LuAnn Delosreyes v. The School Board for Botetourt County Public Schools et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in LuAnn Delosreyes’s civil rights action against the Botetourt County School Board and a former superintendent. The court held that Delosreyes had no constitutionally protected property interest in retaining her particular position and, alternatively, received adequate pre-deprivation process before her reassignment. The court also rejected her First Amendment and Virginia Constitution retaliation claims, concluding that her workplace communications did not involve matters of public concern.

Holdings

1. A public employee ordinarily has a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment, not in retaining a particular job assignment, title, or duties. Delosreyes therefore had no protected property interest in remaining Executive Assistant to the Superintendent.
2. Even assuming Delosreyes had a protected property interest in her position, she received constitutionally adequate process before reassignment.
3. Delosreyes's retaliation claims failed because her text messages and related workplace complaints were not speech on matters of public concern.
4. The temporary restriction on Delosreyes's communications with school-system employees during the investigation did not violate the First Amendment.
5. Russ was entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that temporarily restricting an employee under investigation from communicating with coworkers violated the First Amendment.
6. The School Board could not be held liable under Monell because Delosreyes established no underlying constitutional violation.
7. Sovereign immunity barred Delosreyes's damages claims under Article I, §§ 11 and 12 of the Virginia Constitution against the School Board.
8. Delosreyes could not recover damages from Russ individually for alleged violations of the Virginia Constitution because Virginia law does not provide a private right of action for those violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Delosreyes had a constitutionally protected property interest in retaining her particular position as Executive Assistant to the Superintendent.
2. Whether, assuming such a property interest existed, Delosreyes received constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation process before her reassignment.
3. Whether Delosreyes's workplace text messages constituted speech by a citizen on matters of public concern protected from First Amendment retaliation.
4. Whether the temporary restriction on communicating with school-system employees during an investigation was an unconstitutional prior restraint.
5. Whether Superintendent Russ was entitled to qualified immunity on the prior-restraint claim.
6. Whether the School Board could be held liable under Monell absent an underlying constitutional violation.
7. Whether sovereign immunity barred Delosreyes's damages claims under the Virginia Constitution against the School Board.
8. Whether Virginia law provides a private right of action for damages against Russ for alleged violations of the Virginia Constitution.

Disposition

dismissed