## Facts

- T.H., a profoundly disabled minor student, attended a special-education classroom taught by Diana O’Neill for several years.
- T.H. was blind, non-verbal, wheelchair-bound, had the intellect of a one-year-old, and suffered seizures.
- Surgeons had removed part of T.H.’s brain, leaving a soft and highly sensitive area on her skull; O’Neill knew of this vulnerability.
- Two classroom aides reported multiple incidents of alleged physical mistreatment by O’Neill, including:
  - ripping dry skin from T.H.’s severely chapped lips, causing bleeding;
  - jamming spoons into T.H.’s gums during feeding, causing bleeding;
  - placing O’Neill’s thumb deep into T.H.’s mouth and down her throat to stop thumb-sucking, causing gagging and cries of pain; and
  - backhanding T.H. on the sensitive soft spot on her head after a feeding exercise.
- The aides reported the conduct to school officials; O’Neill’s employment was terminated.
- O’Neill was criminally charged under state law and later acquitted.
- T.H.’s parents sued O’Neill under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a violation of T.H.’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights.
- A magistrate judge denied O’Neill’s summary-judgment motion asserting qualified immunity; O’Neill filed an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence in the plaintiffs’ favor, O’Neill’s alleged conduct constituted arbitrary, conscience-shocking physical abuse violating substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Whether the asserted right was clearly established such that O’Neill was not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary-judgment stage.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity.
- Accepting the plaintiffs’ version of the facts, the court held a reasonable jury could find O’Neill’s conduct unnecessary, disproportionate, and motivated by frustration rather than any legitimate educational, disciplinary, or safety purpose.
- The court held the asserted right was clearly established at the time, so qualified immunity was unavailable on the summary-judgment record.
- The court emphasized the limited posture of interlocutory review and that it could not resolve factual disputes.

## Legal Principles

- A public school employee’s intentional use of excessive force against a student can violate substantive due process when it is arbitrary, lacks a legitimate pedagogical or disciplinary justification, and is sufficiently brutal, demeaning, or harmful to “shock the conscience.”
- In qualified-immunity analysis, courts ask (1) whether the plaintiff’s version of the facts shows a constitutional violation and (2) whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable official would have known the conduct was unlawful.
- On interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity at summary judgment, the court must accept the nonmovant’s evidence-supported version of the facts and may not weigh credibility or resolve evidentiary conflicts.
- Existing circuit precedent can clearly establish that severe, unjustified physical abuse of a student by school personnel violates substantive due process, including where the student is especially vulnerable and the force has no legitimate purpose.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit held that, on the plaintiffs’ version of events, a teacher’s severe and unjustified physical mistreatment of a profoundly disabled student could be found conscience-shocking and unconstitutional, and that this prohibition was clearly established; accordingly, the teacher was not entitled to qualified immunity at summary judgment.


Hatfield v. O’Neill, 534 F. App’x 838 (11th Cir. 2013)