, pursuant to the Student Mistreatment Policy (Attachment 1). Pursuant to this policy, examples of behavior that are unacceptable at the Health Science Center include: "Discrimination or harassment based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, or disability." Violations are based on the standard of proof of the reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard is defined as a standard of behavior that is appropriate and expected for a 'reasonable' person under particular circumstances to determine, if in this case, a violation has occurred. Individuals interviewed MARY DOE APPENDIX033 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 034 As part of the inquiry into the above-reference complaint, the following individuals were included: • Dr. Marcel Noujeim • Dr. Hassem Geha • Dr. William Moore • Dr. Rujuta Katkar • Dr. Thomas Deahl Documents As part of the inquiry into the above-referenced complaint, the documents reviewed consisted of a letter provided to Dr. Dodge and the probation memo provided to Dr. from the School of Dentistry AEC Committee. Executive Summary The documentary and testimonial information obtained during this investigation supports the conclusion that all of the OMR faculty met with Dr. Dodge to present this letter and that the specific comment was made in reference to the same verbiage that both Dr. and the YouTube shooter used, along with a concern regarding behavior. There is no evidence supporting a connection between her and the shooter based on nationality and/or gender. Findings of Fact 1. The letter presented to Dr. Dodge was from all five faculty members. 2. The connection within the letter between Dr. and the YouTube shooter was related to verbiage. 3. The letter does not mention nationality and/or gender. 4. The AEC Committee's decision for probation specifically states "The Subcommittee agreed that the behaviors reviewed during the hearing including accusations towards the program being corrupt, accusing faculty of grade retaliation, threatening communications to faculty, advising faculty on protocol or instructional material to include or not include in your training and behaving rudely during a case presentation to faculty and fellow co-residents were unprofessional and are not in alignment with the University's Rules and Regulations." Discussion: Violation of University Policies and /or Procedures MARY DOE APPENDIX034 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 035 Based on the evidence, there is insufficient evidence that the Oral Maxillofacial Radiology faculty engaged in discriminatory behavior based on the reasonable person standard. The policy reviewed regarding this grievance was the Student Mistreatment Policy found in the UT Health Student Catalog, General Information, under Institutional Policies: http://catalog.uthscsa.edu/generalinformation/institutionalpolicies/studentmistreatmentpolicy and the Grievance Policy available under General Academic Policies: http://catalog.uthscsa.edu/generalinformation/generalacademicpolicies/grievances/ . Conclusion There is no substantiated evidence supporting a finding of discrimination based on nationality and/or gender. The Complainant offered her subjective belief, and without more, there is no evidence of a violation of the Student Mistreatment Policy. Finally, the evidence shows that no harm was caused in direct relation with the letter submitted to Dr. Dodge. MARY DOE APPENDIX035 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 036 -- Original message -------- From: "Deahl, S Thomas II" <DEAHL@uthscsa.edu> Date: 11/20/18 3:25 PM (GMT-06:00) To: " < uthscsa.edu> Cc: "Yepes, Luis C" <Yepes@uthscsa.edu>, "Blake, Nicquet" <BlakeN@uthscsa.edu>, "Seitz, Stefanie D" <seitz@uthscsa.edu> Subject: MSDS COGS meeting Dr. The MS in Dental Science Committee on Graduate Studies (COGS) had its regular monthly meeting today. The Committee had received in advance your request to waive, in your case, the "in good academic standing" policy for admission to the MSDS Program. The Committee considered your request and my support of that request, and discussed the issue at some length. The Committee decided to not grant a waiver of the policy. This would prohibit your admission to the Graduate School. I am copying GSBS Associate Dean Dr. Blake, School of Dentistry Assistant Dean Dr. Seitz, and the chair of today's COGS meeting, Dr. Luis Yepes. Dr. Deahl S. Thomas Deahl DMD PhD Dip. ABOMR Clinical Associate Professor, Comprehensive Dentistry Director for Advanced Education, School of Dentistry The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, Mail Code 7919 San Antonio, TX 78229 Office (210) 567-5110 MARY DOE APPENDIX036 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 037 MARY DOE APPENDIX037 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 038 From: Sent: Monday, January 28, 2019 10:27 AM To: Mok, Jacqueline L Cc: Veve, Mia Subject: letter to president and vice president Dr. Mok, I have some concerns that I would like to inform you and President Henrich. 