Lightfoot v. Richmond Public Schools et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See for complete details. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 08/11/2017. (nbrow)

rr

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

u

rr ~

FERNANDO LIGHTFOOT,

Q;

11

v.

Civil Action No. 3:16cv910

RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on the MOTION TO DISMISS

Board

for

the

(ECF No.

City

of

25),

filed by Defendants the School

Richmond

("RPS")

and

Dana

T.

Bedden

For the reasons set

( "Bedden") (collectively the "Defendants") .
forth below, the motion will be granted.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Fernando
COMPLAINT
several

("Lightfoot")

Lightfoot

(ECF No.
claims

1)

on November 14,

against

multiple

filed
2016.

individuals

his

original

Lightfoot alleged
affiliated

with

Linwood Holton Elementary School.
The

parties

in

this

conference on April 19,
the COMPLAINT

2~~-l~j
_

_J

CLERK, U.S. DIST;-=t!CT COURT
RICHMOND, VA

Plaintiff,

AMENDED COMPLAINT

~ r-n~ 1

(ECF No.

case

2017.
2),

attended

the

initial

pretrial

Based on the Court's review of

DEFENDANT

DAVID HUDSON'S MOTION TO

DISMISS

( ECF No.

7) ,

the MOTION TO DISMISS 1

and the supporting and opposing memoranda,
that

the

Complaint

did

were

presented against

not

adequately

which defendants

(ECF

( ECF No.

12) ,

the Court determined

set
nor

forth

which

did the

claims

Complaint

set forth plausible claims within the meaning of Bell Atlantic
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2009).

(2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 550 U.S. 662

Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants' motions to

dismiss, and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice.
Lightfoot refiled 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

The Motion to Dismiss was filed by the School Board for the
City of Richmond ("RPS") , Kimberly Gray ("Gray") , 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.
1

Lightfoot did not include in the Amended Complaint several
individuals whom he had previously included as Defendants in the
original complaint.

2

In the original Complaint, Lightfoot incorrectly identified one
of the Defendants as Richmond Public Schools ("RPS").
The
3

2

( "Bedden") ,

individually,

Amended Complaint
violation

of

sets

Title

and David Hudson,

forth

VII,

six

and,

individually.
COUNT

claims.

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

<JI

COUNT 2 asserts a violation of

23) •

it

Lightfoot

described

is

Because

He

Rejected

described

as

Lightfoot' s
against

RPS.

Hudson

for

"Retaliation

Assistant
(AC,
Hudson's

Employment Contract.

Hudson

Principal
<JI

Tortious
COUNT

5,

4

it

Interference

Nonrenewal
is

asserts

<JI

31) .

al though it is

Recommends

Position,"

COUNT

36) .

and,

Hudson's

(AC,

Sexual Overtures," it is alleged only against RPS.
COUNT 3 asserts a violation of Title VII,

"Hudson's

as

a

of

only 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.

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.
Lightfoot has
continued to identify that Defendant with the improper name and
the acronym RPS.
For purposes of this Opinion, the Court will
continue to refer to that Defendant as "RPS".
3

All
By

Defendants

separate

filed their respective motions to dismiss.

Memorandum

Opinion

and

Order,

the

Court

granted

DEFENDANT DAVID HUDSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO 27).
In the summer

The Amended Complaint provides as follows:

of 2014, Lightfoot worked as a school counselor for the Richmond
(AC, ! 12).

Public School ("RPS").

David Hudson ("Hudson") was

and remains the Principal of Linwood Holton Elementary School.
Id. at ! 11.
In

the

summer

of

2014,

during

a

track

meet,

Hudson

approached Lightfoot and stated that Lightfoot looked familiar.
Id.

"Lightfoot

told Hudson that

he was

currently 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."

Id. at ! 17.

Hudson subsequently recommended Lightfoot for the assistant
principal

position

("Leonard") ,
Bedden

at

Holton

the Assistant

( "Bedden") ,

the

Elementary

to

Superintendent of

Superintendent

of

Anthony
RPS,

RPS.

Leonard

and Dana T.
Id.

at

!

19.

"Leonard and Bedden did not agree with Hudson's request pointing
out

to Hudson that

Lightfoot

lacked classroom and supervisory
4

experience
"Hudson

during

was

his

resolute

employment
and

with

Id.

RPS."

insistent

20.
and

Id. at ':II':II 21-22.

