lemmon court documents

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

Rachel Charlton

Yolanda Calhoun

Marcus Calhoun, Guardian, on behalf ofJ.C.

Shyrone Stith

Plaintiffs,

Fairfax County Public Schools

Marie Lemmon,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.

FILED

' 2flm SEP 25 P 3=21CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA

COMPLAINT

1. Rachel Charlton ("Rachel") brings this complaint against her current employerFairfax County Public Schools ("FCPS"), for damages and equitable relief arising out of violationsof Tide VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Tide VII"), as amended, including provisions of the

Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., provisions of the Americans with

Disabilities Act Amendments Act ("ADAAA"), 42 U.S.C. 12101, as well as provisions of Tide IXof the Education Amendments of 1972 ("Title IX"), 20 U.S.C. 1681, resulting from MarieLemmon ("Ms. Lemmon"), her former principal, harassing her following her pregnancy andchildbirth, and FCPS not only failing to protect Rachel from the harassment, but also failing to

promote Rachel and then retaliating against Rachel for filing an EEOC complaint.

2. Rachel also brings this complaint against her former principal, Ms. Ixmmon, in her

personal capacity for defamation in violation of Virginia law.

Case 1:14-cv-01268-TSE-IDD Document 1 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 31 PageID# 1

3. Yolanda Calhoun ("Dr. Calhoun"), an African American with a Doctorate in Higher

Education, brings this complaint against her current employer, FCPS, for race discrimination in

violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 (1991) ("Section 1981") and Tide VI 42 U.S.C. 2000d, ct. seq. ("Tide

VI") because she was told by Ms. Lemmon that her position as a Title I Math Resource teacher

would be eliminated, but then Ms. Lemmon retained the position and replaced her with a young

blonde woman who was significandy less qualified.

4. J.C, a minor by way of her custodial parent Marcus Calhoun, brings this complaint

against her current school district, FCPS, for race discrimination in violation of Section 1981,and in

violation of Title VI after Ms. Lemmon forced J.C, an African-American student, to leave the

school following her mother's transfer to another school, even though she had a valid magnet

application and was granted magnet status, and two Caucasian children were allowed to stay after

their parents had also left the school.

5. Shyrone Stith ("Shyrone"), brings this complaint against his former employer, FCPS,

for race discrimination in violation of Section 1981, and in violation of Title VI after Ms. Lemmon

refused to hire Shyrone on the basis of his race, even though he was the most qualified applicant,

and recommended for hiring by allothers on the hiring panel.

6. Dr. Calhoun, J.C, and Shyrone also bring this suit against Ms. Lemmon in her

personal capacity for race discrimination in violation of Section 1981.

PARTIES

7. Rachel is a resident of Fairfax County, Virginia and has been an employee of FCPS

in various roles since 1999.

8. Rachel is employed by FCPS as an assistant principal at Camelot Elementary, and

prior to this was anassistant principal under Ms. Lemmon at Bailey's Elementary-

9. Dr. Calhoun andJ.C are residents of Fairfax County, Virginia.


10. Dr. Calhoun is an African American woman, previously employed by Bailey's

Elementary School in FCPS as a math resource teacher, providing remedial instruction to upper

level elementary students.

11. Dr. Calhoun now teaches fifth grade at another FCPS elementary school.

12. J.C. Calhoun is a eleven year-old African American child who was previously a

student at Bailey's Elementary School.

13. Shyrone Stith is a resident of Alexandria City, Virginia and is an African American

who was previously employed by FCPS as an instructional assistant and then as a teacher.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Rachel's Tide VII, Tide IX, and ADA

claims pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution and 28 U.S.C. 1331.

15. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Rachel's defamation claims againstMarie Lemmon under 28 U.S.C. 1367.

16. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Dr. Calhoun, J.C, and Shyrone'sSection 1981 and Tide VI claims pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution and 28

U.S.C 1331.

17. This Court has personal jurisdiction over FCPS, as the county is located within thejurisdictional reach of this Court.

18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Ms. Lemmon because she lives and workswithin this Court's jurisdiction.

19. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 as asubstantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Fairfax County, Virginia.


FACTSRachel's FactualAssertions

20. Rachel was an employee of FCPS beginning in 1999, when she was employed as a

substitute teacher.

21. Rachel was hired full time in 2001 as first grade teacher, and was promoted to

assistant principal in 2008, and promoted again to assistant principal II in 2012.

22. Rachel received positive performance reviews during her tenure, and was selected for

multiple prestigious opportunities within the county, such as a one year LEAD Fairfax

Administrative Internship, serviceon a Project Management Oversight Committee, a member of the

Social Studies Textbook Adoption Committee, participant in Supporting the Mission, and the only

Assistant Principal to serve on Advanced AcademicTask Force.

23. In 2009, Rachel was appointed to Assistant Principal at Bailey's Elementary School.

24. Bailey's Elementary is the largest elementary school in Fairfax County, and is

considered a "Title I" school, whereby it receives federal funding.

25. Rachel had a positive performance history at Bailey's and was selected to be in

charge of multiple programs within the school, including: the Magnet program, the Advanced

Academics program, the Tide I program, Heritage Language Literacy Club, Spanish Immersion,

Family Involvement, National Network of Partnership Schools, and Crisis Planning.

26. Inaddition, she consistendy planned and facilitated visits from leadership staff from

other school districts including superintendents, leadership from within FCPS, donors, politicians,

and a Taiwanese delegation.