1- Per your request, Dr. Esterl was put in charge of the appeal of my grievance for discrimination. Unfortunately, Dr. Esterl did not ask to meet with me. His work only focused on the letter sent by OMR faculty to Dr. Dodge on April 2018. This letter has been proven to contain several incorrect accusations. I am wondering how an appeal could made based on a false document with no verification for the accuracy of the documents he referred to. 2- Below, I attached an article about University of Texas at San Antonio re-suspending a professor who called the police on a student. It was published on 01.24.2019. https://m.mysanantonio.com/news/education/article/University-of-Texas-at-San-Antonio-re- suspends-13555757.php As you were informed, I had the same situation that occurred in the article above when Dr. Geha and Dr. Noujeim called the police to dismiss me from the clinic in presence of several witnesses on February 2018. Despite several requests to Dr. Segura for an explanation, none has been provided. I would like to ask you why for similar acts was one faculty suspended and the other is still teaching? Does the dental school follow any policy to protect their student's rights? 3- Attached is another article that discussed the suspension of a faculty that told a student to: "go and kill yourself." This same statement was told to Dr. Kordab in the presence of 2 witnesses here at UT Health. The article is titled: 'Go and kill yourself,' a Louisiana teacher told an 11- year-old student, authorities say. Based on these examples, I am confused as to why Dr. Noujeim was not suspended. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, MARY DOE APPENDIX038 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 039 Dr. MARY DOE APPENDIX039 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 040 Date: 02.26.2019 1540 west bitters Road 78248 san Antonio, Texas Phone: 352-226-4651 uthscsa.edu In the date of 02.26.2019, I request to file a formal Title IX complaint against Dr. Marcel Noujeim for sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, physical touching and kissing without consent, verbal and physical aggression, retaliation, intimidation, sex discrimination, hostile environment, threatening and stalking. The listed allegations seriously affected my academic goals, my future career, and caused debilitating physical and mental health issues resulting in ADA accommodations. All the following incidents were discussed in detail during the 4 hours title 9 departmental investigation, dated on January 2019. All detailed information of each incident with exact dates and supported documents were provided. For protection of the witnesses their names appears with a code number and the list of the names will be provided to Dr. Kaulfus. Following are a few examples of what occurred: An incident explained later in this allegation occurred on October 04, 2017 and the nature of the harassment changed after that. Timeline before 10.04.2017 One: Unnecessary number of text messages, phone calls, and emails outside of school hours and at inappropriate hours. From midnight until 4am. Ex: 42 text messages on Saturday 09.16.2017 EX: 4h55am: Text message on 08.25.2017, Ex: 11:53pm: Email on 07.06.2018 Two: Harassing and insisting on texting and calling late at night even if I refused to reply. On Friday September 15th the day starts with his text message at 6h45am and continues with 31 text messages and 2 phone calls until 10 pm. I believe that since we have been working together from 8 am to 5pm, these after hour communications are unnecessary. Day of 09.15.2017: 6h54am: Dr. Noujeim Good morning. Are you at school 7h25pm: Dr. Noujeim: Can I call you (I did not reply) 7h26pm Dr. Noujeim: Can I call you 7h28pm: Dr. ok MARY DOE APPENDIX040 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 041 At around 8h25pm another phone call: (I did not reply) 8h29pm: Dr. Noujeim: Sorry I called you by mistake few seconds ago 8h59 pm: Dr. Noujeim: Hey (I did not reply) 9h49pm: Dr. Noujeim: HI 10h04 pm: Dr. Noujeim: have a good night And finally he gave up at 10h04, but re-started the very next day on Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 9h28 am and sent me 42 text messages. Three: Several Text messages with inappropriate content and showing that it was unwanted from my side. On September 15, 2017 at 7h20 pm he texted: "I want and still want to be you friend, you cannot imagine how much I want that, but you are not letting me" On September 16, 2017 at 5h40pm he texted: (be sure that I will be next to you, every time you need and even if you don't" (This text contained an inappropriate smiley sign in front of it). Four: Sending a link to a song with sexual content and images Ex: On August 16.2017 at 7h10pm he sent the music title, "you are not from here." On the same day he phoned around 6pm: Dr Noujeim: "I felt love and connection between us the first time that I saw you." Five: Requesting to meet in unusual places and hours for a faculty and a resident On August 18, 2017, he texted the address and the picture of a small praying room in a church and asked to meet at 5am. Six: Unwelcome intentional touching, hugging, kissing on the hand and forehead: These incidents occurred several times between July and September 2017, and between February and June 2018. They were reported to witness 1and 2. Some incidents were reported immediately to witness 1. After some of the incidents I was seen in the ER due to anxiety attacks. (Notes are available and some incidents were