Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 11-1044
CHRISTINA G. HOOD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SUFFOLK CITY SCHOOL BOARD; DERAN R.
Superintendent, Suffolk Public Schools,
WHITNEY,
Interim
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00500-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted:
Decided:
PER CURIAM:
Christina Hood, an elementary school teacher employed by
the School Board of the City of Suffolk, Virginia (the Board),
brought this action against the Board and Deran R. Whitney, an
administrator of the Suffolk public school system (collectively,
the defendants).
Hood
alleged
right
to
that
bodily
the
defendants
integrity
by
violated
deliberately
her
constitutional
exposing
her
to
The district
court
she
dismissed
Hoods
complaint,
holding
that
had
not
Upon
I.
During the 2007-2008 school year, Hood was employed by the
Board
as
fourth
grade
teacher
at
Booker
T.
Washington
that had been left in her classroom were soggy and warped as a
result
of
accumulated
moisture.
Hood
also
observed
that
Several
irritated.
days
By
later,
her
Hoods
second
week
of
became
teaching,
additionally
observed
cold
or
that
several
sinus
caused
to
those
began
allergies.
contracted
to
Hood
and
serious
have
similar
itchy
experience
may
reactions
eyes
infection.
students
by
Hood
suffered
from
similar symptoms.
Based
on
these
considerations,
Hood
requested
dehumidifier
each
day,
and
found
that
the
She used
dehumidifier
developed
swelling.
severe
rash
around
her
mouth
that
caused
Hood informed Phillips that she was ill, that she was
uncertain about the cause, and that she would need to leave work
to consult a physician.
visited
her
primary
care
physician
that
day
and
she
had
administrators
documentation
However,
been
informed
would
order
that
although
mold
by
other
mold
in
the
Montgomery
teachers
testing
School
made
if
was
copy
that
provided
causing
of
school
the
with
illness.
physicians
September
26,
2007,
school
administrator,
Terry
and
symptoms,
and
whether
that
problems.
some
students
any
of
the
students
had
were
sick
and
had
allergy
At that time,
Hood was left with the impression that Napier thought that her
concerns about mold were unfounded.
When the rash on Hoods face spread and caused her greater
discomfort
in
early
October
2007,
Hood
scheduled
two
more
Hoods physician
Hood
made
several
inquiries
about
the
mold
test
Referring to
the results, Napier told Hood that the classroom did not have a
mold problem, because the mold spore count was higher outside
than
inside
the
classroom.
Hood
eventually
obtained
these
Montgomery
informed
that
her
classroom
would
be
to
return
to
until
October
19,
2007.
When
Hood
her
environment.
that
she
should
no
longer
work
in
the
same
indoor
evaluation.
Hood
contends
that
Napier
and
the
presence
and
severity
of
mold
at
the
School.
Chemist
with
the
relevant
findings
of
an
inspection
conditioning
system
was
unable
to
dehumidify
the
School
properly.
regarding
her
classroom,
which
confirmed
the
presence
of
all
times,
health problems.
the
Board
was
aware
of
Hoods
increasing
By late
in
further
the
informed
School,
Hood
she
that,
would
if
she
continue
did
to
The
not
stop
require
many
were
washed
more
frequently
7
than
they
had
been
previously.
initially
may
have
removed
some
mold,
the
repeated
washing
Even
though
Hoods
classroom
had
been
cleaned
now
takes
several
allergy
medications,
and
expects
in
to
her
Hood,
the
classroom
presence
of
excessive
was
an
isolated
not
mold
and
incident.
Instead, she alleges that the School had a long history of water
leaks
and
inadequate
Further,
Hood
condition
of
stated
the
attention
that
School,
the
and
to
maintenance
defendants
of
the
were
health
problems.
aware
risks
of
that
the
mold
an
amended
exposed
to
complaint,
excessive
Hood
levels
contended
of
mold
that
and
she
had
bacteria
in
been
her
reactions
and
respiratory
difficulties.
Hood
also
concealing
mold.
the
harmful
effects
of
excessive
moisture
and
defendants
filed
motion
to
dismiss
Hoods
amended
II.
The
district
court
characterized
Hoods
claims
as
court
requirement.
concluded
that
Hood
failed
to
Id.
The
meet
this
Id. at 602.
Supreme
Courts
decision
in
Collins
v.
City
of
Harker
Heights, 503 U.S. 115 (1992), a case in which a 1983 claim was
brought on behalf of a city sanitation employee who had died
from asphyxia while trying to repair a sewer line.
760 F. Supp. 2d at 601-02.
See Hood,
Id.
Id. at 126.
federal
obligation
upon
10
municipalities
to
provide
court
the
facts
concluded
Collins precedent.
alleged
that
in
her
Hoods
claim
complaint,
falls
within
the
the
Although
See
in
very
limited
circumstances,
such
as
when
minors
are
Thornton, 604 F.3d 464, 466-68 (7th Cir. 2010) (minors claim of
molestation against government official); Jones v. Wellham, 104
F.3d 620, 628 (4th Cir. 1997) (womans claim of rape against
police officer); Doe v. Taylor Ind. Sch. Dist., 15 F.3d 443,
450-52
(5th
Cir.
1994)
(en
banc)
(students
claim
of
sexual
abuse against teacher); Hall v. Tawney, 621 F.2d 607, 609 (4th
Cir.
1980)
(childs
claim
against
teacher
that
paddling
in
The district
court concluded that Hood had provided neither factual nor legal
11
support
for
the
extension
of
substantive
due
process
to
the
Id. at 602.
that
bodily
the
defendants
integrity
constitutional
was
right.
not
violated
a
Id.
her
liberty
cognizable
Accordingly,
interest
violation
the
district
of
in
a
court
concluded that Hood had failed to state a claim for which relief
could
be
granted
under
motion to dismiss.
Id.
1983,
and
granted
the
defendants
Hood appeals.
III.
We review de novo a district courts ruling on a motion to
dismiss
an
action
under
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
12(b)(6).
Nemet
Co., Inc., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation
marks omitted).
12
Giarratano
v.
Johnson,
521
F.3d
298,
302
(4th
Cir.
2008)
(internal
that,
in
the
present
case,
the
defendants
engaged
in
We find no
merit in this distinction and agree with the district court that
Collins is dispositive of Hoods claim, because Hoods injury,
as
alleged,
workplace
classroom.
was
due
to
caused
mold
by
the
growth
and
dangerous
excessive
condition
of
her
humidity
in
her
the workplace.
in
dispositive
Collins
is
of
Hoods
described
claim.
We
complaint,
based
on
the
reasons
well
stated
by
the
district court.
AFFIRMED
14