27. In October2012, Rachel learned that shewas pregnant with her first child.

Marie Lemmon isAppointed Principal ofBaileys28. On November 9, 2012, Ms. Lemmon is appointed principal of Bailey's Elementary.


29. Before her start date, Rachel and Ms. Lemmon communicated via email on various

occasions.

30. Prior to becoming principal, Rachel had one interaction with Ms. Lemmon at a social

function for FCPS administrators in December 2011.

31. At this social function, Ms. Lemmon stated that Rachel should wait until she was a

Principal to become pregnant or have children.

32. Upon coming to Bailey's, and prior to learning of Rachel's pregnancy, Ms. Lemmon

stated that her goal was to assist Rachel obtaina principalship prior to the following school year.

33. In December 2012, Rachel told Ms. Lemmon that she was pregnant.

34. Following her pregnancy announcement, Ms. Lemmon's behavior towards Rachel

drasticallychanged.

35. Ms. Lemmon began excluding Rachel from critical meetings with her fellow assistant

principals, Ms. Nicole Yacubovich and Ms. Heather Boyd.

36. At the time of Ms. Lemmon's arrival, Ms. Yacubovich had been a teacher on

administrative assignment, since she had not completed her administrative licensure.

37. Ms. Yacubovich and Ms. Boydare unmarried and without children.

38. On February 7, 2013, Rachel was six months pregnant and ill because she had not

eaten since breakfast and had numerous pregnancy complications.

39. Duringan evening event that night, Ms. Lemmon berated Rachel in front of another

teacher for eatinga smallpiece of cheese.

40. Ms. Lemmon tried to exclude Rachel from the presentation that night as a result.

41. Ms. Lemmon had not, and would not, treat any other assistant principals with such

unprofessionalism and disrespect, and prior to Rachel's announcement of her pregnancy, she would

have not treated Rachel that way either.


42. On that same night, Ms. Lemmon told Rachel that she better be on time to work the

next morning even though snow was expected.

43. Rachel had not had any previous attendance problems or issues with tardiness that

would warrant such a reminder, and no other staff member was given the reminder.

44. The next morning, February 8, 2013, Rachel slipped on ice, fell to the ground, and

was injured.

45. However, because Rachel was worried about being scolded for tardiness, she did not

seek medical treatment, and instead proceeded direcdy to school.

46. That very morning, Rachel was the first assistant principal at the school, and Ms.

Lemmon herself showed up over an hour late due to the weather.

47. In late February 2013, Ms. Lemmon was in a meeting with Rachel and the other

assistant principals when Ms. Lemmonstated that Rachel was sending too many emails to her.

48. Ms. Lemmon then went to her emails from Rachel and emphatically began saying

"delete, delete, delete, delete, delete..." while deleting Rachel's emails.

49. Ms. Lemmon then instructed Rachel to resend anything that was important, causing

more unnecessary work for Rachel.

50. This was completely unprofessional, humiliating to Rachel, and not a way that Ms.

Lemmon would have treated the otherassistant principals.

51. In March 2013, during a staff meeting, Rachel sat down briefly after walking across

the school multiple times because shewas having contractions.

52. Ms. Lemmon then approached Rachel and demanded that she immediately "get up,walk around and do your job."

53. During this confrontation there was no work for Rachel to complete, and no reason

for her to stand.


54. Additionally, the other assistant principals were not performing tasks at the time, and

were not berated.

55. Throughout this time, Ms. Lemmon repeatedly insisted that Rachel and the other

assistant principals only hire "pretty, young blondes," who did not have families, and would "work

for" her.

56. If a teacher was not a "pretty, young blonde" Ms. Lemmon would frequendy refer to

the teachers as the "geek squad."

57. Ms. Lemmon also told Rachel on numerous occasions that she would not be able to

progress in her career with her responsibilities as a wife and mother.

58. During a conversation about children in March 2013, Ms. Lemmon made

disparaging comments about breastfeeding, indicating that it was unnecessary because, "we do not

live in a third world country like Africa."

59. On April 1, 2013, Rachel told Ms. Lemmon that she was concerned the baby would

be coming early because of the frequency of her contractions.

60. Ms. Lemmon told Rachel that it did not matter when Rachel went out on leave, she

was stillexpected to complete her end of the year evaluations.

61. Rachel was put on bed rest on April 4, 2013, as a result of pre-term labor, and was

puton a heart medication until forapproximately six weeks in an attempt to stop the contractions.

62. However, because Rachel was instructed that "no matter what," she must complete

the evaluations, Rachel completed the evaluations while on leave and on bed rest and heart

medication, even though this was in violation of FCPS policy.

63. Rachel's child was born breech, viaC-section, on May 21, 2013.

64. During the summer, Rachel felt that she needed to report the discrimination and sent

an email to the assistant superintendent of Human Resources onJune 26, 2013 requesting a meeting.

7


65. No one ever responded to this request for a meeting.

66. Rachel also requested a meeting with Ms. Lemmon's supervisor, Mr. Douglas Tyson

which was also not returned.

67. In a following e-mail to Mr. Tyson requesting a meeting, Mr. Tyson responded, but

cancelled the meetingonce he heard of Rachel's discrimination complaint.

Rachel Returns From Maternity Leave

68. On July 29, 2013, Rachel returned from her maternity leave.

69. During an administrative meetingon that same day, Rachel was told that most of her

responsibilities had been transferred to the other assistant principals.