reported to the emergency doctor) Seven: He made remarks of a sexual nature about clothing. Ex: On July/August 2017 he stated, "I prefer you wear skirts. It is more sexy." This was reported immediately to witness 5 and was discussed with Mrs. Roberson. Furthermore, he stated the following: "I love you, from the first minute I saw you I felt this love between us" (phone call August 2017); "ya habibi" (phone call July 7th, 2018); "sweet heart" (September in my presence). Incident on October 04, 2017 Eight: First time of direct sexual relations request MARY DOE APPENDIX041 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 042 October 04, 2017: AAOMR meeting in Saint Louis: All details were documented during the departmental investigation Consequences of incident: When I responded negatively he sent 13 text messages on the same day from 2 am to 6 pm wanting me to resign from the program. He continued harassing me even when I asked him to let me sleep. (Texts were provided) After 4 hours of being harassed, I asked for help from a faculty Dr. Geha. His reply was provided as well. After this incident Dr. Noujeim's behavior towards me completely change. Dr. Noujeim tried several times to dismiss me from the program going as far as to change my grades and creating falsified documents which were presented to Dr. Segura on January 2018. (All documents are available) I suffered from different forms of retaliations from October 2017 to the Present. (Several documents are proof of these retaliation) My replies to his request to resign clarify the nature of the request: (please refer to the text messages provided). A Few examples are the following: "I will write the letter, but with real reasons The only issue is that I trusted you I DID NOT DO ANYTHING WRONG. I was happy to see my friends in this trip, but it became a disaster I am not an animal Do not put me pressure. You look at your stable situation and you use your power to make me afraid I am not going to change myself for you at 40 years old." Period after the incident on October 04, 2017 Nine: Repeated humiliation and harassment based on sex: Ex: On December 2017, in a meeting in his office in the presence of Mrs. Roberson: He stated, "you are nothing, you don't exist." On December 2018: In front of his office in presence of Mrs. Blandel, he was asked, "why you change your behavior every 3 days with me?" He replied, "I have my period every 3 days." (Incident was immediately reported to witness 2) On January 2018: He dismissed me from the radiology clinic escorted by police and humiliating me in front of all residents, staff and patients. He was smiling when saw I was frightened. Ten: Unwanted touching in the report room with the purpose of showing his power: reported immediately to witness 1; witnesses 3 and 4 were present onsite. Details of the incident were discussed during the departmental investigation Eleven: Deliberate physical interference with restriction of movement: He grabbed my hand, pushed me on a chair, and locked me in his office on December 2017. (Police report is available) Twelve: Vulgar sexual comments: December 2017 MARY DOE APPENDIX042 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 043 In a meeting in the presence of Mrs. Roberson I asked him why he gave more advantage to Dr. Demirturk and he replied, "because I sleep with her." Thirteen: Threatening residents about participating in investigations. Fourteen: On March 2018, he told me, "I will Kill myself and all my enemies if I lose the process." I was scared and informed some of the school officials through email. (Email is available) Fifteen: He threatened me, on February 2018, before my first Title 7 interview: "you will not have my recommendation letter and will not find a job if you talk." He asked one of the third year residents to tell me that if I talk my private life will be public or I might be dismissed because Dr. Noujeim has the power to do that. I informed investigators in an email when I rescheduled my appointment that I was threatened. (Email is available) Timeline from May to July 2018 One of my friends filed a lawsuit against Dr. Noujeim and to manipulate matters he requested my help in the matter by being friendly after 1 year of negative behavior and retaliation. Sixteen: Unwanted kissing of my hand and face He told me that he always loved me and if I helped him convince the resident to retract her lawsuit he would owe me. He hugged me, sat on the corner of the sofa in his report room and started touching my face. He also asked me to organize a meeting with this resident and a second resident all together in a restaurant outside of the school in order to discuss things in private. (For touching me I informed Witness 1 and 2 and for the arrangement I informed witness 2 and 3) For 1 month, he sent kind text messages. Ex: When I had my knee operation and also trying to get information about the role of Dr. Taft and Dr. Segura in this process. (Text messages provided). Seventeen: Text messages with sexual content. July 5th: I asked him to help on a case, but he replied that he was tired and was not able to look at the screen. Understanding that I was frustrated he sent the following: "I was thinking about … Anyhow Not important now Please calm down" Referring to other