Lee Ann McKay v. Nicole Patino, David Marder, University of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences System, Psychological Resources, Ltd., Jennifer Schulz, Brian Helmold, Hector Arellano, and George Lauder

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted motions to dismiss filed by the UIH and City defendants in Lee Ann McKay’s employment-related action. The court held that the complaint failed to state a viable constitutional or conspiracy claim, and that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity concerning the challenged pulmonary function testing. The court dismissed the federal and supplemental state-law claims without prejudice and granted leave to amend by January 9, 2026, while requiring more specific allegations concerning each defendant’s personal involvement.

Holdings

1. The allegations that investigators came to Plaintiff's home and asked questions, without more, did not state a Fourth Amendment search or seizure.
2. Plaintiff failed to state a Fourth Amendment claim based on the psychological evaluation and questioning because a psychological evaluation is not a Fourth Amendment search.
3. The court did not hold that the pulmonary-function testing was constitutionally reasonable as a matter of law; it concluded that Plaintiff could proceed past the pleading issue because the reasonableness question required balancing the intrusion against legitimate governmental interests and was not settled by binding precedent.
4. The individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because Plaintiff did not identify an analogous case clearly establishing that the pulmonary-function testing ordered under these circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment, and the alleged violation was not patently obvious.
5. The § 1983 conspiracy claim failed because Plaintiff did not state a viable underlying constitutional claim, and § 1983 does not provide an independent conspiracy cause of action absent an actual denial of a civil right.
6. Any equal-protection claim was deemed waived or forfeited because Plaintiff did not meaningfully assert or defend it in response to Defendants' argument.
7. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice.
8. The complaint was deficient to the extent it relied on collective allegations without specifying what each defendant personally did.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the alleged unannounced home visit and questioning by investigators constituted a Fourth Amendment search or seizure.
2. Whether the alleged psychological examination and questioning constituted a Fourth Amendment search.
3. Whether compelled pulmonary-function testing of a firefighter plausibly violated the Fourth Amendment.
4. Whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged unlawfulness of the testing was not clearly established.
5. Whether the complaint stated a viable § 1983 conspiracy claim absent an underlying constitutional violation.
6. Whether any Fourteenth Amendment equal-protection claim was adequately asserted and preserved.
7. Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims.
8. Whether the complaint's group pleading failed to provide each defendant fair notice of the conduct attributed to that defendant.

Disposition

dismissed