70. Prior to this meeting, Rachel was in charge of: the Magnet program, the Advanced

Academics program, the Tide I program, Heritage Language Literacy Club, Spanish Immersion,

Family Involvement, National Network of Partnership Schools, and Crisis Planning.

71. After this meeting, the only major responsibilities left to Rachel were custodians andSpanish immersion, because Rachel was the only administrator who spoke Spanish.

72. Ms. Yacubovich requested custodians be moved from Rachel's responsibility and

Ms. Lemmon moved them back to Ms. Yacubovich, leaving Rachel with only Spanish Immersion.

73. After the meeting, via email, Rachel requested to continue to be in charge of the

Magnet program, since it had been left off the list.

74. Later, Ms. Lemmon denied her request to continue as administrator in charge and

instead put Ms. Boyd in charge.

75. However, even Spanish Immersion program was essentially taken from Rachel

because Ms. Lemmon took over the program and coordinated direcdy with the program manager

and ultimately instructed Heather Boyd (who does not speak Spanish) to interview candidates forthe program, excluding Rachel's role altogether.


76. During the same meeting on July 29, 2013, Ms. Lemmon requested volunteers for an

optional event that typically takes place on a Fridayduring the workday.

77. Rachel stated that she would like to lead the event. Ms. Lemmon then stated it

would be in the evening in a "couple of weeks." Rachel stated that it would be difficult for her to

commit at that moment, but would check on her husband's travel schedule to ensure shehad proper

childcare.

78. Ms. Lemmon then chastised Rachel in front of her peers and said that Rachel would

attend the voluntary event, and that she "willget a babysitter likeeveryone else in the world."

79. In August 2013, Ms. Lemmon told Rachel that she didn't believe she was strong

enough to make decisions in the best interests of children.

80. In another instance, Ms. Lemmon stated that her doctor tried to put her on bed rest

but she had, "convinced him otherwise."

81. Thisconversation insinuated that because Rachel was put on bedrest shewas weak.

82. In or around August 2013, Ms. Lemmon noticed Rachel walking into the school

carrying her breast pump in a nondescript black bag, when Ms. Lemmon stopped Rachel and said,

"Is that your pump? Isn't that a bit obvious?"

83. This encounter was embarrassing for Rachel and meant to demean her for pumping

breast milk for her child.

84. Additionally, in August 2013, Rachel requested a recommendation from Ms.

Lemmon for the Aspiring Principal's Cohort so that she could advance her career.

85. Ms. Lemmon refused to give the recommendation, even though all of Rachel's

performance evaluations have been excellent and indicated that she should be moved into a

principal position.


86. Furthermore, Ms. Lemmon stated that she was no longer comfortable

recommending Rachel for principalships.

87. In FCPS, it is not possible for a person to move from an assistant principal position

to a principal position without the recommendation of their current principal.

88. Ms. Lemmon also refused to recommend Rachel for the Aspiring Principal's Cohort,

a program designed for top performingadministrators to train for principalships.

89. A large majority of the new principals selected in FCPS have participated in theAspiring Principal's Cohort.

90. Ms. Lemmon also repeatedly told Rachel that she needed to leave Bailey's.

91. Ms. Lemmon made several disparaging remarks indicating that Rachel's job was injeopardy.

92. In September, Ms. Lemmon scheduled the first staff outing to a Nationals Baseball

Game to occur on September 14, 2013.

93. September 14, 2013 was also Yom Kippur and Rachel and several other Jewish

teachers were unable to attend.

94. Ms. Lemmon was notified several weeks earlier via email from Human Resources

listing the dates of the upcoming Jewish holidays so that Ms. Lemmon could avoid scheduling

events on those days.

95. Ms. Lemmon purposefully scheduled the event on Yom Kippur so that the Jewish

teachers and Rachel would be unable to attend.

96. During her tenure at Bailey's, Ms. Lemmon was often discriminator)' towardsstudents and teachers who identified with any religion other than Christianity.

10


97. On one occassion, Ms. Lemmon went on a tangent because a student's parent

requested that the student not participate in dance or music classes and had concerns about pork

being served in the cafeteria.

98. Ms. Lemmon told Rachel that if she, herself, were in the Middle East she would

"cover her head" and therefore, they should just participate in American customs.

99. Ms. Lemmon also said that there was no reason why the students should not eat

pork because, "we live in the United States."

100. When saying this, Ms. Lemmon knew thatRachel was Jewish and did noteatpork.

101. In August 2013, Ms. Lemmon threatened that Rachel would be on an evaluation

cycle.

102. In or around August 2013, Ms. Lemmon followed through on the threat and told

Rachel, in front of her colleagues, that shewould be on the evaluation cycle.

103. On October 16, 2013, Ms. Lemmon notified Rachel in writing that she would be put

on summative evaluation, even though Rachel was not due for an evaluation for another year.

104. Typically, staff members are placed on summative evaluation if there are

documented performance concerns and/or if they change roles.

105. Rachel received a formal letter confirming she was on evaluation and attended a

required self-assessment and goal setting conference withMs. Lemmon.

106. Only after Rachel secured counsel was she taken offof the evaluation cycle, minutes

before herscheduled mid-year evaluation meeting.

Rachel Retains Counsel and Files EEOC Complaint

107. In October 2013, Rachel was under severe distress as a result ofwhat was occurring

at Bailey's.

