Background
Shannon Waller, Jr., a respiratory therapy student at Middle Georgia State University, was completing a required clinical externship at Houston Healthcare. After an April 2022 patient-care incident, the university charged him with misconduct that included making ventilator changes without notifying a therapist, placing a patient on BiPAP without supervision, and improperly performing an arterial blood gas test. A disciplinary panel unanimously found that he had endangered a patient’s health or safety and assigned him an “F” in the externship course.
Waller, who has attention deficit disorder, anxiety, and depression, alleged that the disciplinary process failed to comply with the university’s written policies. He sued the Board of Regents and others, asserting breach of contract and disability discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district court dismissed the contract claim on Georgia sovereign-immunity grounds and dismissed the discrimination claims for failure to state a claim. Waller appealed those rulings after voluntarily dismissing his remaining claims against Houston Healthcare and its employees with prejudice.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the contract claim because Waller did not plausibly allege a written contract sufficient to trigger Georgia’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The respiratory therapy handbook contained no written manifestation that the Board had agreed to be bound, while the admission letter—although signed by Waller and the program chair—did not state the consideration Waller was required to provide. Combining the documents did not cure that omission. At most, they might support an implied contract, which is insufficient to waive Georgia’s sovereign immunity.
The court also affirmed dismissal of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Although the complaint alleged that university personnel knew about and discussed Waller’s conditions, it did not contain nonconclusory facts supporting a reasonable inference that he was removed from the clinical placement or disciplined because of those conditions. The complaint’s other factual allegations instead showed that the university and hospital personnel believed he had endangered a patient, regardless of whether that belief was correct or whether the disciplinary process complied with university policy.
Key Takeaways
- Georgia’s sovereign-immunity waiver for written contracts requires a writing containing every essential contractual term, including consideration.
- A signed university admission letter and an unsigned student handbook did not waive immunity because neither identified the consideration the student was required to provide.
- Knowledge of a student’s disabilities and prior comments about disability-related behavior do not, without supporting facts, plausibly establish that later discipline occurred because of disability.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the demanding pleading burden facing students who bring contract claims against Georgia public universities. Documents that may reflect an implied student-university relationship will not necessarily qualify as written contracts capable of overcoming sovereign immunity.
It also illustrates that ADA and Rehabilitation Act plaintiffs must plead facts connecting an adverse educational action to disability. Allegations that officials knew about a disability, standing alone, are insufficient when the complaint itself identifies a separate, nondiscriminatory reason for the discipline.