United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JEFFERY S. FRENSLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order filed by Sarah Maria Paula Alicia Moseley,
proceeding pro se. Docket No. 2. Ms. Moseley has also filed a
Supporting Memorandum. Docket No. 3. Ms. Moseley alleges that
Meharry Medical College (“MMC”) has violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing
legislation, 28 C.F.R. Chapter 36, by, among other things,
assigning her to participate in a surgery clinical rotation
located in Detroit, Michigan. Docket No.3. Ms. Moseley
Movant is to load her car in Nashville, drive to Detroit
(which will take her two days), unload her car, move into her
Detroit lodging, and report for duty in Detroit first things
Monday morning, August 19. Her stint in Detroit ends Friday,
August 30. Movant is then to reload her car, drive back to
Detroit, unload her car, and report to school at Meharry
first thing Monday, September 2. Movant is physically
incapable of doing this, because of her disability.
Id. at 9 (internal citation and paragraph numbering
omitted). She contends that MMC is now requiring her to
perform an additional rotation in Detroit as a form of
retaliation, and is failing to provide reasonable
accommodations related to entering the building, observing
surgeries, and obtaining scrubs. Id. at 5. Ms.
Moseley also asserts that a reasonable accommodation is
readily available: “[o]ther MMC students have been
assigned to do the same portion of their surgical rotation at
HCA/Southern Hills, in the Nashville area.” Docket No.
2, p. 4.
Moseley asks the Court to order MMC to take various measures
to provide her relief, including:
(1) Immediately cancel its assignment of Movant to a surgical
rotation clerkship at the Detroit medical institution.
(2) Not reassign Movant to any surgical rotation clerkship at
any location outside the Nashville area.
(3) Immediately make a good faith effort to have
Movant included in the cohort of Meharry Medical students who
have been assigned to a surgical rotation clerkship at
HCA/Southern Hills for August 13-30.
. . . Id. at 8 (emphasis in original).
not responded to the Motion. MMC has filed an Answer to the
Complaint. Docket No. 11. In its Answer, MMC “admits
that it provided Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations
during her first two years of medical school” and
“denies the characterization of those accommodations as
‘sporadic.'” Id. at 2.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
moving party has the burden of proving that the circumstances
“clearly demand” a temporary restraining order
(“TRO”) or preliminary injunction. Overstreet
v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't., 305 F.3d
566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). The court must balance four factors
in deciding whether to issue a TRO or preliminary injunction:
“(1) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of
success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer
irreparable injury without the injunction; (3) whether
issuance of the injunction would cause substantial harm to
others; and (4) whether the public interest would be served
by issuance of the injunction.” City of Pontiac
Retired Employees Ass'n. v. Schimmel, 751 F.3d 427,
430 (6th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). These
four factors are ...