11


108. Per the advice of another FCPS principal, Rachel sought the advice of a Licensed

Clinical Social Worker through the FCPS Employee Assistance Program.

109. The LCSW indicated that Rachel may be experiencing discrimination and therefore,

she should seek the advice of counsel.

110. Upon retaining counsel, a letter was sent to FCPS notifying them of the

discrimination, and requesting that it immediately cease.

111. However, because Rachel's statute of limitations was close to running on her initial

claims, she also was forced to file her claims with the EEOC on November 1, 2013.

112. On November 20, 2013, Rachel met with FCPS Department of Human Resources

and explained her claims in detail.

113. Human Resources stated that Rachel was an exemplary employee, with no

disciplinary recordand that she had the ability to progress far in her careerat FCPS.

114. During this meeting human resources stated that they were willing to transfer Rachel

and that Mr. Tyson, Assistant Superintendent, was willing to give her "whatever she wanted" to

make the situation "go away."

115. This was despite the fact that human resources stated that Mr. Tyson did not read

the facts of the complaint.

116. Because Ms. Charlton was concerned about others who had been affected by Ms.

Lemmon's treatment, Rachel declined the offer of transfer, and instead insisted that human

resources conduct an investigation, because she was certain that Ms. Lemmon would continue the

deplorable behavior into the future.

117. Following the meeting with the Department of Human Resources, the harassment

not only continued, but also increased in frequency andseverity.

12


118. Rachel's counsel sent numerous emails detailing the continued harassment and

retaliation over the next several months, but no action was taken by FCPS.

Retaliation for Engaging in ProtectedActivity

119. Following Rachel's complaint to the Department of Human Resources, she was

severelyretaliated against, not just by Ms. Lemmon, but also by the administration of FCPS.

120. One example of the retaliation is that Rachel was excluded from almostevery critical

meeting necessary to perform her job functions.

121. Instead of attending the meetings, Rachel was given information by the school

secretaries.

122. Additionally, many of the weekly administrative team meetings that were scheduled

were cancelled and instead Ms. Lemmon simply held impromptu meetings with Ms. Boyd and Ms.

Yacubovich.

123. The following dates were among the weekly administrative team meetings cancelled

and not rescheduled following Rachel's complaints: November 7, 2013, November 14, 2013,

November 21, 2014, December 5, 2013, December 12, 2013, December 19, 2013, January 9, 2014,

January 16, 2014, Januaty 23, 2014, February 6, 2014, February 13, 2014, March 13, 2014, April 10,

2014, April 24, 2014, May 8, 2014, May 15, 2014, May 22, 2014, June 5, 2014, June 12, 2014, and

June 26, 2014.

124. Ms. Lemmon cancelled approximately 20 of the 26 weekly administrative team

meetings following receipt of Rachel's discrimination complaint.

125. During the times that the weekly administrative team meetings were cancelled, Ms.

Lemmon frequendy met individually or collaboratively with both Ms. Boyd and Ms. Yacubovich.

126. On December 4, the Superintendent, Dr. Garza, came to visit the school.

13


127. Both other assistant principals, and all administrative staff were informed of the visit

the prior afternoon.

128. Rachel was left in the dark and only told about the visit inadvertendy by a colleague

the morning of the visit.

129. Ms. Lemmon sought to prevent Rachel from interacting with the Superintendent,

which is a rare opportunity.

130. In fact, not only was Rachel not told of the visit, Ms. Lemmon tried to specifically

rid the school of Rachel during the visit.

131. After Ms. Lemmon found out the Superintendent would be visiting the school, she

sent an email to Rachel requesting that Rachel leave the school at exactly the planned visit time to

perform non-essential administrative tasks.

132. Typically if a Superintendent was visiting, a Principal would want all hands on deck

and not purposefully have one of their assistant principals leave the campus.

133. In December 2013, Ms. Lemmon released the other assistant principals from their

duties so that they could go Christmas shopping, but specifically excluded Rachel from this early

release.

134. On Januaty 14, 2014, Ms. Lemmon was meeting with both other assistant principals

behind closed doors, and blatandy excluded Rachel when she came to the door.

135. InJanuary, Rachel was also sent away from the school so that she could not attend a

significant meeting with the Kindergarten teachers.

136. Since the complaints, Ms. Lemmon has had her Administrative Assistant, Nydia

Blake, fielding all communication and if not fielding, she was carbon copied on all Ms. Lemmon's

interactions with Rachel.

137. This was demeaning to Rachel, and not done with the other assistant principals.

14


138. On January 8, 2014, Ms. Lemmon made herself as the contact person for the Spanish

Immersion Program, essentially removing Rachel from this role entirely.

139. Additionally, Mr. Tyson, requested that Rachel leave Bailey's for three days and had

her sit and do busywork assigned to her at Gatehouse Administration Building with no purpose for

her presence there.

140. This was both humiliatingand confusing for Ms. Charlton.

141. Mr. Tyson also made a comment to Rachel that she "went outside of Fairfax County

to resolve the issue [of discrimination]."

142. This statement insinuates that because Rachel engaged in protected activity, and

retained counsel to represent her, she was being punished.

143. Mr. Tyson also requested that Rachel transfer to a middle school that was struggling

and would make it difficult on Rachel's commute and childcare obligations.

144. Rachel had no middle school experience and the contractual hours would make it

impossible for Rachel to arrive on time.