emails from Dr. Noujeim, it is clear that in order to not write sexual relations he uses 3 points. (Other emails with same content are available) On July 5th 2018: Since he did not have my help for retracting the lawsuit I was retaliated against. He resumed his hostile behavior. MARY DOE APPENDIX043 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 044 In July, I received a grade of "C" in my clinic which was very inferior to my academic level and I was informed that Dr. Deahl was absent for 2 days and Dr. Noujeim signed this paper. When I asked the reason, Dr. Noujeim phoned me. Since I did not have any help from the school and feeling desperate and scared of retaliation with grades and losing my master's degree, during this conversation I Iet him know that I accept to have sexual relations with him and some text messages follow this phone call. (All text messages were provided.) July 6th Second sexual request: (all details of incident, dates, text messages and emails were provided) He inform me through text message that his wife in Lebanon A refusal from me to have sexual relations Email from Dr. Noujeim: July 06, 2018 "So all you told me yesterday was not true then? And I believed every single word from what you said and, I cannot lie to you, I was happy…I thought that may be…" July 7th: Harassing me to resign again (Emails were provided) July 10th Dr. Noujeim complained to Dr. Deahl about my aggressive tone in the emails toward him. A request for probation was written in my department on this date and resulted in the loss of my master's degree. July 10th at 10 am I sent an email to Dr. Deahl and asked to meet with the faculty, Dr. Kaulfus and Nina Sosa, but there was no reply. In this email, I requested a meeting with all the faculty in the presence of Dr. Kaulfus and Mrs. Sosa and I mentioned that I wanted to dicuss the text messages and emails between Dr. Noujeim and me in the whole year and I that I had the documents to corroborate what I was saying. My request was ignored. I sent a second request on the same day at 12 and it was rejected. Instead of giving me the opportunity to talk, the department informed Dr. Noujeim and on the same day Dr. Noujeim some documents to Dr. Kaulfus. (All emails are available). MARY DOE APPENDIX044 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 045 Cervantes Mendez, Maria-Jose Tue 3/19/2019 5:10 PM To: Cc: Deahl, S Thomas II; Seitz, Stefanie D; Taft, Robert M; Park, Jack C; Segura, Adriana (Dentistry); You forwarded this message on 3/19/2019 5:31 PM. Good afternoon Dr. The AEC Program Directors Subcommittee has reviewed and discussed your request to be removed from probation to be able to apply to the Masters program in the Graduate School. The Subcommittee members reviewed in detail your request and the recommendation made by the OMR Residency Oversight Committee. We acknowledge that since you were placed in probation no new incidents have been reported. We also recognize that the environmental issues you mention are being addressed and are under investigation by the Institution but have not been finalized. We also considered the remaining concern from your program's ROC and the expectation that your behavior will continue to be within the University Rules and Regulations while you are enrolled in your program. Based on this information and after careful consideration of these factors that we recommend that the length of your probation remains as originally established and until the end of your program. I suggest you direct questions and seek guidance on your application to the MSDS program with Dr. Deahl and the Graduate School. Sincerely, Maria Jose Cervantes Mendez, DDS MS Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry MARY DOE APPENDIX045 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 046 Dr. In your email of March 13 you requested that the MS in Dental Science Committee on Graduate Studies (COGS) reconsider your application for admission to the MSDS Program. The COGS met today and reviewed the information that you had sent in your email. After careful consideration and extensive discussion, the COGS decided to maintain its original decision, rendered in December 2018, to reject your application. The COGS then instructed me to inform you of the following: 1. This decision remains in place until you graduate from your OMR Certificate Program. 2. Your Academic Probation in the School of Dentistry, imposed by the Advanced Education Committee, will end upon your graduating from the Certificate Program. 