Wright v. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
RODERICK WRIGHT, 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01367
Plaintiff, 	Hon. Paul L. Maloney
U.S. District Judge
v.
AMERICAN SPEECH-LANGUAGE-
HEARING ASSOCIATION,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Pro se Plaintiff Roderick Wright filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). 	ECF No. 2. 	The Court denied the motion for
TRO and referred the motion for preliminary examination to the undersigned for a
Report and Recommendation. ECF Nos. 10 and 11. A second motion for a TRO was
denied on December 5, 2025. ECF No. 20 (order denying ECF No. 17). Plaintiff also
filed a motion to expedite ruling on his motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No.
47.
Wright 	sues 	Defendant 	American 	Speech-Language-Hearing 	Association
(ASHA) for rendering an ethics decision concluding that he had misrepresented his
application for certification. 	ASHA found that Plaintiff misrepresented his clinical
experience and found that Plaintiff did not meet the requirements necessary for a
Certificate of Clinical Competence (CCC). 	As a result of that finding, the ASHA
revoked Wright’s membership and certification for six months. 	Wright says the
decision became final on January 20, 2026, and ASHA published that revocation,
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 1
of 8

2
which is “actively impacting Plaintiff’s professional licensure and reputation.” 	Id.,
PageID.513.
Plaintiff’s complaint alleges, in Count I, that Defendant violated his rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to make “reasonable
modifications to policies, practices, or procedures . . . to afford Plaintiff equal access
to its services, and failed to engage in the interactive process.” ECF No. 1, PageID.4.
More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that on September 3, 2025, ASHA Ethics Officer
Katharine 	Meyer 	emailed 	him 	that 	she 	was 	in 	“receipt 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	ADA
accommodation package.” 	Id. 	Plaintiff says that “ASHA attempted to reframe the
ADA request as part of its internal ethics process” and that they were working with
Plaintiff’s attorneys. 	Id. 	However, Plaintiff says that his “attorneys were not
handling the ADA portion” because Plaintiff had initiated the request. Id. Plaintiff
says that ASHA did not “engage in the required interactive process directly with”
him. Id.
Plaintiff alleges, in Count II, that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was
violated when ASHA refused to provide reasonable accommodation and proceeded
with disciplinary actions without addressing his disability needs. Id., PageID.5. 	In
Count III, Plaintiff alleges a denial of fair procedures, and in Count IV, Plaintiff
alleges retaliation after he filed a harassment complaint against ASHA staff in
October of 2023, and for requesting ADA accommodations in July of 2025. 	Plaintiff
says that the ethics proceeding was initiated after he engaged in protected activities.
Id., PageID.5-6.
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 2
of 8

3
Plaintiff requests that the Court enter a Preliminary Injunction preventing
Defendant from “enforcing, publishing, or otherwise implementing any revocation of
the Plaintiff’s CCC credential, and from withholding or denying renewal of said
credential pending further order of the Court, and such other relief as the Court
deems just and proper.” Id., PageID.86.
Preliminary injunctions are “one of the most drastic tools in the arsenal of
judicial remedies.” 	Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 808 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting
Hanson Trust PLC v. ML SCM Acquisition Inc., 781 F.2d 264, 273 (2d Cir. 1986)).
The issuance of preliminary injunctive relief is committed to the discretion of the
district court. Ne. Ohio Coal. v. Blackwell, 467 F.3d 999, 1009 (6th Cir. 2006); Nader
v. Blackwell, 230 F.3d 833, 834 (6th Cir. 2000). In exercising that discretion, a court
must consider whether plaintiff has established the following elements: (1) a strong
or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the likelihood of irreparable
injury if the preliminary injunction does not issue; (3) the absence of harm to other
parties; and (4) the protection of the public interest by issuance of the injunction. Id.
These factors are not prerequisites to the grant or denial of injunctive relief, but
factors that must be “carefully balanced” by the district court in exercising its
equitable powers. Frisch’s Rest., Inc. v. Shoney’s, Inc., 759 F.2d 1261, 1263 (6th Cir.
1985). The party seeking injunctive relief bears a heavy burden of establishing that
the extraordinary and drastic remedy sought is appropriate under the circumstances.
Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002).
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 3
of 8