145. Ms. Lemmon has also been overtly critical of Rachel's performance since her

complaints, chiding her for insignificant events that were well within the judgment call of anassistant principal.

146. Following Rachel's complaints, Ms. Lemmon also requested that Rachel seek

permission before performing tasks that would traditionally beunsupervised.

147. Both other assistant principals performed these tasks or similar tasks unsupervised.

148. During this time, Baileys was also undergoing a very public opening of a second

school site, where thesecond site would bein an office building.

149. Rachel was excluded from all meetings, information and planning relating to the site.

Rachel isDenied her Transfer Request in Retaliationforher Discrimination Claims

15


150. Once it was clear that the harassment would not end, Rachel requested a transfer to

Dogwood Elementary.

151. Mr. Terry Dade was the principal of Dogwood, and told Rachel specifically that he

sought her presence as assistant principal at his school, as one of his assistant principals shared that

he would be retiring.

152. Rachel felt comfortable under Mr. Dade, and felt that she would be insulated from

further retaliation by Ms. Lemmon since the school was in a different cluster.

153. However, FCPS denied this transfer request for a multitude of reasons, which

changed over time.

154. First, FCPS stated that Rachel could not transfer to Dogwood because they could

not take a transfer assistant principal because it was a priority schools initiative (PSI) school.

155. However, this was simply untrue, there is no regulation in FCPS that prevents an

assistant principal from transferring to a PSI school.

156. The next reason given for denying the transfer was because FCPS was facing layoffs

of assistant principals, and Dogwood would be oneof theschools targeted with layoffs.

157. This also was untrue, because a memo was sent in May 2014 stating that the county

no longer needed to have the layoffs.

158. According to "People on the Move," a FCPS update on transfers, there are regularly

transfers during the school year, sometimes simply as staffdevelopment.

159. There should not have been any hindrance to Rachel's move to Dogwood.

160. Once this was pointed out to Human Resources, they stated that the reason Rachel

could not move to Dogwood was because Dr. Fabio Zuluaga was the Superintendent over the

cluster, and he didnot want her under his supervision.

16


161. This is simply pretextual, because Rachel had previously been selected as one of the

top two interviewees in Dr. Zuluaga's area of responsibility, at Coates Elementary School, and they

had been on very friendly terms prior to Rachel's complaints of discrimination.

162. Human resources sought for Rachel to relinquish the rights to her claims in order for

her to transfer.

163. Assistant principals, according to FCPS policy, are routinely given transfers as a

matter of course, particularly to a school they requested if there is an opening and the principal has

invited the person, as is the case here.

164. Dogwood would have been a great fit for Rachel because it was a Tide I school,

which Rachel had experience in, and predominately Spanish speaking, of which Rachel is proficient

speaker.

165. The denial of Rachel's transfer request to Dogwood was simply in retaliation for her

complaints of discrimination.

Rachel is Transferred to Camelot Elementary in Retaliation

166. In June 2014, Rachel was notified that she would be transferred to Camelot

Elementary School.

167. Camelot Elementary School is under the direct supervisor of Dr. Zulaga, and in the

same region as Ms. Lemmon.

168. According to FCPS, Dr. Zulaga did not want her in his region, and that was the

exact reason that her transfer request to Dogwood was denied.

169. However, apparendy Dr. Zulaga was now not opposed to having her in his region.

170. Rachel was also informed that Dr. Zuluaga wanted to meet with her to discuss his

expectations.

17


171. However, there was no indication that Dr. Zuluaga intended to meet with any other

assistant principals in his area of responsibility.

172. There was also no indication that Rachel needed his expectations explained to her, as

she was a well performing employee.

173. Camelot is significandy overstaffed, with three assistant principals in a school of

fewer than 600 students.

174. In comparison, Baileys is a school of 1,359 students and has Magnet and Tide I

programs, and has three assistant principals.

175. In fact, only 2 other elementary schools in FCPS have 3 assistant principals.

176. Typically, schools of similar size, like Chesterbrook and Cardinal Forest, only have

one assistant principal.

177. Even larger schools, such as Braddock and and Bonnie Brae only have one assistant

principal.

178. Putting Rachel at Camelot prevents her from excelling at her profession, and was

done specifically in retaliation for her protected activity.

179. Finally, since her claims of discrimination, Rachel has applied for numerous

positions, and not been selected for any interviews within the county.

180. Prior to filing her complaint of discrimination, Rachel was selected to interview for

the vast majority of the positions she applied for, and on two occasions made it to the very top ofthe interviewing process for principalships.

181. FCPS has made it clear that Rachel's chance of upward mobility is essentially gone,

and instead she went from the largest, most prestigious elementary in the county, to a small,

overstaffed school with litde chance for her to advance.

Rachel is Defamed by Ms. lemmon

18


182. After learning of Rachel's complaints against her, Ms. Lemmon began to defame

Rachel to her colleagues.

183. We have reason to believe that Ms. Lemmon told another principal within the

county that Rachel was incompetent in her position, and she made Ms. Lemmon's job harder to do.

184. These comments impute Rachel's ability to perform her job, and are in stark contrast

to the excellent performance evaluations that Rachel has earned during her employmentwith FCPS.

185. Ms. Lemmon made these comments knowing that they were false, simply to

jeopardize Rachel's future in FCPS.

