Hess v. Abels, et al, No. 12-3211 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseThe City terminated plaintiff's employment after she refused a state trooper's request to take a drug test. Plaintiff sued the City and others, claiming that she was terminated in retaliation for her decision to exercise her Fourth Amendment rights. Even assuming the termination violated plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights, it was not clearly established at the time of the incident that such an action was unconstitutional, and therefore defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also agreed with the district court that plaintiff's remaining federal claims failed to allege a constitutional violation. The court further held that the district court properly dismissed the official capacity claims and the claims against the City where plaintiff failed to allege facts indicating that the City delegated final policymaking authority to the officials. Finally, because plaintiff did not explain why her Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-105(a), claims warranted separate analysis, the district court did not err in dismissing the ACRA claims alongside the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Civil case - Employment law. In action brought by an city employee who was terminated after refusing to take a drug test, the district court did not err in granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as it was not clearly established at the time of the termination that such an action violated an employee's Fourth Amendment rights; plaintiff's Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment claims failed to allege a constitutional violation; the district court properly dismissed the official capacity claims against the individual defendant and the claims against the City; no error in dismissing claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.