Lightfoot v. Richmond Public Schools et al
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/11/2017. (nbrow)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
~ ~, ~ rrv1
~ Ir-·-------11111
AUG I I ~lllf J:V
;
l _ ______ _J
FERNANDO LIGHTFOOT,
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND, VA
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 3:16cv910
RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This
matter
is
before
HUDSONS'S MOTION TO DISMISS
the
Court
(ECF No.
on
27).
DEFENDANT
DAVID
For the reasons set
forth below, the motion will be granted.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Fernando Lightfoot
No.
1)
on November 14,
against
several
("Lightfoot")
2016.
filed
the COMPLAINT
(ECF
Lightfoot alleged several claims
individuals
affiliated
with
Linwood
Holton
Elementary School.
The
parties
in
this
case
pretrial conference on April
review of the COMPLAINT
MOTION TO DISMISS
previously
19,
(ECF No.
(ECF No.
7),
2017.
2),
attended
an
initial
Based on the Court's
DEFENDANT DAVID HUDSON'S
the MOTION TO DISMISS 1
(ECF No.
The Motion to Dismiss was filed on behalf of the School Board
for the City of Richmond ("RPS"), Kimberly Gray ("Gray"),
1
12),
and
the
supporting
and
opposing
memoranda,
the
Court
determined that the Complaint did not adequately set forth which
claims
were
presented
against
which
defendants
nor
did
the
Complaint set forth plausible claims within the meaning of Bell
Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
U.S.
662
dismiss,
(2009).
and
Therefore,
dismissed
the
(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 550
the Court granted the motions to
Complaint
in
its
entirety without
prejudice.
Lightfoot filed an AMENDED COMPLAINT
10, 2017.
(ECF No.
23)
on May
The Amended Complaint names the following individuals
as defendants 2 :
Richmond Public Schools ("RPS")
3,
Dana T. Bedden
individually and in her official capacity as a member of the RPS
Board,
Kristen Larson
("Larson"),
individually and in her
official capacity as a member of the RPS Board, Donald Coleman
("Coleman"), individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the RPS Board, Jeffrey Bourne ("Bourne"), individually
and in his official capacity as a member of the RPS Board, Derik
Jones ("Jones"), individually and in his official capacity as a
member of the RPS Board,
Glen Sturtevant
("Sturtevant"),
individually and in his official capacity as a member of the RPS
Board,
Dana T.
Bedden
("Bedden),
individually and in his
official capacity as Superintended at Richmond Public Schools,
and Anthony Leonard
("Leonard"),
individually and in his
official capacity as Executive Director of Elementary Schools at
Richmond Public Schools.
2
The Plaintiff did not include several individuals whom he had
previously included as Defendants in the original complaint.
In the original Complaint, Lightfoot incorrectly identified one
of the Defendants as Richmond Public Schools ("RPS") .
The
Defendant corrected the Plaintiff's error in the original motion
to dismiss, highlighting that the proper name for the Defendant
is the School Board of the City of Richmond.
Plaintiff
Lightfoot has continued to identify the Defendant with the
3
2
("Bedden"),
Amended
individually,
Complaint
violation
of
sets
Title
and David Hudson,
forth
VII,
six
and,
individually.
claims.
COUNT
although
it
1
is
The
asserts
described
a
as
"Hudson's Sexual Harassment of Lightfoot," the count is alleged
only against RPS.
(AC,
Title
although
VII,
and,
Retaliation
Against
<][
COUNT 2 asserts a violation of
23) •
it
Lightfoot
is
described
Because
He
Rejected
described
as
Lightfoot' s
Assistant
against
RPS.
Hudson
for
Employment
"Retaliation
(AC,
Hudson's
Contract.
Hudson
Principal
<][
36).
COUNT
5,
4
it
Interference
Nonrenewal
is
asserts
<][
31) .
al though it is
Recommends
Position,"
Tortious
COUNT
and,
Hudson's
(AC,
Sexual Overtures," it is alleged only against RPS.
COUNT 3 asserts a violation of Title VII,
"Hudson's
as
a
only
of
alleged
claim against
with
Lightfoot's
RPS
and Bedden,
alleged against
challenges Bedden's Decision to Nonrenew Lightfoot's Contract as
a violation of Lightfoot' s
Due Process Rights.
COUNT
6,
also
alleged against RPS and Bedden, asserts Bedden's Failure to Give
Lightfoot an Opportunity to Respond as a denial of Lightfoot' s
Procedural Due Process Rights.
The general language in Hudson's motion to dismiss reads as
if
the Amended Complaint
Hudson.
However,
asserts
more
than
one
claim against
Hudson's brief only seeks dismissal of COUNT
improper name and the acronym RPS.
For purposes of this
Opinion, the Court will continue to refer to the Defendant as
"RPS".
3
4,
the
Tortious
Interference
by
Hudson
with
Lightfoot' s
Employment Contract which is the only claim against Hudson.
deciding the motion to dismiss,
the facts,
as alleged,
4
In
must be
taken as true.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The Amended Complaint alleges that,
Lightfoot worked as a
School
("RPS") .
in the summer of 2014,
school counselor for the Richmond Public
(AC,
<][
12).
Hudson
was,
and
Principal of Linwood Holton Elementary School.
the
summer
Lightfoot
of
and
"Lightfoot
2014,
during
stated
that
told
Hudson
a
track
Lightfoot
that
he
Id. at <][ 11.
meet,
Hudson
looked
was
remains,
In
approached
familiar.
currently
the
Id.
seeking
an
administrative position and Hudson responded that he was seeking
to appoint an assistant principal at Holton Elementary and that
Lightfoot should send him his
resume."
Id.
at <][ 14.
"Hudson
told Lightfoot that his lack of experience and training did not
matter to him because he would mentor and teach him everything
that he needed to know and that he would develop Lightfoot into
a principal in two to three years."
Hudson
("Leonard"),
4
subsequently
the
Assistant
Id. at <][ 17.
recommended
Superintendent
to
of
Anthony
Leonard
RPS,
Dana
and
T.
Hudson's motion and briefs are about as difficult to fathom as
is Lightfoot's Amended Complaint,
but,
given a
reasonable
construction, Hudson's briefs attack only COUNT 4 of the Amended
Complaint.
4
Bedden
("Bedden"),
considered
for
Elementary.
with
the
Id.
Hudson's
lacked
the Superintendent of RPS,
position
at
19.
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date: August _lJ_, 2017
12
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?