Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from liability under Section 1983 when their discretionary acts do not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. In Chadwell v. Brewer, No. 2:14-CV-00003 (W.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2014), a federal district court concluded that qualified immunity insulated from liability school district employees who hid a video camera in a teddy bear in order to monitor a teacher suspected of drinking on the job.
Kelly Chadwell was a special education teacher in Lee County, Virginia from 2003 until his termination last year. For the final two years of his employment Chadwell worked at Jonesville Middle School, where he occupied a secluded office at the end of a dead-end hallway. He shared the office with a teacher’s aide whose use of the space was limited.
Principal Lisa Brewer suspected that Chadwell was drinking on the job and obtained approval to place a video camera in Caldwell’s office. The footage confirmed Brewer’s suspicions: Chadwell was seen drinking a can of beer at his desk. Brewer and School Superintendent Mark Carter confronted Chadwell about the drinking and demanded that he sign a last chance agreement or be terminated. The agreement required Chadwell to, among other things, take part in an alcohol rehabilitation treatment program and grant the County access to his treatment records. When the records showed that Chadwell did not complete the treatment program, he was fired.
Chadwell sued 10 individual defendants and the County, alleging violations of his constitutional rights and the Family and Medical Leave Act. Specifically, Chadwell claimed that the individual defendants violated his Fourth Amendment rights by placing the hidden video camera in his office. He sought reinstatement and monetary damages.
Ruling on defendants’ motions to dismiss, the court concluded that Chadwell’s damages claim failed because the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. In order to overcome immunity, Chadwell was required to show that the defendants violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Whether a work-related search conducted by a supervisor violates the Fourth Amendment depends on a balancing between the invasion of an “employee’s legitimate expectations of privacy and the government’s need for supervision, control, and the efficient operation of the workplace.” O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717 (1987). A government official is entitled to qualified immunity unless the facts show that the official’s conduct violated a constitutional right and the right violated was clearly established when the violation occurred.
The court found that Chadwell had a “tempered” expectation of privacy given his shared office space, the nature of the school environment, and the location of his office. While he had some degree of an expectation of privacy, the officials’ use of the video camera was reasonable: Brewer’s suspicion that Chadwell was drinking on the job gave reasonable grounds for suspecting that the video camera would produce evidence of Chadwell’s work-related misconduct. “The court finds it difficult to believe that a hidden video camera, used over a limited period of time to confirm or deny Defendants’ particularized suspicion regarding Chadwell drinking alcohol on the job, would violate Chadwell’s constitutional rights – particularly given Chadwell’s ‘significant responsibilities’ as a special education teacher and the correspondingly ‘severe’ consequences that could result from his misconduct.”
The court concluded that the individual defendants’ actions did not clearly violate Chadwell’s Fourth Amendment rights and, consequently, they were entitled to qualified immunity.