"During the first week of September 2014,
start of the 2014-2015 school year",

':II

Bedden

[and]

Leonard reluctantly approved the appointment."

which was at the

Lightfoot noticed "Hudson

was intently gazing at his crotch."
to Lightfoot,

at

Id.

Hudson said

at ':II 24.

"I have expensive taste - you need to take me to

the Ritz-Carlton in Washington,

DC."

Id.

decided not to respond to Hudson's comment,
response would have

Lightfoot

at ':II 25.

for fear that "any
Id.

jeopardized his position."

at

':II

27.

Lightfoot alleges that Hudson made at least ten or more sexually
suggestive comments to him after the first

incident,

'when are you going to take me to dinner?'"

Id. at ':II 29.

"When

it

became

clear

to

Hudson

interested in his sexual overtures,
punish

Lightfoot's

rejection

of

that

Lightfoot

was

not

Hudson began a campaign to
his

sexual

overtures

created for Lightfoot a hostile work environment."
"In the last week of August,

"such as,

which

Id. at ':II 33.

2014, Hudson gave Lightfoot a list

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

list

Lightfoot did not

to

be

finish

completed."
the

Id.

tasks by the

at

':II

36(a).

next week,

When
"Hudson

responded that he felt 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
5

if I don't know what you can do."
of

2014,

Lightfoot

Id. at

asked Hudson

museum field trip but "Hudson

for

<J[

help

In November

36(c).
regarding

a

refused and told Lightfoot that

he, Hudson, needed to see what he, Lightfoot, could do."
<J[

36(e).

the

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

<J[

the

cafeteria tables

36(f).

and

Because of his short

Lightfoot did not

know the details to

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

February

Lightfoot,

9,

Id.
Hudson

2015,

delivered

a

letter

to

regarding an "IEP" meeting on February 4, 2015 "which

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

Compl.

<J[

3 7) .

The

letter

indicated

that

Hudson

was

concerned about Lightfoot's performance as assistant principal.
Id.
In

response

to

the

letter,

Lightfoot

requested a

meeting

with Leonard in order to "advise him of Hudson's treatment and
to seek his advice."

Id. at

<J[

38.

Lightwood did not reveal to

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

Id.

at

<J[

41.

Leonard advised

Lightfoot that Hudson had already spoke with him prior to the
meeting and Hudson told Leonard about Lightfoot missing the IEP
6

meeting.

Id.

at

explained that

Leonard subsequently called Hudson and

40.

<JI

"Hudson had fought

to

get Lightfoot hired"

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

and
ff

.

42.

<JI

The next day,

Hudson made a comment to Lightfoot stating,

"[o]h, you went to Dr. Leonard to tell on me" to which Lightfoot
did not respond.

Id.

Lightfoot he was

at

going to

The following day,

43.

<JI

"non-renew" him,

"[t]rust me, I will get you."

Id. at

Hudson told

and told Lightfoot

43-44.

<J[<J[

In March 2015, Hudson recommended to Bedden that because of
"alleged performance

problems"

Lightfoot

be

Id.

assistant principal for the 2015-2016 year.
support his nonrenewal recommendation,
several
time

letters

which he

dated

September

"Lightfoot
productivity
Lightfoot

2014,

9,

was

not

was

at

need

that

his

of

he

46.

<JI

gave
47.

<JI

to

One of the

reflected

meeting

in

"concedes

Id.

at

as

Lightfoot

letter,

Hudson's
timelines

evaluation."

received"

Hudson

"saw

performance".
falsely

from November
certain
Id.

at

24,

the

2014,

deficiencies
<JI

Lightfoot

50.

represented" Lightfoot' s
7

"To

at

concerns
and
Id.

letter;

that
his

that
at

48.

<JI

however,

Lightfoot's

alleged

signature on this

that

he

Id.

warned Lightfoot
in

the

letters,

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

an

Hudson turned over to HR

claimed he

they were written."

non-renewed

that
job

"Hudson

letter,

and

that

Lightfoot

only

saw

the

recommendation in March.
dated February 9,

2015,

letter

after

Id. at <][<][ 52,

Hudson's

41. 4

nonrenewal

A similar letter,

from Hudson, was also turned over to HR

and included Lightfoot's signature.

Id. at<][<][ 53-54.

The AC alleges that Hudson's nonrenewal to Bedden violated
Leonard's

instructions

to

mentor

Id.

Lightfoot.

at

<][

55.