3. After your Academic Probation ends in the School of Dentistry, you would have the option to re- apply to the Graduate School for the MSDS. Should you elect this option, such re-application would fall under the guidelines of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences for application/admission to a Master of Science degree program. Dr. Deahl S. Thomas Deahl DMD PhD Dip. ABOMR Clinical Associate Professor, Comprehensive Dentistry Director for Advanced Education, School of Dentistry Director, MS in Dental Science Program, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, Mail Code 7919 San Antonio, TX 78229 Office (210) 567-5110 MARY DOE APPENDIX046 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 047 MARY DOE APPENDIX047 0 4/30/2018 MARY 3:15 PM DOE APPENDIX 048 Velva L. Price District Clerk Travis County D-1-GN-18-002070 D-1-GN-18-002070 Ruben Tamez CAUSE NO JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE § Plaintiff § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § vs. § TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS § THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER § 126TH AT SAN ANTONIO § ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendant § _____________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Plaintiff "JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE" to file her "Plaintiff's Original Petition" as follows: PREAMBLE Plaintiff is a student at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio seeking a Master's Degree in Oral and Maxillofacial Radiological Studies. For no reason other than prejudice, malice, and an abusive disregard of its students, Plaintiff is being targeted and unfairly treated. This a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief stemming from wrongful actions of Defendant in condoning the improper actions against Plaintiff. A. DESIGNATION OF DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Discovery for the following claims should be conducted under Level 3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 190. 1 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX048 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 049 B. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, VENUE, & RELIEF SOUGHT 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the following matter because this is a civil action, and this Court has jurisdiction over Defendant with regard to Plaintiff's request for declaratory and injunctive relief. 3. Venue is appropriate in Travis County, Texas. 4. In accordance with Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby announces that Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief only at this time. C. PARTIES AND SERVICE 5. Plaintiff "JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE" ("JaneD") is an individual residing in the State of Texas. Because of the privacy issues involved in this matter, JaneD is hereby exercising her rights to proceed with this matter anonymously. 6. The need to protect the identity of Plaintiff JaneD does not hinder the defense of this matter by Defendant, for the facts are well known to the Defendant. When applying the applicable tests (created by Texas jurisprudence) to balance the needed protection of privacy versus any inconvenience to the Defendant, the protection of JaneD's privacy prevails. 7. At such time as the Court might agree on procedures designed to protect the privacy of Plaintiff JaneD, JaneD's identity shall be disclosed. 2 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX049 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 050 8. Defendant THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO ("UTHSCSA") is a public university operating in the State of Texas and may be served with citation by serving the President as follows: The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio c/o William L. Henrich M.D., President 7703 Floyd Curl Drive San Antonio, Texas 78229-3900 D. GENERAL BACKGROUND 9. Plaintiff JaneD is an Iranian female, with a strong medical background. Jane D's father is a renowned plastic surgeon. Plaintiff JaneD's close and extended family consists of medical doctors of different specialties. 10. Plaintiff JaneD obtained her Dentistry license from the Guilan University of Medical Sciences Dental School of Iran in 2011. 11. Having practiced Dentistry in Iran for a number of years, Plaintiff JaneD made an academic sojourn to the United States of America to further expand her repertoire of Dentistry and strengthen her Dentistry prowess. 12. With an eye towards this ultimate goal, JaneD was admitted to Defendant UTHSCSA's Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Program ("OMRP") in the Fall of 2016. Of all the universities in the United States, Plaintiff JaneD chose to enroll in Defendant UTHSCSA's OMRP because it offered parallel research opportunities with its renowned Master's degree program. 3 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX050 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 051 13. Plaintiff JaneD began her first year residency in earnest and at the end first year, Plaintiff had a 3.78 Grade Point Average. 14. As the first year of the residency program ended and as Plaintiff Jane D became more settled into the OMRP program and the American system of Education, Plaintiff resolved to consolidate on the successes attained in her first year residency. Such resolve has now become impossible due to the prejudicial and discriminatory actions of a single professor ("Professor X"), whose actions have been largely condoned by Defendant UTHSCSA. 15. Plaintiff JaneD's difficulties with Defendant UTHSCSA and Professor X began during JaneD's second semester at UTHSCSA in 2017 and has continued non- stop. 16. Professor X has (through his words and actions) has spearheaded a smear campaign against Plaintiff JaneD, which has become pervasive that most of the OMRP Faculty are now apparently convinced that Plaintiff JaneD is a poor performing student who is set on bringing the OMRP program to its knees. 