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.

<j[

request

classroom

of

assistant

principal

at

Holton

"Leonard and Bedden did not agree

pointing

and

that Lightfoot be

out

to

supervisory

Hudson

that

experience

Lightfoot

during

his

employment with RPS."

Id.

insistent

Bedden and Leonard reluctantly approved

[and]

the appointment."

Id. at

at

<j[<j[

20.

<j[

"Hudson was resolute and

21-22.

"During the first week of September 2014, which was at the
start of the 2014-2015 school year",
was intently gazing at his crotch."

Lightfoot noticed "Hudson
Id.

at

<j[

24.

Hudson said

to Lightfoot, "I have expensive taste -[sic] you need to take me
to the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, DC."

Id. at

<j[

25.

Lightfoot

decided not to respond to Hudson's sexually suggestive comment,
for

fear

position."

that

"any

Id. at

response

27.

<j[

would

have

jeopardized

his

Lightfoot alleges that Hudson made at

least ten or more sexually suggestive comments to him after the
first

incident,

dinner?'"
"When

"such as,

Id. at
it

<j[

'when

are

to

Hudson

became

Lightfoot's

going to

take me

to

29.
clear

interested in his sexual overtures,
punish

you

rejection

of

that

Lightfoot

was

not

Hudson began a campaign to
his

sexual

overtures

created for Lightfoot a hostile work environment."

Id. at

which
<j[

33.

"In the last week of August, 2014, Hudson gave Lightfoot a list
5

of i terns to complete but did not specify the time in which he
expected

the

Lightfoot

list

did not

to

be

completed."

finish

responded that he felt

the

tasks

Id.

at

by the

c:II

36 (a).

next week,

When
"Hudson

that a week was ample time to complete

the list. When Lightfoot explained that he needed more time and
help to complete the list, Hudson replied, "I can't evaluate you
if I don't know what you can do."
of

2014,

Lightfoot

museum field

asked

trip but

Hudson

Id. at
for

help

c:II

36(c).

In November

regarding

a

"Hudson refused and told Lightfoot

he, Hudson, needed to see what he, Lightfoot, could do."
c:II

36(e).

the

that

Id. at

On another occasions, Hudson told Lightfoot "to revise

cafeteria

schedule

and

adjust the lunch times."
tenure

science

in his position,

rearrange

Id. at

c:II

the

36(f).

Lightfoot did not

cafeteria tables

and

Because of his short
know the details to

complete this task and "Hudson offered Lightfoot no assistance
with regard to this task."
On

February

Lightfoot,

9,

Id.

2015,

Hudson

delivered

a

regarding an "IEP" meeting on February 4,

letter

to

2015 "which

Lightfoot inadvertently failed to attend because he was at the
University of Richmond attending a Leadership Academy meeting."
(AC,

c:II

37).

The

letter

indicated

that

Hudson

was

about Lightfoot's performance as assistant principal.
In

response

to

the

letter,

Lightfoot

concerned
Id.

requested a

meeting

with Leonard in order to "advise him of Hudson's treatment and
6

to seek his advice."

Id. at !

38.

Lightwood did not reveal to

Leonard the alleged harassment by Hudson but instead described
the "other" treatment by Hudson.

Id. at !

41.

Leonard advised

Lightfoot that Hudson had already spoken with him prior to the
meeting and Hudson told Leonard about Lightfoot missing the IEP
meeting.

Id.

at !

40.

Leonard subsequently called Hudson and

explained that "Hudson had fought

to get Lightfoot hired" and

therefore "Hudson now had to mentor and train Lightfoot . .

"

Id. ! 42.
The next day,
"Oh,

Hudson made a comment to Lightfoot stating,

you went to Dr.

did not respond.

Leonard to tell on me" to which Lightfoot

Id. at !

The following day,

43.

Lightfoot he was going to "non-renew" him,
"Trust me, I will get you."
In March 2015,

Hudson told

and told Lightfoot

Id. at ! ! 43-44.

Hudson recommended to Bedden that,

because

of "alleged performance problems" Lightfoot be non-renewed as an
assistant

principal

for

the

2015-2016

Id.

year.

at

!

46.

"Hudson turned over to HR several letters which he claimed he
Id. at !

gave to Lightfoot at the time they were written."
One of the letters,

dated September

9,

2014,

47.

reflect Hudson's

concerns that "Lightfoot was not meeting his timelines and that
his

productivity

Lightfoot

was

"concedes

in

that

need
he

of

evaluation."

received"

Id.

the letter;

at!

however,

alleges that "Hudson falsely claimed Lightfoot signed it."
7

48.
he
Id.

Hudson also turned over two other letters, one from November 24,
2014 and one from February 9,

2015.

never received either letter.

These letters were also critical

of Lightfoot's performance.

Lightfoot alleges that he

at~~

Id.

52-55.

ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF LAW

A

motion

challenges

to

the

dismiss

legal

under

sufficiency

Alternative Resources Corp.,

Fed.
of

R.

a

Civ.

P.

complaint.

458 F. 3d 332,

338

12(b) (6)
Jordan

v.

(4th Cir. 2006).

When deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12 (b) ( 6) ,

a court

must "draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff."
Nemet
250,

Chevrolet,
253

(4th Cir.

pleader's
that

Ltd.