Furthermore, given the close proximity of the recommendation for
nonrenewal and Lightfoot's meeting with Leonard,

Leonard should

have known that the "nonrenewal recommendation by Hudson clearly
constituted
Lightfoot' s
Lightfoot

retaliation
meeting

alleges

on

with

that

March

23,

Leonard

2015,

part

Leonard."

communications with Hudson".
"On

the

of

Id.

did not

at

Hudson
<][

because

Further,

56.

"advise

of

Bedden

of

his

Id. at<][ 57.
Lightfoot

submitted

a

grievance

to

Bedden challenging Hudson's recommendation for his nonrenewal to
the

position

explained

of

"in

assistant

his

principal."

rebuttal

that

Id.

at

37.

although

he

was

Lightfoot
given

the

September 9, 2014 letter, he never signed it" nor did he see the
letter

from

November

24,

2014

until

Hudson's nonrenewal recommendation.

after

he

was

noticed

Lightfoot also told Bedden

At this point in the Amended Complaint, i.e. paragraph
Plaintiff chose to re-start his numbering at paragraph 36.
purposes of this memorandum,
the Court will reference
paragraphs as numbered in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
4

8

of

57,
For
the

that the signatures on both the September and November letters
were

false.

Id.

at

Lightfoot's signature.
On April 16,
first

time

23,

would

sexual

Bedden

2015,
Id.

continue

at

<JI

43.

counselor

charges

position

a

principal

to

on

for

the

For the upcoming school

Lightfoot would be
not

decision

Bedden determined that

assistant

as

Bedden "decided that

school

harassment

"submitted

remainder of the 2014-2015 school year.
year,

forged

51.

<JI

Lightfoot's grievance."
Lightfoot

having

42.

<JI

Leonard his

Id. at

April

denied

Lightfoot met with Leonard and for the

"shared with

against Hudson."
On

Id. at

2015,

Hudson

41.

<JI

another

reassigned to a

assistant

principal

position and that he could apply for and be considered for any
positions
Bedden

that

also

he

was

granted

qualified

Lightfoot' s

to

hold."

request

to

Id.
be

at

further

43(b).

transferred

another school location for the remainder of the year.
Bedden ordered a

<JI

to

Finally,

investigation of the nonrenewal issue

by Leonard.

Id at

his decision,

Bedden did not address Lightfoot's allegation that

<JI

47(b).

Lightfoot alleges that in making

Hudson forged Lightfoot's signatures on the letters.
"On May 18, 2015, Lightfoot met with Bedden and Leonard and
reiterated

his

harassed him."

claims
Id. at

that
<JI

53.

Hudson

sexually

propositioned

and

At some point, Bedden retained the

law firm of "Sands Anderson to conduct an investigation of the
9

sexual

harassment

charges

Id.

against Hudson."

at

On

54.

<JI

June 4, 2015, the law firm issued a report to Bedden, concluding
that

"there

was

insufficient

evidence

to

support

claims of sexual harassment against Hudson".

Id. at

Lightfoot's
<JI

55.

On June 12, 2015, Bedden and Leonard met with Lightfoot and
Bedden did not

gave him a copy of the Sands Anderson Report.
provide

any

Lightfoot

details

had

Lightfoot

an

about

the

opportunity

alleges,

"was

to

report
respond

or
to

explain
the

especially

a [sic]

whether

report

critical

which,
because

Lightfoot was the first person interviewed by the investigators
who

shared

with

other

persons

interviewed

including

Hudson,

Lightfoot's claims and statements; and the investigators did not
go back to Lightfoot to
the

other

persons

share with him the

interviewed,

especially

version was at odds with his version."
alleges

that

respond,

he

because
was

denial evidence

he

"denied

was
the

not

given

opportunity

from telephone records

showed that between June 7,

Id.

statements made by
those
at
the

to

<JI

persons
60.

Lightfoot

opportunity
counter

[] ."

Id at

<JI

[]

to

Hudson's

in his possession which

2014 and August 15,

2014 there were

numerous telephone calls made from Lightfoot's cell phone
Holton Elementary School

whose

[]

to

and to and from Hudson's cell phone

62.

Lightfoot requests

relief in the form of reinstatement to

his former position as assistant principal,
10

back pay,

front pay

and

five

million dollars

for

pain and suffering,

humiliation,

embarrassment, and inconvenience.
ANALYSIS AND APPLICATION OF LAW

A

motion

challenges

to

the

dismiss

legal

under

sufficiency

Alternative Resources Corp.,

Fed.
of

R.

a

Civ.

