Amended complaint details retaliation and discrimination against Jewish therapists
The Lawfare Project announced today that it has filed a motion for leave to amend its federal civil rights complaint against D2 Counseling, a Dallas-based mental health clinic, and its co-owners Dr. Dina Hijazi and Rev. Daniel Gowan. This follows Dr. Hijazi and Rev. Gowan’s decision to file a retaliatory state court lawsuit against Yocheved Junger and Jacqueline Katz, two Jewish therapists who allege they were fired in retaliation for exercising their protected right to oppose workplace discrimination.
Rather than respond to Junger and Katz’ allegations on the merits, Defendants escalated their conduct by filing a separate state court lawsuit targeting Plaintiff’s protected activity and speech–conduct that federal courts have repeatedly recognized as actionable retaliation when brought without a reasonable basis and for the purpose of chilling civil-rights advocacy. Accordingly, the amended complaint adds a new retaliation claim based on the state court lawsuit.
“Jewish patients seeking mental-health care deserve to know whether the providers they turn to will take antisemitic trauma seriously–or dismiss it as bias,” said Brooke Goldstein, Founder and Executive Director of The Lawfare Project. “This case is about accountability. Employers cannot hide behind litigation tactics to avoid responsibility for discrimination, and they cannot use lawsuits as intimidation tools against those who speak up. The public has a right to know what the evidence shows.”
The amended complaint also incorporates new evidence that was produced during the course of discovery for the federal case that substantiates Junger and Katz’ claims of discrimination and retaliation. Such evidence includes newly produced text messages and emails that reflect Defendants’ contemporaneous mindset, their lack of investigation, and their efforts to reframe Plaintiffs’ protected activity as misconduct after the fact.
For example, Dr. Hijazi and Rev. Gowan produced internal communications dismissing objections to antisemitism from Junger and Katz by characterizing their concerns as an identity-based fixation rather than as legitimate professional or ethical concerns. Referring to the discussion of antisemitism and Jewish trauma, Gowan stated in a text message to Hijazi that “the topic gets to be where the zealots come out,” describing it as “their lifelong passion,” “part of the victim story,” and a way for “them” to feel “self-righteous.” He further reduced Plaintiffs’ advocacy to “little children clamoring for attention.” Similarly, Hijazi described the team discussion on Jewish trauma as reflecting the “entrenched views of all three of our Jewish therapists,” and concluded there was “no conversation or discussion to be had” because of those views. Rather than engaging with the substance of Plaintiffs’ concerns, defendants treated Jewish identity itself as synonymous with bias and inflexibility.
Dr. Hijazi and Rev. Gowan’s communications further reflect that after Junger and Katz were terminated, they struggled to articulate any legitimate reason for doing so. In one post-termination text exchange, defendants admitted, “We have NOT said why we are terminating. Shit! I think we have to!” In another, defendants discussed “refining” their “talking points,” proposing that the narrative be reframed to claim plaintiffs had “refused to follow D2 policy” or “created a hostile work environment,” even as they acknowledged that those explanations were still being worked out.
“These are not the words of individuals who terminated employees for legitimate policy violations,” said Jaclyn S. Clark, Counsel at the Lawfare Project. “They are the words of individuals trying to retrofit a justification—after the fact—for discrimination and retaliation that they knew they couldn’t lawfully admit.”
The Lawfare Project’s amended complaint adds additional allegations supporting punitive damages as well, citing Defendants’ awareness of legal risk, lack of any investigation into the antisemitism concerns raised, and conscious decision to proceed with termination and retaliatory litigation regardless.