Consumeraffairs.com,

2009).

description

can be

v.

of

While
what

reasonably drawn

the

happened"
therefrom,"

and
the

591

F.3d

"will

court

Inc.,

accept

the

"any

conclusions

court

"need not

accept conclusory allegations encompassing the legal effects of
the

pleaded

facts."

Charles

A.

Wright

Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1357

Old Dominion Sec.

Co.,

*4 (E.D. Va. 2014).

L.L.C.,

No.

&

Arthur

R.

Miller,

(3d ed.1998); Chamblee v.

3: 13CV820,

2014 WL 1415095,

Nor is the Court required to accept as true

a legal conclusion unsupported by factual allegations.

Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
Hudson
alleged

challenges

tortious

several reasons.

the

legal

interference

sufficiency

with

of

Lightfoot's

Each will be considered in turn.
8

COUNT

4

(the

contract)

for

A.

Whether
Alleged

There

Was

A

Contract

And

Whether

"It is well-settled in Virginia that,

A

Breach

Is

to establish a prima

facie claim for tortious interference with contract, a plaintiff
must plead the following elements:
contractual

( 1)

relationship or business

the existence of a valid
expectancy;

( 2)

knowledge

of that contractual relationship or business expectancy on the
part of the interferer;
causing

a

breach

expectancy;

and

relationship

or

termination
resultant

( 4)

or

( 3) intentional interference inducing or

expectancy

Patient First Corp.,

the

damage

has

207 F.

of

been

Supp.

to

relationship
the

party

447

whose

Storey

disrupted."

2d 431,

or

(E.D.

Va.

v.

2002);

Chaves v. Johnson, 230 Va. 112 (1985).
Hudson
allege

first

the

contract,

argues

existence

of

that
a

the

Amended

contract

and

Complaint
a

fails

breach

of

to

that

thereby asserting the absence of the first and third

elements of a tortious interference with contract claim.

Hudson

says, "[t]o the extent the Plaintiff is relying on an employment
contract with the School Board,
of

its

actual

Dismiss") (ECF

terms."
No.

28).

he has not identified a breach

("Memorandum
To

in

determine

tortious interference with a contract,

Support

whether

Lightfoot,

in making his

there

was

to
a

it is first necessary to

determine whether a contract did in fact exist.
that

Motion

claim for

tortious

Hudson posits
interference

with a contract, seems to be relying on the terms of a supposed
9

contract

created between

because

the

"singularly

Amended

Complaint

responsible

contract.

Hence,

Lightfoot

for

it does

and

the

School

Board,

RPS,

that

Hudson

was

asserts

creating"

appear that

the

assistant

principal

the contract with which

Hudson is alleged to have tortuously interfered was the contract
by which Hudson was employed as Assistant Principal.
That
pursuant

is
to

a

probationary

which

a

teacher

cbntract
who

has

under

not

Virginia

achieved

law,

continuing

contract status is entitled to a contract for the ensuing school
year,

if the teacher has not received the appropriate notice of

nonrenewal.

Va.

Code Ann.

§

The

22 .1-304.

statute

provides

that "written notice of nonrenewal of the probationary contract
must be given by the school board on or before June 15 of each
year."

Once

a

teacher

has

completed the

he/she is entitled to a continuing contract.
The Amended Complaint

alleges

that

probationary period,
Id.

Lightfoot was

employed

as a new assistant principal at Linwood Holton Elementary.
as described,
Thus,

And,

Lightfoot was employed as a probationary teacher.

upon notification that his probationary contract would not

be renewed,

the original contract expired at the end of its one

year term and was not susceptible of being renewed.
assistant

principal,

Lightfoot' s

probationary

As a new

contract

continue if he was notified that it would not be renewed.

10

did not

Relying on Pettis v.
158, 160

(4th Cir.

Nottoway Cty.

a

nonrenewal

of

a

education is tantamount to a
30) .

592 F. App'x

termination and a nonrenewal

contract

at

least

within

contract termination."

public

(ECF No.

The unpublished decision by the Fourth Circuit does not

support Lightfoot's position.
VII

Bd.,

2014), Lightfoot attempts to show that there

is no real distinction between a
"because

Sch.

claim,

contract.

not

a

claim

The claim in Pettis was a Title

for

tortious

interference

with

a

Throughout the opinion, the Fourth Circuit refers to

the decision by the defendant schoolboard as the "nonrenewal of
[Pettis' s]

contract,"

concluded

that

action,
contract.
The
finding

not

the

that

not

a

non-renewal

the

The

termination.
was

non-renewal

"an

was

Fourth

adverse

the

Circuit

employment

termination

of

a

Pettis is neither controlling nor persuasive here.
Amended
that

susceptible of

Complaint

Lightfoot

provides

had

a

interference. 5

allege the breach of a contract.

no

plausible

contract
Nor does

with

basis

RPS

for

that

a

was

the Amended Complaint

For this reason alone, COUNT 4

will be dismissed.

Nor does the Amended Complaint allege the elements of a claim
for interference with a business or contract expectancy.
11

5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,
MOTION TO DISMISS

(ECF No.

27)

DEFENDANT DAVID HUDSONS'S

will be granted and COUNT 4 will

be dismissed with prejudice.
It is so ORDERED.

/s/

/2[,f>

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date: August _lJ_, 2017

12