Hearring v. Sliwowski
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9578
M.D. Tenn.2012Background
- Plaintiff Melissa Hearring, as next friend of B.H., sues Nurse Sliwowski and Metro under §1983.
- B.H. was a six-year-old Mt. View Elementary student who complained of genital discomfort.
- Sliwowski conducted a restroom genital examination of B.H. with Pam Back present, after which B.H. and her parents were not consulted in a timely manner.
- There was no parental consent or medical emergency justifying the visual genital inspection; training on such examinations was lacking.
- NASN guidelines and Tennessee health standards restrict genital exams absent consent or emergency, and Cosby opines the exam was improper medical treatment; the reprimand issued to Sliwowski did not address the examination itself.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on qualified immunity and Metro liability, which the Court reviews de novo, ultimately finding genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether B.H.’s Fourth Amendment right was clearly established | Beard/Safford-like precedents show clearly established intrusion | No clearly established right at that time | Yes, the right was clearly established |
| Whether Sliwowski’s search violated the Fourth Amendment | Search was unconstitutional without consent or emergency | Policy/training may justify, or at least not clearly establish violation | Yes, the search violated the Fourth Amendment under established precedents |
| Whether the special needs doctrine justifies the search | Special needs allowed deviation from Fourth Amendment rules | Special needs applies only in narrow circumstances | No, not justified under special needs |
| Metro liability under Monell | Metro had policy/custom and foreseeability of intrusion | No actionable policy; insufficient evidence | Questions of fact remain; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) (establishes strong privacy interests in school searches; need for reasonable scope)
- Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (rationale for limits on searches and intrusiveness in schools)
- Safford Unified School Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009) (strip search of minor violated Fourth Amendment)
- Beard v. Whitmore Lake School Dist., 402 F.3d 598 (6th Cir. 2005) (highly intrusive searches violate Fourth Amendment; privacy protections for students)
- Brannum v. Overton County School Board, 516 F.3d 489 (6th Cir. 2008) (strip searches of students violated Fourth Amendment in certain contexts)
- Tuttle v. City of Oklahoma City, 471 U.S. 808 (1985) (Monell/policy-based municipal liability framework)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (deliberate indifference standard for municipal liability)