Heenan v. Rhodes, Civil Action No. 2:09cv75–MHT.
| Decision Date | 27 December 2010 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:09cv75–MHT. |
| Citation | 757 F.Supp.2d 1229 |
| Parties | Judith HEENAN, Plaintiff,v.Marilyn RHODES, Debbie Gagnon, Cicely Baugh–Hooten, Cam Hamilton, Jud McCartha, Juanita Landers, Ramona Lazenby, and Anita All, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gary Eugene Atchison, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff.Aaron Linden Dettling, Balch & Bingham LLP, Birmingham, AL, David R. Boyd, Kelly Fitzgerald Pate, Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, AL, Lee Ford Armstrong, Auburn University, AL, for Defendants.
In this lawsuit, plaintiff Judith Heenan claims that her dismissal as a student from the School of Nursing at Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM) in Montgomery, Alabama violated federal law because, among other things, it was in retaliation for her criticisms of the school's grading and disciplinary system. She rests her claims on the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution as enforced through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She names as defendants in their ‘individual capacities' a number of AUM instructors and administrators. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
This case is now before the court on the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims. For the reasons that follow, summary judgment will be entered in favor of the defendants.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). The court must view the admissible evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986).
Heenan enrolled as a student in the AUM School of Nursing in 2004. The nursing school uses a ‘point system’ to address and prevent unsafe practices and unprofessional behavior among students, both in the classroom and in the clinical environment. This policy was published in the 2006–2007 Nursing Student Handbook under the title “Unsatisfactory/Unsafe Clinical Practice Policy,” and it requires that students “demonstrate professionalism and safe practice at all times.” Defs.' Ex. 4 at 36 (Doc. No. 46–3). The handbook also notes that, “Any behaviors inconsistent with this expectation will be documented and remain a part of the student's clinical performance record throughout the nursing performance.” Id.
Such unsafe or unprofessional behaviors “have a point value attached to them,” and, once a student receives a disciplinary point, the clinical faculty member meets with the student to complete an “occurrence report” in order to document the incident that led to the assignation of the point. Id. An “accumulation of 4 points [results] in a full review of the student's clinical performance record by the Clinical Review Panel.” Id. This panel, which includes the Assistant Dean of the School of Nursing, the Nursing Resource Center Coordinator, and another course faculty member, discusses the student's record and recommends a “program of remediation,” “course failure,” or “dismissal ... and possible disenrollment ... from the [nursing] program.” Id. at 37.
In addition to abiding by specific professional criteria, “[s]tudents enrolled in the Upper Division nursing courses must receive a grade of C or above in order to progress in the nursing program.” Id. at 28. Those Id.
The Student Handbook sets forth a three-step appeals procedure for students to contest a failing grade awarded by an AUM faculty member. The student must, first, prepare a letter to the dean “outlining reasons for the grade grievance,” indicate the “remedy sought,” and “provide all relevant evidence.” Id. at 40. A departmental grade grievance committee is organized to review the evidentiary materials and then make a recommendation to the Dean of the School of Nursing “to raise, lower, or leave the grade intact.” Id. The dean informs “both the faculty member and student of the decision within three weeks of the student's letter.” Id. Either the faculty member or the student may then appeal the decision to the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs.
In October 2004, Instructor Cicely Baugh–Hooten gave Heenan one disciplinary point for exhibiting unprofessional behavior after receiving a poor rating on a ‘skills validation,’ where a student is judged on her ability to meet pre-determined criteria correlating with a specific nursing skill. After receiving an evaluation of ‘unsatisfactory,’ Heenan requested to be evaluated by another instructor and demanded to see Barbara Witt, the Dean of the School of Nursing. Both requests were denied; however, Heenan did meet with Baugh–Hooten and Instructor Tracey Hodges, who staffed the Nursing Resource Center, in order to discuss the evaluation. During this meeting, Hodges informed Heenan that she could properly receive a point for being disrespectful to a faculty member. In the form explaining the basis for the point, Baugh–Hooten stated that “[Heenan's] loud, harsh verbal comments [in reaction to her poor evaluation] coupled with expressive gestures were perceived to be argumentative, demanding, and threatening.” Defs.' Ex. 6 (Doc. No. 46–4); Heenan Dep. at 84–85 (Doc. No. 46–1).
In a later conference with Instructor Baugh–Hooten and Assistant Dean Nancy McDonald, Heenan maintained that she had been unfairly evaluated. Following this meeting, Heenan wrote apology letters to McDonald and Baugh–Hooten in an effort to “mend some bridges,” Heenan Dep. at 109 (Doc. No. 46–1), though she continued to take issue with Baugh–Hooten's assessment. Heenan testified that, in receiving a point, she had been punished for “complaining and going over [Baugh–Hooten's] head.” Id. at 142.