FactualAssertions oj'Yolanda Calhoun

186. Dr. Calhoun is an African American Math Resource teacher in FCPS.

187. Dr. Calhoun holdsa Doctorate degree in Higher Education.

188. Dr. Calhoun has been employed successfully as a math resource teacher for nearly

twenty years.

189. Dr. Calhoun was employed as a math resource teacher at Bailey's Elementary School

since August 2012.

190. Dr. Calhoun was successfully performing her duties as a teacher when Ms. Lemmon

was appointed principal of Bailey's in November2012.

191. Shordy after her arrival, Ms. Lemmon began to exclude Dr. Calhoun from all emails

and meetings related to her role as a math resource teacher.

192. In fact, Ms. Lemmon would not speak to Dr. Calhoun atall, perplexing Dr. Calhoun,

and making itnearly impossible for her to perform her job duties successfully.193. Ms. Lemmon stopped Dr. Calhoun from attending any of her math lead trainings,

and instead only sent a Caucasianmath resource teacher.

19


194. By April of 2013, Dr. Calhoun was excluded from anything pertaining to Math

Resource, includingorder placement, inventory, and trainings.

195. In the Spring of 2013, Dr. Calhoun was notified by Ms. Lemmon that her position as

a Tide I math resource teacher would not exist the following year.

196. This was simply a lie to remove Dr. Calhoun from the school.

197. The position did exist the following year, and was filled with a young, blue-eyed,

blonde Caucasian woman who was less qualified.

198. There was no interaction between Ms. Lemmon and Dr. Calhoun that would cause

Ms. Lemmon to resent Dr. Calhoun.

199. Hie only reason that can explain Ms. Lemmon's behavior is that Dr. Calhoun is an

African American woman.

200. Ms. Lemmon routinely told Ms. Charlton and the other assistant principals to hire

only "pretty, young blondes."

201. Additionally, during her tenure at Bailey's while Ms. Charlton was an assistant

principal, Ms. Lemmon did not hire even one African American.

202. Ms. Lemmon failed to promote multiple other African Americans employed at

Bailey's.

203. Instead, Ms. Lemmon only hired young, attractive Caucasian women, even if they

were lessexperienced or qualified.

FactualAssertions ofJ.C. Calhoun

204. J.C. was a student in the fourth grade during the2012-2013 school year.

205. J.C's stepmother, Yolanda Calhoun, properly filled out a magnet application upon

her employment at Bailey's.

20


206. The magnet application was turned in to the school Student Information Assistant

(SIA).

207. The magnet application was approved in due course.

208. Following Dr. Calhoun's discriminatory dismissal, Ms. Lemmon made a statement

that she wanted "her daughter (J-C] out!"

209. Shecontacted DebbieJones at the Magnet Office to removeJ.C's application.

210. Ms. Lemmon then told Rachel to call Ms. Calhoun to notify her of J.C's removal

from the school just days before school was scheduled to begin.

211. We have reason to believe that Ms. Lemmon intentionally and in bad faith removed

J.C's magnet application from her student file in order to justify removing J.C. from the school.212. A woman named Suzanne Whaley also left Bailey's, however, herCaucasian daughter

was permitted to remain in the school.

213. Another woman, Kathleen Fay, left Bailey's and her Caucasian son was also

permitted to remain at Baileys andher Caucasian daughter began kindergarten September 2014, even

though the schoolno longer employed Ms. Fay.

214. During Ms. Lemmon's tenure at Bailey's, she has repeatedly discriminated against

children of color.

215. In several instances, Ms. Lemmon disproportionately punished children of color

when compared to Caucasian children, or children who had Caucasian parents.

216. Ms. Lemmon also removed all children of color who had Individualized Education

Plans ("lEPs") from Bailey's Spanish Immersion program, in violation of the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act.

21


217. Ms. Lemmon furthermore told Ms. Yacubovich that Bailey's would not provide pull-

out services, even though this was the setting in which services were to be delivered based on the

students' IEPs.

218. Ms. Lemmon told Ms. Yacubovich to tell the parents that the reading program in

which the children were participating in was delineated a "Special Education Setting," even though

this was not the case because the students were receiving services in the general education

environment.

219. This change disproportionally affected children of color, because Ms. Lemmon

repeatedly stated that minority parents "wouldn't complain."

FactualAssertions ofSlyyrone Stith

220. Shyrone is an African American male who has his Bachelor's degree in Liberal Arts,

InterdisciplinaryStudies, and a Master's degree in Education.

221. Shyrone was employed by FCPS in 2012 as an instructional assistant.

222. His performance was completely above par, and he was very well liked within the

school.

223. InJuly of 2012, heapplied for a position under Shane Wolf, the previous principal at

Bailey's.

224. Shane Wolf, the prior principal at Bailey's prior to Ms. Lemmon's arrival at the

school, selected him for the Instructional Assistant position.

225. Additionally, Ms. Boyd and the acting principal prior to Ms. Lemmon's arrival, Keith

Hall, had selected Shyrone for a promotion into a resource teacher position.

226. Once Ms. Lemmon had taken over as Principal of Bailey's, she vetoed the decision

to promote Shyrone into the open resource teacher position.

22


227. In December 2012, Shyrone applied for a fifth grade teaching position.

228. Shyrone was a successful candidate in his interview, who exhibited the skills that

would be necessary to excel at Bailey's.

229. Additionally, he was already a Bailey's staff member and would easily transition into

the position.

230. The hiring team was comprised of Mary Madeiros, Rachel Charlton, and Ms.

Lemmon.