17. Notwithstanding the wrongful attitude of Professor X, no other faculty members of UTHSCSA's OMRP have indicated that JaneD was a subpar student. In fact, many of Plaintiff JaneD's faculty had instead given positive feedback on many occasions. 4 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX051 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 052 18. The smear campaign that started Fall 2017 against Plaintiff JaneD continues to this day and is now negatively impacting JaneD's mental and physical wellbeing. Plaintiff JaneD has now sought medical treatment to cope with the continued mental stress and anxiety caused by the reprehensible actions of Professor X. 19. Defendant UTHSCSA has turned a blind eye to Professor X's actions targeted against Plaintiff JaneD, thereby condoning and assimilating the actions of Professor X. Consequently, Plaintiff JaneD (to the detriment of her physical and mental wellbeing) has endured and continues to be subject to the following; a. Professor X has engaged in indiscriminate and abusive power plays by threatening Plaintiff JaneD with academic dismissal and academic probation, then furthering the threat by stating that JaneD would then remain on academic probation; b. In furtherance of the above mentioned academic probation mantra, Professor X has threatened to institute required remedial plans for Plaintiff JaneD; c. As part of Professor X nefarious plan to kick Plaintiff JaneD out of the OMRP program, Professor X purposely instituted an unprecedented (in the history of the residency) and non- standardized high bench mark test and then required that only JaneD take and successfully pass in order to remain in the OMRP program; d. Professor X has made false allegations against Plaintiff JaneD; e. Professor X has knocked Plaintiff JaneD in the head in a manner that was offensive and humiliating to JaneD; 5 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX052 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 053 f. Professor X has verbally abused Plaintiff JaneD in the presence of other students; g. Professor X has openly made fun of JaneD's accent in the presence of the other students; h. Professor X has exceeded powers vested in his office by manipulating exam and tests schedules to ensure that Plaintiff JaneD had little chance of succeeding in such tests; i. Professor X has engaged in blatant acts of favoritism towards particular students to the detriment of Plaintiff JaneD; j. Professor X denied JaneD's summer vacation while at the same time granted an extended summer vacation request of Professor X's favorite student; k. Professor X has manipulated schedules to ensure that Plaintiff JaneD's clinic schedule was several times more frequent than Professor X's favorite student; l. Professor X has taken steps to purposely isolate JaneD from certain co-residents; m. Professor X convened a panel of faculty whose sole purpose was to give credence to the false lies and accusations concocted by Professor X and strategically place Plaintiff JaneD in a position where the purported academic dismissal was imminent; n. Professor X attempted to coerce JaneD to sign a withdrawal form, which would have ultimately dismiss JaneD from the program; 6 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX053 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 054 o. When Plaintiff JaneD refused to sign said withdrawal form, Professor X proceeded to implement his past threats towards JaneD; p. Professor X stated that he (Professor X) would make Plaintiff JaneD's life "hell" and that JaneD "would regret staying" in the OMRP program; q. In direct contravention of the OMRP and UTHSCSA policy, certain OMRP faculty secretly and retroactively changed Plaintiff JaneD grades to back up Professor X's plan to kick Plaintiff JaneD out of the program; r. Professor X often used disparaging and demeaning comments towards Plaintiff JaneD; s. Professor X displayed a lack of civility when communicating with Plaintiff JaneD including instances of shouting, displays of temper, and the use of belittling and humiliation language; t. Professor X violated Plaintiff JaneD's student privacy rules by sharing JaneD's academic performance and grades with students in the department; u. Professor X asked another Iranian student why Plaintiff JaneD's accent and spoken English was not as good as that particular student; v. Defendant Professor X created an atmosphere of fear in the student body as he made threats such that He [Professor X] would hit students until "till they die" the next time a student is on their phone; w. Defendant Professor X would speak to another faculty member in a foreign language in the presence of Plaintiff JaneD making JaneD feel as though she was the subject of discussion and isolated even though Professor X had been 7 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX054 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 055 warned by the department to desist from said behavior; this same faculty member would intentionally act disinterested whenever Plaintiff JaneD made a presentation to the class such that he would look down on his phone, smirk, and text as if it was about Plaintiff JaneD; and x. Defendant Professor X would "use grading or other forms of evaluation in a punitive or retaliatory manner" against Plaintiff JaneD. For the purposes hereof, the foregoing actions shall collectively be referred to hereafter as the "Professor X's Harassment." 