In February 2005, Instructor Cam Hamilton assigned Heenan her second point for “failure to complete clinical preparation assignments, such as drug cards or plan of care.” Id. at 129. Everyone in the class who failed to turn in the required assignment received a point. Heenan later complained to Arlene Morris, Hamilton's superior, stating that Hamilton did not make it clear that the particular assignment was due on that day in question and that she “disagreed” with the instructor's disciplinary action. Id. at 145–46.
During the summer of 2005, Heenan took Nursing 3530, a theory course, and received a failing grade. In 2006, Heenan repeated this course, as well as the clinical co-requisite, Nursing 3531, for which Marilyn Rhodes was her instructor. Rhodes assigned a point to Heenan for “inadequate knowledge of treatments, medications, or plan of care,” id. at 163, after finding that Heenan exhibited poor judgment in attempting to use a thermometer with which she was unfamiliar during the treatment of a patient. Following the thermometer incident, Rhodes admitted to Heenan that she was undecided as to whether a point was appropriate; Heenan replied, Id. at 317. Rhodes allocated the point.
In the spring 2007 term, Heenan took a clinical course with Instructor Juanita Landers. After observing Heenan's clinical performance, Landers completed an occurrence form, documenting six areas of concern, including untimely drug administration, improper drug calculation, improper use of a blood pressure cuff, wound care, and incomplete documentation. Heenan testified that Landers “targeted her” throughout the clinical evaluation in retaliation for Heenan's repeated complaints to other faculty members about the arbitrary nature of AUM's point system. Id. at 181.
Following the clinical review, Instructor Debbie Gagnon asked Heenan to repeat three days of clinical evaluation, supervised again by Instructor Landers. During the rotation, Landers charged Heenan with incorrectly charting a patient's information and failing to locate the medical administration records; Landers also “screamed” at Heenan. Id. at 203. Heenan then informed Landers that she could not work with her, as Landers “was too intimidating”; Heenan stated that she was going “to leave and go and talk ... to Ms. Rhodes.” Id. at 206. Heenan then left the facility. Landers assigned her a point for leaving the clinical facility without permission, writing in her occurrence report that Heenan “refused to reconsider [the] situation [or] stay to work things out and left abruptly.” Defs.' Ex. 29 (Doc. No. 46–11).
After Heenan received this fourth point, Instructors Baugh–Hooten and Jud McCartha and Assistant Dean Ramona Lazenby met in a Clinical Review Panel to discuss Heenan's academic performance. The three faculty members recommended course failure for Nursing 4911 and its co-requisite class, 4910, on the grounds that Heenan lacked “basic skill performance,” had “difficulty with appropriate communication,” lacked “critical thinking,” and had “ineffective self-awareness,” Defs.' Ex. 32 (Doc. No. 46–12); Instructors Rhodes and Gagnon concurred with the recommendation. On February 1, 2007, Dean Witt sent Heenan a letter, informing her that, because she had received two failing grades, she was to be “disenrolled” from the School of Nursing in accordance with AUM policy. Def.'s Ex. 35 (Doc. No. 46–15). Upon receiving Dean Witt's letter, Heenan initiated an appeals process, contesting the failing grade in her clinical course and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chandler v. Forsyth Technical Cmty. Coll.
...system, and the instruction becomes both more individualized and more specialized" (citation omitted) ); Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1243 (M.D. Ala. 2010) (holding that "there is no right to an attorney in school disciplinary proceedings, and the law imposes only basic procedural ......
-
Milward v. Shaheen
...and curricular system, it is not subject to the expansive protections applied to student political speech. Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1238 (M.D.Ala.2010). The Court finds that Plaintiffs complaints to Defendants Ball and Shaheen do not constitute protected speech. In fulfillment ......
-
Bender v. Metro. Nashville Bd. of Educ.
...Especially in that instance where the student has received a grade she considers to be lower than that deserved?Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F. Supp. 2d 1229, 1241 (M.D. Ala. 2010). The fact that the plaintiffs believe the grade their child received was unfair and unwarranted does not turn their c......
-
Stephenson v. Cent. Mich. Univ.
...supervise two of Plaintiff's clinical sessions. Id. at 139. Those were Plaintiff's only concerns. Id. at 140. In Heenan v. Rhodes, 757 F.Supp.2d 1229, 1240–41 (M.D.Ala.2010), the district court refused to protect speech that boiled down to “an effort by a student to get judicial review of h......