231. Both Rachel Charlton and Mary Madeiros recommended Shyrone for hiring.

232. Ms. Lemmon unilaterally rejected this decision, and decided to hire Britney

Naughton.

233. Ms. Naughton was a young, attractive, blonde, blue-eyed woman who had justcompleted her education.

234. She was significantly less qualified then Shyrone.

235. Ms. Lemmon told Rachel that Ms. Naughton had justattended a Christian universityandwould be on a mission "from God," while Shyrone, "did not even speak English."

236. When Ms. Lemmon told Shyrone that he would not be getting the position, she

stated that he "wasn't a good fit at Bailey's."

237. Shyrone then applied and accepted a position as a teacher at Cameron Elementary, a

school comprised of predominately African-American students.

238. Upon learning of this, Ms. Lemmon approached Shyrone and stated "See, that school

is a good fit for you," and"that is yourdemographic, those areyourkids."

239. Ihese actions are consistent with Ms. Lemmon's previous statements to Rachel that

she only hire "pretty, young blondes."

23


240. During Ms. Lemmon's period at Bailey's, she has consistendy refused to hire and

promote minorities.

COUNT I: RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII42 U.S.C. 2000e

241. Plaintiffs re-allege everyallegation.

242. Tide VII prohibitsharassment on the basis of a person's religion.

243. Rachel isJewish and Ms. Lemmon had actual knowledge of Rachel's religious beliefs

and practices.

244. Ms. Lemmon excluded Rachel from work functions that would promote her career

on the basis of her religion.

245. Ms. Lemmon made multiple disparaging remarks regarding Rachel's religion in

violation ofTide VII.

COUNT II: HARASSMENT BASED ON SEX IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII42 U.S.C. 2000e

246. Plaintiffs re-allege every allegation.

247. Ms. Lemmon harassed Ms. Charlton on the basis of sex in violation of the

provisions of Tide VII.

248. According to 42 U.S.C. 2000c(k) "on the basis of sex" includes, but is not limited

to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women

affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

249. Ms. Lemmon made harassing comments to Rachel about her pregnancy, her

caregiving responsibilities, her bed rest, and her pumping breast milk.

250. The comments were repeatedly unwelcome and made for the sole purpose of

harassing Rachel based on hersex, and stereotyping Rachel on the basis of traditional gender norms.

24


COUNT III: FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON SEX IN VIOLATION OF TITLEVII

42 U.S.C. 2000e251. Plaintiffs re-allege every allegation.

252. Ms. Lemmon and FCPS failed to promote Rachel by refusing her recommendation

to the Aspiring Principals Cohort on the basis of her sex.

253. Rachel had outstanding performance reviews that recommended that Rachel be

promoted to Principal.

254. Rachel was on track to have a principalship, until Ms. Lemmon refused her

recommendation for the program.

255. Ms. Lemmon solely refused the recommendation because of Rachel's caregiving

responsibilities.

256. Ms. Lemmon made multiple comments stating that women with young children

should not be in a leadership role.

257. Ms. Lemmon did not make the same assumptions about male teachers with young

children.

258. Ms. Lemmon removed all responsibilities from Rachel so that she could not meet or

exceed performance expectations.

259. Ms. Lemmon put Rachel on evaluation even though this could only have been

justified by performance related problems.

260. Ms. Lemmon formed her opinion of Rachel based on stereotypical gender roles, and

assumed that Rachel would be unable to perform the functions of Principal.

COUNT IV: RETALIATION FOR ENGAGING IN PROTECTED ACTIVITY INVIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND TITLE IX

42 U.S.C. 2000e,20 U.S.C. 1681261. Plaintiffs re-allegeevery allegation.

25


262. Title VII and Tide IX both prohibit retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in

pertinent part, Tide VII reads, "[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to

discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment ... because he has opposed

any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a

charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing

under this subchapter." 42 U.S.C 2000e-3(a).

263. Rachel reported discrimination to Human Resources in October 2013.

264. Following this report of discrimination, Ms. Lemmon because increasingly more

hostile.

265. Ms. Lemmon excludedRachel from nearly all meetings following the complaint.

266. Ms. Lemmon sent Rachel away from campus during important events.

267. Ms. Lemmon took away the few responsibilities of Rachel's that remained.

268. FCPS requested that Rachel work away from her building and do menial

administrative tasks.

269. FCPS also took away Rachel's rights to transfer to a school of her choice, and

instead put unreasonable restrictions on the schools to which Rachel could transfer.

270. FCPS sought to have Rachel relinquish all rights to her claims by giving her a

transfer, which Rachel was entided to as a matter of coursewithout relinquishment.

271. Rachel was ostracized by her peers and administrators, was forced to communicate

with secretaries to get vital information, and was humiliated in front of her colleagues.

272. All of these actions would have deterred a reasonable person from making a report

of discrimination.

273. All of theseactions werea direct result of Rachel's complaint of discrimination.

26


COUNT V: HARASSMENT BASED ON GENDER IN VIOLATION OF TITLE IX20 U.S.C. 1681

274. Plaintiffs re-allege ever)' allegation.

275. Tide IX states that, "no person in the United States shall, on die basis of sex, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under

any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 20 U.S.C. 1681, et. seq.

276. Title IX applies to elementary and secondary schools, and applies to all aspects of

educational programs and activities, including employment, and includes discrimination on die basis

of pregnancy. 34 CF.R. 106.51(a).