20. On a departmental level, Professor X's Harassment against Plaintiff JaneD continues to this day as a number of Plaintiff JaneD's 2017 semester grades were retroactively changed during the Fall 2017 ("Improper Grading"). 21. Professor X's Improper Grading was executed in a manner that contravenes the OMRP departmental policy. 22. In trying to contain Professor X's Harassment and address the Improper Grading, Plaintiff JaneD approached faculty at various levels, collectively referred to as hereafter as the "Upper Echelon." 23. Plaintiff JaneD filed numerous grievances and appeals with the Upper Echelon to address Professor X's Harassment and Improper Grading. Unfortunately, Plaintiff JaneD's experiences with the Upper Echelon have also unsatisfactory. False accusations, rejected claims of discrimination, and the imposition of arbitrary sanctions 8 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX055 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 056 is how the Upper Echelon has dealt with JaneD. For the purposes hereof, the foregoing actions of the Upper Echelon shall collectively be referred to hereafter as "Lies and Penalties." 24. Plaintiff JaneD is being irreparably harmed by Professor X's Harassment, Improper Grading, and the Lies and Penalties being committed by the Upper Echelon, all of who are employees of Defendant UTHSCSA, and such harm (which continues to result in a steep decline of JaneD's physical and mental health) will continue unless stopped by intervention of this Court. 25. All conditions precedent to Plaintiff bringing these claims have been met. E. PLAINTIFF'S CAUSE OF ACTION 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the facts set forth in Article D: GENERAL BACKGROUND hereof. F. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 27. As a result of the existing uncertainty and insecurity with respect to the rights, status, and other legal relations between Plaintiff JaneD and Defendant UTHSCSA as to the legality and proprietary of Professor X's Harassment and the Lies and Penalties, Plaintiff JaneD seeks a declaratory ruling as such ruling is allowed by Chapter 37 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. Specifically, a declaration is requested as to: 9 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX056 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 057 No. 1: Whether Defendant UTHSCSA can lawfully allow Professor X's Harassment to continue; No. 2: Whether Defendant UTHSCSA can lawfully allow the Lies and Penalties to continue; and No. 3: Whether Defendant UTHSCSA can lawfully continue to uphold the Improper Grades? G. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 28. The actions and inactions of Defendant UTHSCSA are causing, and will continue to cause, suffering and irreparable harm to Plaintiff JaneD. Therefore, Plaintiff JaneD requests that a permanent injunction be issued which refrains Defendant UTHSCSA from: a) allowing Professor X's Harassment to continue; b) allowing the Lies and Penalties to continue; c) continuing to uphold the Improper Grades; d) disseminating (in any manner) reports, transcripts, findings, or conclusions, or assertions that Plaintiff JaneD failed the courses that were improperly graded; and a) preventing Plaintiff JaneD from attending UTHSCSA free from prejudicial harm or retaliation; 10 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX057 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 058 H. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE 29. Plaintiff Jane D hereby requests that Defendant provide the applicable answers to the Request for Disclosure provided in Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure I. SELF-AUTHENTICATION 30. Plaintiff hereby invokes Rule 193.7 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure regarding Self-Authentication. Therefore, this is deemed notice to Defendant that Plaintiff Jane D may use, in pre-trial or trial hereof, any pleading or document produced by Defendant. J. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE prays that citation be issued; that Defendant be cited to appear; that upon final trial hereof; the declaratory rulings be made as requested; a permanent injunction be issued in accord with the foregoing requests; that all costs of Court be taxed against Defendant; and that Plaintiff have such further and other relief, general and special, both at law or in equity, to which she may show herself to be justly entitled. 11 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX058 0 MARY DOE APPENDIX 059 Respectfully submitted, Law Offices of Donald G. Henslee By: ________________________ Terry P Gorman, Esq. (lead) Texas Bar No. 08218200 tgorman@school-law.co Chigozie F. Odediran, Esq. Texas Bar No. 24098196 Donald G. Henslee, Esq. Texas Bar No. 09488500 901 Mopac Expressway South, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 320-9177 Telecopier: (512) 597-1455 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE 12 PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION tpg 2018.04.25A MARY DOE APPENDIX059