Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00075/USCOURTS-almd-2_09-cv-00075-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JUDITH HEENAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:09cv75-MHT

) (WO)

MARILYN RHODES, )

DEBBIE GAGNON, )

CICELY BAUGH-HOOTEN, ) 

CAM HAMILTON, ) 

JUD MCCARTHA, ) 

JUANITA LANDERS, ) 

RAMONA LAZENBY, )

and ANITA ALL, )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

In this lawsuit, plaintiff Judith Heenan challenged

her dismissal as a student from the School of Nursing at

Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM) in Montgomery,

Alabama. According to the AUM School of Nursing, Heenan

was dismissed “for failing to complete classroom tasks

adequately, for performing poorly in clinical

evaluations, and for exhibiting unprofessional behavior

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 1 of 10
2

in a professional environment.” Heenan v. Rhodes, ____

F.Supp.2d ____, ____, 2010 WL 5300929 at *9 (M.D. Ala.

2010) (Thompson, J.). This lawsuit is again before the

court, this time on Heenan’s motion to alter or amend the

judgment, which was summarily entered against her on

December 27, 2010, based on the defense of qualified

immunity. Id. at ____, 2010 WL 5300929 at *13. The

motion will be denied. 

A.

With her motion, Heenan contends, in essence, that

her affidavit alone, in which she takes issue with how

her former instructors and administrators assessed her

nursing-school performance, creates a disputed issue of

fact precluding entry of summary judgment against her

based on the qualified-immunity defense. Even with the

assumption that Heenan’s grievances against the AUM

Nursing School’s grading system were constitutionally

protected speech, the evidence is still overwhelming that

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 2 of 10
3

she was dismissed for proper reasons totally unrelated to

her speech. 

First, Heenan’s contention is based on the flawed

premise that her overall assessment, in her affidavit, of

her own nursing-school performance as satisfactory is

entitled to the same weight as her instructors’ and

administrators’ assessments of her performance as

unsatisfactory. However, Heenan has not put herself

forward as having any training and experience whatsoever

in nursing instruction and thus as having competent

knowledge on how to run a nursing school, including how

to assess, grade, and discipline nursing students. She

has no degree in nursing, let alone any expertise in

nursing school administration and teaching. She is

simply not a competent witness on such matters in

general; or, to put it another way, while she may have

her own views regarding some underlying facts here and

there, she is not competent to critique her own overall

performance as a nursing student. Nor has she, in

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 3 of 10
4

opposition to summary judgment, offered any testimony or

evidence from someone who has training and experience as

a nursing instructor or administrator and who would be

willing to testify that the AUM Nursing School’s overall

assessment of her performance was unfounded. Aside from

the fact that Heenan’s views are completely self-serving,

she has provided no competent evidence to take issue with

the evidence presented to the contrary.

Moreover, even if Heenan could be viewed as having

some modicum of expertise on how the AUM Nursing School

should have assessed and graded her, the evidence against

her is still overwhelming. The record reflects that,

“Prior to receiving the fourth point that led to her

expulsion, Heenan acquired three other points from three

separate instructors, all for different reasons, but all

related to her performance in the classroom, and all of

which were reviewed and affirmed by the instructors'

supervisors.” Heenan, ____ F.Supp.2d at ____, 2010 WL

5300929 at *9. No reasonable factfinder could conclude

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 4 of 10
5

that Heenan’s assessment of her own performance outweighs

that of so many trained and experienced nursing-school

instructors and administrators. See Matsushita Elec.

Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587

(1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not lead

a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party,

there is no ‘genuine issue for trial.’”) (citation

omitted).

B.

While the court has concluded that, even if Heenan’s

speech were constitutionally protected, summary judgment

was still properly entered against her, the court will

also address her contention that it erred in holding that

her speech was not constitutionally protected. Because

the court failed to follow through with an important

distinction, Heenan is partially correct.

To be sure, educators do not offend the First

Amendment by imposing penalties for “student speech in

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 5 of 10
6

school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their

actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical

concerns.” Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S.

260, 273 (1988). In applying this principle, the court

failed to draw a distinction between Heenan’s grievances

that were expressed in nurse-training related

circumstances and those that were not. The former would

include grievances that were made to, or in the presence

of, her instructors and supervisors and were related to

her training. See, e.g., Heenan, ____ F.Supp.2d at ____,

2010 WL 5300929 at *3 (“Following the thermometer

incident, [Instructor] Rhodes admitted to Heenan that she

was undecided as to whether a point was appropriate;

Heenan replied, ‘[P]oints are stupid. Go ahead.’ ...

Rhodes allocated the point.”) (citation omitted).

Because adverse action taken for this speech would be

“reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns,”

Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273, the speech would not be

protected. As this court has stated: “[O]ne of the

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 6 of 10
7

traits of a good teacher is the ability to get a student,

finally, to stop blaming others (including her teacher)

for the bad grade she has received. How teachers grade,

and, in particular, how they treat those students who

attempt to use gripes about grades and the grading

systems as excuses for poor performance, is one of those

pedagogical concerns that are at the heart of the

teaching profession.” Heenan, ____ F.Supp.2d at ____,

2010 WL 5300929 *10. 

 The latter type of grievances would include those

expressed in circumstances that were not part of her

training with her instructors and supervisors. See,

e.g., Heenan, ____ F.Supp.2d at ____, 2010 WL 5300929 at

*4 (“Throughout her academic career at AUM, Heenan

vocally opposed the school point system as an arbitrary

and subjective method of discipline. She routinely

‘discussed the point system with other nursing students

and with friends and with students at AUM who were not

nursing students.’ Heenan Dep. at 40 (Doc. No. 46-1).

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 7 of 10
8

These discussions took place at ‘various locations in the

school,’ including the lab, where clinical validations

took place, in the student break room, the bathroom, the

hallway, the elevator, and in front of the school

mailboxes. Id. at 47-48.”) (footnote omitted). Because

punitive action against her for her speech in these

circumstances would not be “reasonably related to

legitimate pedagogical concerns,” Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at

273, her speech would arguably be protected. However,

the evidence is beyond reasonable dispute that Heenan was

dismissed not for this speech but rather “for failing to

complete classroom tasks adequately, for performing

poorly in clinical evaluations, and for exhibiting

unprofessional behavior in a professional environment.”

Heenan, ____ F.Supp.2d at ____, 2010 WL 5300929 at *9.

The court is, and was, not confronted with a case in

which the record is void of any pedagogical basis to

support an educator’s adverse action against a student in

the wake of that student’s speech outside or inside

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 8 of 10
9

class, or even a case in which the record presents

competent evidence on both sides as to whether the

educator’s action was pedagogically reasonable. The

merit, if any, in such cases is left for another day. In

contrast, the record this court confronted clearly

warranted, for the reasons given above, the entry of

summary judgment against Heenan pursuant to Rule 56 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure based on the

qualified-immunity defense. To hold otherwise would mean

that any public university or school student, armed with

only a personal affidavit challenging her grades, could

obtain court review of those grades, with the result

that, across the country, courts would then be,

impermissibly, in the business of routinely reviewing

school grades. See Hazelwood, 484 U.S. at 273 (“the

education of the Nation's youth is primarily the

responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local

school officials, and not of federal judges”).

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 9 of 10
*** 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff Judith

Heenan’s motion to alter or amend judgment (Doc. No. 86)

is denied.

DONE, this the 26th day of January, 2011.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:09-cv-00075-MHT-CSC Document 96 Filed 01/26/11 Page 10 of 10