Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

Injured police officer can sue state university for discrimination

Reprints

A university police officer who suffered a back injury while on duty may sue the university in federal court for discrimination under the federal Rehabilitation Act, a U.S. District Court ruled.

Timothy Dugger worked as a police officer for Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches, Texas, and injured his back in August 2014 when he fell while working, court records show. The Texas State Office of Risk Management was the university's workers compensation insurer.

A doctor who treated Mr. Dugger under his workers comp claim cleared him to work with restrictions, such as refraining from prolonged standing, kneeling, twisting, or climbing. The doctor also limited Mr. Dugger to two hours of walking per day, according to court filings.

The university police department arranged for a light-duty work assignment for Mr. Dugger, and an "offer of employment" letter from the department acknowledged Mr. Dugger's work restrictions, records show. The letter noted that the job offer was "contingent on the need for additional help working the front counter during the peak time of the beginning of the semester," and said the assignment would end "once the need has passed."

Mr. Dugger accepted the assignment on Sept. 2, 2014, but the assignment ended on Sept. 4, 2014 because Mr. Dugger's supervisor said the peak workload period had ended. After that, the police department said it could not accommodate Mr. Dugger's work restrictions and that he would not be able to work until doctors gave him a full duty release, according to court documents.

Mr. Dugger was evaluated by other doctors who also recommended work restrictions. He filed a charge of discrimination with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission in March 2015, saying that the university discriminated against him by not accommodating his disability in violation of Texas labor law, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

He later accused the university of violating the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas, records show. The act says, "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States (shall) be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

The Texas Department of Insurance’s Division of Workers' Compensation granted workers comp benefits to Mr. Dugger, who was terminated in April 2016 after he had exhausted his accumulated leave.

Stephen F. Austin University argued that Mr. Dugger's discrimination claims should be dismissed under the 11th Amendment, which prohibits certain lawsuits from being brought against states in federal court unless a state waives its immunity or U.S. Congress abrogates that state’s right. The university argued that it is a Texas state agency since it is a public institution.

The U.S. District Court agreed with that argument on Mr. Dugger’s claim under the Texas Labor Code, but upheld Mr. Dugger’s right to sue the university for discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act.

The district court noted that a 1986 amendment to the Rehabilitation Act allowed the Congress to abrogate state lawsuit immunity for Rehabilitation Act claims. Therefore, Mr. Dugger’s Rehabilitation Act claim couldn’t be dismissed under the 11th Amendment, the court ruled.

While the university argued that Mr. Dugger failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing his Rehabilitation Act claims in district court, the court found that argument meritless.