4
Initially, Plaintiff must show a strong or substantial likelihood of success on
the merits of his complaint. NAACP v. Mansfield, 866 F.2d 162, 167 (6th Cir. 1989).
At this stage of the lawsuit, Plaintiff has not attempted to establish a violation of the
ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or to show that he was retaliated against. Plaintiff has
presented the conclusion that his rights were violated but has not presented any legal
or viable factual argument as to how Defendants violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation
Act, or took retaliatory action. Plaintiff argues that ASHA made an improper finding
that he did not begin clinical experience in 2022. ASHA argues that the facts support
the conclusion made during the ethical determination. It is possible that Plaintiff is
correct and ASHA made the wrong determination, but that alone does not show that
Plaintiff was discriminated against or retaliated against. 	In the opinion of the
undersigned, Plaintiff has not presented facts establishing a strong or substantial
likelihood of success on his discrimination claims or his retaliation claim.
Plaintiff argues that ASHA failed to accommodate him during the ethical
proceedings. During the proceeding, Plaintiff made a request for accommodation due
to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. ECF No. 1-9. Plaintiff requested:
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 4
of 8

5
Id., PageID.40-41.
ASHA responded to that request by emailing Plaintiff’s attorney with a
notification that the requested accommodation was approved. 	The email stated in
part:
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 5
of 8

6
ECF No. 38-7, PageID.438-439.
Plaintiff has not shown how his requested accommodation was not met by
ASHA or how ASHA failed to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff and his
counsel. 	Plaintiff argues that ASHA delayed the proceedings, and that ASHA
violated his rights by contacting his attorneys instead of directly contacting him. ECF
No. 42, PageID.459-460. 	Plaintiff does not explain why ASHA should not have
contacted his attorneys or why ASHA should have bypassed Plaintiff’s attorneys and
contacted him directly. In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has failed to show
a strong or substantial likelihood of success on his discrimination and retaliations
claims.
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 6
of 8

7
Second, the presence of irreparable harm is not evident. Plaintiff says that the
publication of his six-month suspension has caused him irreparable harm to his
career and reputation. 	Generally, however, a plaintiff’s harm from the denial of a
preliminary injunction is irreparable only if it is not fully compensable by monetary
damages. 	Overstreet, 305 F.3d at 578. 	“The fact that an individual may lose his
income for some extended period of time does not result in irreparable harm, as
income wrongly withheld may be recovered through monetary damages in the form
of back pay.” Id. at 579. In the opinion of the undersigned, Plaintiff has not set forth
specific facts showing immediate, concrete and irreparable harm in the absence of an
injunction.
Finally, Defendant argues that issuance of an injunction is not in the public
interest and would cause substantial harm to others. Defendant argues that because
Plaintiff did not have the required clinical fellowship experience necessary to obtain
a Certificate of Clinical Competence, granting an injunction to someone who did not
complete certification requirements would misrepresent Plaintiff’s experience to the
public 	and 	prospective 	employers 	may 	rely 	upon 	the 	false 	certification. 	The
undersigned agrees with this point.
Accordingly, in the opinion of the undesigned, the factors balance against the
issuance of preliminary injunctive relief, and because Plaintiff has failed to meet the
heavy burden establishing the need for injunctive relief, I recommend that Plaintiff’s
motion for a preliminary injunction be denied. 	It is further recommended that the
Court deny Plaintiff’s motion to expedite the ruling.
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 7
of 8

8
NOTICE TO PARTIES: Objections to this Report and Recommendation must
be served on opposing parties and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen
(14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation. 	28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C);
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); W.D. Mich. LCivR 72.3(b). 	Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of any further right to appeal. United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d
947 (6th Cir. 1981). See also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).
/s/ `ttÜàxÇ ixÜÅttà
Maarten Vermaat
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated: 	March 10, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01367-PLM-MV ECF No. 55, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/10/26 Page 8
of 8