P.

Jordan

complaint.

458 F. 3d 332,

338

12(b) (6)
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

pleader's
that

Ltd.

(4th Cir.

Consumeraffairs.com,
While

2009).

description

can be

v.

of

reasonably

what

drawn

the

court

happened"
therefrom,"

and
the

Inc.,

591

F.3d

"will

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.
*4

(E.D. Va. 2014).

Co.,

L.L.C.,

No.

& Arthur

R.

Miller,

(3d ed.1998); Chamblee v.

3: 13CV820,

2014 WL 1415095,

The court is not required to accept as true

a legal conclusion unsupported by factual allegations.

Ashcroft

v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009).
RPS and Bedden challenge Lightfoot's claim as to the counts
asserted against them,

specifically COUNTS 1,

Each will be addressed in turn.

11

2,

3,

5,

AND 6.

A.

The Amended Complaint Does Not Present a Plausible Claim
for a Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Title VII as
Alleged in Count 1

In

COUNT

1,

Lightfoot

alleges

that

"Hudson's

sexually

explicit overtures unreasonably interfered with Lightfoot's work
performance and created an intimidating,
work

environment."

unlawful

employment

discriminate

against

compensation,

terms,

because

of

such

~

(AC,

any

for

conditions,

42 U.S.C.

"To establish a

an

individual

individual's

national origin."

Title

30) . 5

practice

hostile,

or

race,

was

unwelcome,

sufficiently

severe

or

it

"an
to

with

respect

privileges
color,

of

to

[his]

employment,

religion,

sex,

or

2000e-2(a) (1).

§

Title VII

(2)

renders

employer

hostile work environment

based on sex, a plaintiff must show that
(1)

VII

and offensive

was

based

pervasive

to

on

claim

'the offending conduct
h[is]

alter

the

sex,

(3)

conditions

was
of

h[is] employment and create an abusive work environment, and (4)
was imputable to h[is] employer.'" Sonnier v. Diamond Healthcare
Corp.,

114

Ocheltree v.

F.

Supp.

3d

349,

Scallon Prods.,

355

Inc.,

(E.D.

Va.

335 F.3d 325,

2015)

(quoting

331

(4th Cir.

The conduct, as alleged in the Amended Complaint, provides that
Hudson,
a
male,
created a
hostile work environment
for
Lightfoot, another male, through his sexual overtures.
The
Supreme Court
has
explained "that
nothing
in Title VII
necessarily bars a claim of discrimination [] merely because the
plaintiff and the defendant (or the person charged with acting
on behalf of the defendant) are of the same sex."
Oncale v.
Sundowner Offshore Servs., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 79 (1998).
5

12

2003)) . RPS and Bedden first argue that the conduct complained
of

in

the

Amended

Complaint

is

not

sufficiently

severe

or

pervasive to constitute a violation of Title VII.
In

analyzing

Complaint,

it

the

is

allegations

necessary

to

presented
keep

in

in

the
that

mind

Amended
"[t]he

prohibition of harassment on the basis of sex requires neither
asexuality

nor

androgyny

in

the

workplace;

it

forbids

behavior so objectively offensive as to alter the
of

the

Servs.,

victim's
Inc.,

Oncale

employment."

523 U.S.

75,

81

v.

'conditions'

Sundowner

Further,

(1998).

only

Offshore

"the objective

severity of harassment should be judged from the perspective of
a reasonable person in the plaintiff's position, considering all
the

circumstances."

Supreme

Court

(internal

Id.

has

directed

citations

district

courts

frequency of the discriminatory conduct;

its

omitted) .

to

consider

severity;

The
"the

whether

it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive
utterance;

and

whether

it

unreasonably
Faragher v.

employee's work performance."
524 U.S. 775, 787-88 (1998)
As
meeting

alleged
in

Lightfoot' s

early

the

-

D.C."

with

an

City of Boca Raton,

(internal citations omitted).
Amended

September

crotch and,

expensive taste
Washington,

in

interferes

2014,

Complaint,
Hudson

while so doing,

in

looked

a

one-on-one
intently

Hudson said:

at

"I have

you need to take me to the Ritz-Carlton in
(AC,

<][<][

24-25).
13

Notwithstanding

the

Defendants'

contention

considered

at

the

to

the

pleading

contrary,
stage

as

this
a

comment

sexually

must

be

suggestive

remark.

