United States District Court, M.D. Tennessee, Nashville Division
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM OPINION
RICHARDSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex
Parte Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. No. 23), to
which Defendant has filed a Response (Doc. No. 25), as
ordered by the Court (Doc. No. 24). For the reasons stated
herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for Ex Parte
Temporary Restraining Order is DENIED.
pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for
Expedited Discovery and Case Management Conference (Doc. No.
27), which is GRANTED. The case is referred
to the Magistrate Judge to determine a schedule for expedited
discovery and case management.
Mosely is a medical student at Defendant Meharry Medical
College. She filed this action alleging violations by
Defendant of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) and sought a Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO”) prohibiting Defendant from assigning her
to a surgical rotation clerkship in Detroit, Michigan or
anywhere outside the Nashville area. The Magistrate Judge
recommended that the TRO be granted, but by the time it was
fully briefed, the relief sought in the TRO was moot. (Doc.
has now requested a different TRO, this time asking the Court
to prohibit Defendant from “expelling” her and to
order Defendant to allow her to continue her medical
education. (Doc. No. 23). Plaintiff requests an order
“that Plaintiff be allowed to register and take her
Internal Medicine Clerkship/Rotation, which starts Monday,
September 23, 2019.” (Doc. No. 23-6).
response to Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant has filed the
Declaration of Ronette Adams-Taylor, Associate General
Counsel and Compliance Officer for Defendant. Ms.
Adams-Taylor asserts: “Meharry has determined to excuse
Plaintiff’s failure to attend the DMC [Detroit Medical
Center] Rotation, which ended on August 30, 2019,
notwithstanding her refusal to interact with Meharry staff to
identify a reasonable accommodation. Despite not attending
the DMC Rotation, Meharry has allowed Plaintiff to continue
her course work and to sit for the Subject Matter Boards.
Despite not attending the DMC Rotation that ended on August
30, 2019, Meharry is allowing the Plaintiff to move forward
with the next rotation.” (Doc. No. 26).
RESTRAINING ORDER STANDARD
determining whether to issue a TRO pursuant to Rule 65 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court is to consider:
(1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the
merits; (2) whether the plaintiff may suffer irreparable harm
absent the injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction
will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) the impact of
the injunction on the public interest. Abney v. Amgen,
Inc., 443 F.3d 540, 546 (6th Cir. 2006). When
determining whether to issue a TRO, a threat of an immediate,
irreparable harm must be present. Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(b)(1)(A)
(requiring a court to examine, on application for a TRO,
whether “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified
complaint clearly show that immediate and irreparable injury,
loss, or damage will result to the movant”);
Cunningham v. First Class Vacations, Inc., No.
3:16-CV-2285, 2019 WL 1306214, at *1 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 11,
asks the Court to order “that Plaintiff be allowed to
register and take her Internal Medicine Clerkship/Rotation,
which starts Monday, September 23, 2019.” (Doc. No.
23-6 at 2). Defendant has stated that it is allowing
Plaintiff to move forward with this next rotation. (Doc. Nos.
25 and 26). Thus, the relief requested by Plaintiff’s
Motion is already being provided. To the extent Plaintiff
claims she will be expelled on September 23, 2019, and will
not be allowed to continue her medical education, Defendant
has affirmatively stated otherwise. Therefore,
Plaintiff’s Motion for a TRO is moot.
Title II of the ADA does not require exhaustion of
administrative remedies or participation in an
“interactive process, ” an exploration of settlement
of the issues in this case would be prudent and apparently
has not yet been adequately undertaken. Defendant asserts
that it provides an appeal process and procedure for any
medical student who disputes her final grade. (Doc. No. 25 at
6). Defendant also claims it has an appeal process for
medical students who face an adverse action based upon
grades, licensure progress, and professionalism.
(Id. at 7). There is no suggestion before the Court
that Plaintiff took advantage of these appeal processes with
respect to her complaints, which seemingly would be subject
to these processes.
in addition to developing an expedited schedule for discovery
and case management, the Magistrate Judge shall explore with
the parties the possibilities of settlement, particularly
with regard to the location of Plaintiff s clerkship