277. Bailey's is a covered entity under Tide IX because they receive significant funds from

the federal government, including funds related to their Tide I status.

278. Ms. Lemmon harassed Rachel on the basis of her pregnancy and status as caregiver

of a young child.

279. Ms. Lemmon harassed Rachel for breastfeeding, and for having to make childcare

arrangements prior to committing to after school events.

280. Ms. Lemmon did not harass men with similar caregiving responsibilities.

281. This is in direct violations of the provisions of Tide IX.

COUNT VI: FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON GENDER IN VIOLATION OFTITLE IX

20 U.S.C. 1681282. Plaintiffs re-allege ever)' allegation.

283. As previously established, Bailey's is a covered institution under Tide IX because it

receives significant federal funding.

284. Title IX prohibits discrimination in education on the basis of sex, and includes

discrimination in employment. 34 CF.R. 106.51(a).

27


285. Rachel was stripped of her duties once Ms. Lemmon knew of her pregnancy because

Ms. Lemmon believed that women widi young children should not have leadership positions in

FCPS.

286. Ms. Lemmon failed to promote Rachel, and prevented her from receiving a

promotion by refusing her recommendation to the Aspriring Principal's Cohort for no other reason

than she was a women who was pregnant and would have a young child.

287. This is in direct violation of the provisions ofTide IX.

COUNT VII: HARASSMENT BASED ON DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THEADAAA


289. Under the ADAAA, conditions occurring as a resultof pregnancy may be considered

a disability if theysubstantially limit a major life activity.

290. During her pregnancy, Rachel experienced pre-term labor, and as a result was put on

restricted bed rest, which resulted in impairment in almostever)' aspect of her daily life activities.

291. Rachel also was very ill with hypcremesis gravidarum, severe morning sickness, for

which she was hospitalized for dehydration.

292. Rachel also experienced red-degeneration of a large fibroid tumor, which caused

severe debilitating pain duringher pregnancy, and also mimicked pre-term labor.

293. Ms. Lemmon knew of these disabilities, and instead of offering an accommodation,

she berated Rachel for even basic tasks such as sitting and eating.

294. This is in direct violation of the ADAAA.

COUNT VIII: DEFAMATION IN VIOLATION OF VIRGINIA COMMON LAW

295. Plaintiffs re-allege every allegation.

28


296. Under Virginia common law, a person is prohibited from communicating false

statements, with malice, to a third party that would impute the character of another.

297. Ms. Lemmon purposefully told colleagues that Rachel was incompetent and made

Ms. Lemmon's job harder.

298. This is patendy untrue; Rachel has always performed her duties with the utmost

professionalism, and has achieved exemplar)' performance evaluations.

299. These statements were made in an attempt to hinder Rachel's ability to secure

employment in not just Fairfax county, but also in adjacent counties.

COUNT IX: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION1981


301. Section 1981 provides that "all persons... shall have the same right to make and

enforce contracts... to the equal benefit of all laws...as is enjoyed by white citizens." 42 U.S.C 1981(a).

302. The term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance,

modification, and termination of contracts, and die enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, andconditions of the contractual relationship. 42 U.S.C 1981(b).

303. Dr. Calhoun and Shyrone were employees of FCPS and therefore had an

employment contract with FCPS.

304. J.C. was a student at FCPS and therefore was in a quasi-contractual relationship with

FCPS, which required FCPS to provide equal educational benefit.

305. J.C. was removed from Bailey's because she was African-American, while two

Caucasian students whose parents had left the school were permitted to stay.

29


306. Dr. Calhoun and Shyrone were both denied the benefits of their employment with

FCPS.

307. Dr. Calhoun was unilaterally removed from her position and replaced with a

Caucasian who was less qualified.

308. Shyrone was denied both a promotion and his application for a new teaching

position on the basis of his race.

309. Ms. Lemmon made multiple comments stating that Caucasian people made better

teachers, and that she would only hire "pretty, young, blue-eyed blondes."

310. This is in direct violation of Section 1981.

COUNT X: DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VI42 U.S.C. 2000d

311. Plaintiffs re-allege ever)' allegation.

312. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in

programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. 42 U.S.C. 2000d.

313. Bailey's is a covered entity under Tide VI's provisions because it receives significant

federal funding, including funding for its Tide I program.

314. J.C, Dr. Calhoun and Shyronewere discriminated againston the basis of their race.

315. J.C. was removed from her school, while Dr. Calhoun and Shyrone were denied

employment benefits only because they were African-American.

316. This is in direct violation of the provisions of Title VI.

30


DEMAND FOR RELIEF

317. Plaintiffs demand, in amounts to be determined at trial, back pay, interest on the

back pay, front pay, punitive damages, and compensator)' damages.

318. Plaintiffs demand costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

319. Plaintiffs demand any other relief that the Courtdeems justand equitable.

PLAINTIFFS REQUESTS TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.

Respectfully Submitted,

31

Krista Goclz (VSB #8(5185)Jackjarrett (VSB #86176)Attorney for PlaintiffsThe Spiggle Law Firm, PLLC4830B31stSt.,S.Arlington, Virginia 22206(202) 304-8187 (phone)(202) 540-8018 (fax)[email protected]


lemmon court documents

Documents

rachel charlton rachel

violation of section

topromote rachel

shyrone stith shyrone

calhoun andj

current school district

shyrone stithplaintiffs

violation of virginia