The only other particulars offered in support of the

hostile

work

allegation

environment

that

"Hudson

claim

on

at

appear

least

in

ten

the

conclusory

or

more

subsequent

occasions made several sexually suggestive comments to Lightfoot
such as,

'when are you going to take me to dinner?'"

One sexually suggestive remark is not enough to constitute
See Smith v. First Union Nat. Bank,

a hostile work environment.
202 F.3d 234,

242

(4th Cir.

2000) ("A work environment consumed

by remarks that intimidate, ridicule, and maliciously demean the
status of women
hostile

as

[or men]
an

sexual.") (emphasis

can create an environment that is as

environment
added) .

And,

that
a

contains

unwanted

conclusory allegation that

there were "ten or more other sexually suggestive comments" does
not

satisfy

either

Twombly 6

or

Iqbal 7

especially

when

that

conclusory allegation is modified by the non-sexually suggestive
phrase such as,

"when are you going to take me to dinner?"

6

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

7

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

14

The

Twombly and Iqbal demand for plausibility cannot be satisfied by
such summary and conclusory allegations.
For the foregoing reasons, COUNT 1 is legally insufficient.
Lightfoot

has

been

afforded

leave

to

amend

and

has

presented a viable hostile work environment claim.

not

yet

He now must

suffer dismissal.
B.

The Amended Complaint does Not Present a Plausible Claim
for Any Title VII Relation Violations as to COUNTS 2 and 3

As
Violated
Lightfoot

to

COUNT

Title

2,

VII

because

Lightfoot
because

he

was

not

which

environment."

a

and

Bedden

sexual

against

overtures."

"[w] hen it became clear to Hudson that

interested

created

in

his

sexual

Hudson

rejection of his sexual

Lightfoot

for

overtures,

a

hostile

work

(AC, ! 33).

Under Title VII,
relation,

RPS

retaliate[ed]

Hudson's

began a campaign to punish Lightfoot' s
overtures

that

"Hudson[]

rejected

Lightfoot alleges that,
Lightfoot

alleges

in order to

plaintiff

must

demonstrate

engaged in protected activity,
action was taken against

show a prima facia

( 2)

that

[him], and (3)

that

"(1)

an adverse

case of

that

[]he

employment

that there was a causal

link between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action."

Laughlin v. Metro. Washington Airports Auth., 149 F.3d

253,

(4th Cir.

258

1998) .

"Protected activities fall into two

distinct categories: participation or opposition.
15

[] An employer

may not

retaliate against an employee

for participating in an

ongoing investigation or proceeding under Title VII, nor may the
employer take adverse employment action against an employee for
opposing

discriminatory

practices

in

the

workplace."

Id.

at

259.
The

Amended

Complaint

does

not

participated in a protected activity.
not

engage

Furthermore,

in

an

plead

Lightfoot

It is clear that he did

investigation

ongoing

that

proceeding.

or

Lightfoot did not oppose a discriminatory practice

in the workforce.
Opposition activity encompasses
utilizing
informal grievance procedures as well as
staging informal protests and voicing one's
opinions in order to bring attention to an
employer's discriminatory activities. []. To
determine whether an employee has engaged in
legitimate opposition activity we employ a
balancing test. []
We balance the purpose
of the Act to protect persons engaging
reasonably in activities opposing
discrimination,
against
Congress'
equally
manifest desire not to tie the hands of
employers in the objective selection and
control of personnel.
Laughlin,
Amended
Instead,

149

F. 3d at

Complaint
it

Lightfoot's

259

does

describes

(internal

not
conduct

performance,

describe

citations
any

omitted).

protected

by Hudson whereby he

including

Lightfoot's

complete a list of items in August 2014,

activity.
criticized

inability

Lightwood' s

The

to

inability

to organize a science museum field trip in November of 2014, and

16

j

-- -

Lightfoot' s

lack of experience in organizing the cafeteria and

lunch schedule.
plausible

For these reasons, the Court cannot find that a

Title

Lightfoot's

VII

claim

rejection

of

for

retaliation

Hudson's

exists

alleged

based

sexual

on

overtures.

COUNT 2 therefore will be dismissed.
As

to

3,

COUNT

Lightfoot

alleges

that

RPS

and

Bedden

violated Title VII based on Hudson's retaliation by recommending
non renewal
In

of

Lightfoot
2015,

inadvertently

missed

Leonard,

the

assistant

Lightfoot

February

for

explains

Assistant

During

the
this

an

meeting,

treatment of him as

"IEP"

Superintendent
"Lightfoot

Lightfoot

further

stated,

responded,
2015,

'I

he

was

never

at

going

lose,

I

recommended

that

the

recommendation

(AC,

win!'

