Grissom v. District of Columbia
853 F. Supp. 2d 118
D.D.C.2012Background
- Grissom entered the Reeves Center on Sept. 8, 2010 and triggered the metal detector alarm.
- Officer Phillips, employed by AlliedBarton, used a wand over Grissom’s body in the security checkpoint; Sharpe supervised and instructed similarly.
- Phillips allegedly rubbed Grissom’s genitals and she was told to pull up her blouse while a crowd watched.
- Grissom was allowed to enter after the search; she later filed suit alleging federal and state-law claims.
- Defendants District of Columbia, Sharpe, AlliedBarton, and Phillips (dismissed for service) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); AlliedBarton joined.
- The court dismisses all federal §1983 claims against the District and AlliedBarton; Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims against Sharpe in his personal capacity survive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District liability under §1983 is established | District policy caused constitutional violations. | No Monell-style policy or custom shown; single incident insufficient. | District §1983 claims dismissed; no policy basis shown. |
| Whether AlliedBarton can be liable under §1983 | AlliedBarton policies caused violations; corporate liability via custom. | No Municipal-like policy; private employer not vicariously liable. | AlliedBarton §1983 claims dismissed. |
| Whether Sharpe's official-capacity §1983 claims are duplicative | Official-capacity claims should not be duplicative of District. | Official-capacity claims duplicative and redundant. | Official-capacity §1983 claims dismissed. |
| Whether Grissom's Fourth Amendment claim against Sharpe survives | Unreasonable search occurred; wand rubbed genitals and continued after request to stop. | Reasonableness of search not addressed; challenge to pleading sufficiency. | Fourth Amendment claim against Sharpe in his personal capacity survives (barely). |
| Whether Grissom's Fifth Amendment claim (equal protection) survives | Sex-based discrimination from search practices; related conduct alleged. | Plaintiff failed to plead discriminatory intent or disparate treatment. | Fifth Amendment equal-protection claim survives; pleading sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (monell liability requires policy or custom; not respondeat superior)
- Connick v. Thompson, 131 S. Ct. 1350 (2011) (requires causation by municipal policy or custom)
- City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (1986) (policy and custom can impute liability to municipality)
- Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (municipal-like liability standards apply to DC officials)
- Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990) (distinguishes searches from seizures for Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard for §1983 claims)
- Twombly v. Bell Atlantic Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (color of state law standard for §1983 claims)