Case Explained: Summary Calendar Jennifer Ferrell Brantley Plaintiff— v. The University of Texas at Austin Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Jennifer Ferrell Brantley’s lawsuit against the University of Texas at Austin for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, because she sued the university itself rather than proper officials for sovereign immunity purposes, and failed to allege the university received federal funding sufficient to waive that immunity. Regarding the merits of the discrimination claim, the court applied the standard established in *Hamilton v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.* and related Fifth Circuit precedent, ruling that federal disability laws do not prohibit an institution from disciplining a student for inappropriate behavior, such as harassment, even if that behavior stems from a disability. The court found Brantley could not use anti-discrimination law to immunize herself from the consequences of her persistent emailing of a faculty member after being asked to cease contact. Furthermore, the court affirmed the denial of leave to amend as futile, determining that Brantley’s additional theories were legally insufficient: she failed to show the university discriminated by failing to activate support services, her claim regarding processing impairments was frivolous because she had been accommodated with written communication, and her retaliation claim lacked a causal connection between protected activity and the adverse action. The practical consequence of this ruling is that the district court’s dismissal remains in effect, the disciplinary sanctions against Brantley stand, and she is barred from pursuing further amendments to her complaint on appeal.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.