Id.
of

of

c:!I

about

at

with
37).

leaving
Hudson
Hudson

him.

Lightfoot
c:!I

he

Hudson's

1-36],

'non-renew'

always

nonrenewal

meet

"The next day,

41.

to

to

RPS.

[paragraphs

c:!I

after

went

Leonard

'Do what you got to do'."

Hudson

believes

that

Id.

position.

that,

he
of

told

set forth above

out the sexual overtures."
told

meeting,

principal

then

In March

44.

Lightfoot.

Lightfoot

nonrenewal

constitutes

retaliation.
Even if Hudson did in fact "retaliate" against Lightfoot by
recommending

nonrenewal

about Hudson's treatment,
and

Bedden,

not

against

after

Lightfoot

complained

to

Leonard

Lightfoot alleges Count 3 against RPS
Hudson.

17

Therefore,

it

is

irrelevant

Nowhere in

whether Hudson was acting in a retaliatory manner.

the Amended Complaint does Lightfoot allege that RPS or Bedden
retaliated
admits

in

against
the

him

Amended

for

his

Further,

conduct.

Complaint

that

he

did

complain

to

Under the state of

Leonard about Hudson's "sexual overtures."
these pleadings,

not

Lightfoot

Lightfoot has failed to plead a key element of

a retaliation claim:

engagement in a protected activity.

Thus,

COUNT 3 is legally insufficient.
C.

The Amended Complaint does Not Present a Plausible Claim
for Any Due Process Violation as to COUNTS 5 and 6

In COUNT

5,

Lightfoot

Nonrenew

Lightfoot

Reliance

on

alleges

Lacked

Substantial

Questionable

Process Rights."

that

Documents

In COUNT 6,

"Bedden' s
Evidence

Denied

Decision to
and

Bedden's

Lightfoot's

Due

Lightfoot alleges that "Bedden' s

Failure to Give Lightfoot an Opportunity to Respond to the Sands
Anderson

Report

and

Relying

on

Procedural Due Process Rights."

the

Report

Denied

Lightfoot' s

In both instances, Lightfoot is

claiming a violation of his due process rights.
"In order to make

out

either a

subs tan ti ve or procedural

due process claim,

a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts

support

that

liberty,

a

finding
or

property,

Smith, 120 F.3d 500,

the
by

502

[he/she]

"[was]

governmental
(4th Cir.1997).

interest cannot be created by the
18

deprived

action."

of

to

life,

Beverati

v.

A protected property

Fourteenth Amendment itself,

but rather must be created or defined by an independent source."
Equity In Athletics ,
(4th Cir.

2011).

Inc .

v.

De p ' t

of Educ . ,

63 9 F . 3d

91 ,

10 9

Public employees may have a constitutionally
See Cleveland

protected property interest in their employment.

Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985).
In Virginia,

a public school administrator has a property

interest in the job only once the employee "obtains continuing
contract status."
App'x 203,
that

an

(4th Cir.

assistant

principal
person

206

has

continuing

as

is

Va.

not

in

the

a

principal,

including
contract

Buchanan Cty.

2011).

principal

served

employed

supervisor,

Hibbitts v.

a

status

who

as

a

Bd.,

Code 221.294(A)

under

position

person

Sch.

contract

for

three

assistant
has

F.

provides
until

the

years.

("A

principal,

or

previously

teacher,

433

shall

achieved
serve

probationary term of three years in such position in the

a

same

school di vision before acquiring continuing contract status as
principal, assistant principal, or supervisor.").
Based on Va. Code 221.294(a), Lightfoot, as a new assistant
principal

in

a

probationary

interest in his job.

status,

did

not

a

property

He was neither tenured nor contracted for

a period longer than the 2014-2015 school year.
Amended Complaint

have

fails

to allege

process violation in COUNTS 5 and 6.

19

Therefore,

cognizable claims

for

a

the
due

CONCLUSION

For
DISMISS
and 6.

the

reasons

(ECF No.

25)

set

forth

above,

DEFENDANTS'

MOTION

will be granted as to COUNTS 1,

2,

3,

These counts will be dismissed with prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.

Isl

fl!_~

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date: August

---l-t-'

2017

20

TO
5,