Brackney-Wheelock v. City of Charlottesville

652 F.Supp.3d 603

Rashall M. BRACKNEY-WHEELOCK, Ph.D., Plaintiff, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:22-cv-00035

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Charlottesville Division

Signed January 20, 2023

Alexander Leonard Taylor, Jr., The Law Office of Alex Taylor, Richmond, VA, Charles Theodore Tucker, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, The Cochran Firm, Hyattsville, MD, for Plaintiff.

David Patrick Corrigan, Melissa Yvonne York, Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman, Richmond, VA, for Defendants City of Charlottesville, Lisa Robertson, Heather Hill, Lloyd Snook, Sena Magill, Bellamy Brown, Latroy Durrette, James Mooney, Brian Wheeler.

Richard Hustis Milnor, Taylor Zunka Milnor & Carter Ltd, Chartlottesville, VA, for Defendant Charles Boyles.

Joan C. McKenna, Kayla Anne Humenick, O'Hagan Meyer, PLLC, Richmond, VA, William M. Stanley, Jr., Autumn Dawn Price Johnson, The Stanley Law Group PLLC, Moneta, VA, for Defendant Michael Wells.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

NORMAN K. MOON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case comes before the Court on Defendants' motions to dismiss, Dkts. 12, 18, 19, 24, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 49. Plaintiff Rashall M. Brackney-Wheelock, Ph.D., was hired as the Police Chief for the City of Charlottesville in 2018, following community concerns about the Charlottesville Police Department. In 2021, her position was terminated. She argues that her termination was a result of race, color, and gender discrimination; resulted from tortious interference with her employment contract and a business conspiracy; and involved violations of Virginia's whistle-blower statute, defamation standard, Human Rights Act, and Freedom of Information Act. Because Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts to support these claims, Defendants' motions to dismiss are granted.

I. Facts¹

The following facts are alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and assumed true for purposes of resolving this motion. See King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016) (reiterating the appropriate standard of review).

Plaintiff alleges that, in the fall of 2017 and early in 2018, the City of Charlottesville Police Department ("CPD") "was in a state of disarray, instability, and chaos," due to the community's "ongoing protesting, to display their displeasure with CPD's pattern and practice of negative responses to community concerns," such as their deploying gas for non-violent protestors and poorly handling the Unite the Right Rally. Dkt. 1 ("Compl.") ¶ 26. Consequently, the City of Charlottesville conducted a search for a new Police Chief. Id. ¶ 27.

Defendant City of Charlottesville ("the City") appointed Plaintiff to serve as the City's Chief of Police, and she signed an Employment Agreement with the City on June 18, 2018. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. Plaintiff had extensive police training education. Id. ¶ 30. She developed a strategic plan for CPD, reorganized it, sought to promote transparency and accountability within it, and reformed it in various ways. Id. ¶¶ 32-33, 36, 38-47.

Plaintiff received an email on June 3, 2021, with the subject line "Letter of Concern." Id. ¶ 54. Plaintiff alleges that the email "included information and a video involving regarding [sic] police misconduct and discriminatory behavior of CPD officer(s), namely Corporal Robbie Oberholzer." Id. And on that same date, "Plaintiff reported unlawful, criminal, departmentally inappropriate, misogynistic, harassing, and racist behaviors she witnessed in a video provided in a citizen's complaint." Id. ¶ 55. Her employment duties mandated that she "report and/or conduct an investigation in response to the initial complaint received." Id. ¶ 56. Plaintiff alleges that an analysis of a forensic report for the email "exposed several other suspected unlawful, criminal, and racist behaviors, as well as police violence, corruption, departmentally inappropriate, misogynistic, and/or discriminatory behaviors and harassment and threats within Defendant's police department." Id. ¶ 57. Plaintiff offers little if any supporting factual details elaborating upon these assertions. Id. ¶¶ 54-57.

Plaintiff alleges that she, "acting within the scope of her employment, took disciplinary and corrective measures," which included "disassembling the SWAT team and terminat[ing] or suspen[ding] each individual found to be involved in the unlawful, criminal, threatening and racist behaviors, or any police violence and/or corruption, or departmentally inappropriate, misogynistic, and/or discriminatory behaviors and harassment." Id. ¶ 58.

Defendants Heather Hill and Lloyd Snook, both City Councilors, contacted City Manager Defendant Charles 'Chip' Boyles on June 13, 2021, "regarding an 'all-hands meeting' on June 14, 2021." Id. ¶ 59. However, Plaintiff doesn't describe this "all-hands meeting" any further.

Defendant Michael 'Mike' Wells (Police Benevolent Association, Central Virginia Chapter President) met with Defendant Boyles on August 10, 2021, Wells requested a copy of Plaintiff's employment contract and, as Plaintiff describes it, "mentioned Steve Sellers' Interim Chief situation"—though Plaintiff doesn't expound on this further. Id. ¶ 60. Thereafter, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants—including Defendant Bellamy Brown (Former Police Civilian Review Board ('PCRB') Chair of Charlottesville) and Defendant Wells—convened to assemble a Police Benevolent Association ('PBA') survey "with questions intentionally negatively worded and targeting Plaintiff" because of her "investigation and disciplinary actions." Id. ¶ 61.² There was no similar survey for "any Caucasian male employees in leadership roles." Id. ¶ 63.

Defendant Boyles acknowledged that the survey "was intended to highlight Chief Brackney in a less than positive way" and was a "hit job." Id. ¶ 65. Plaintiff contends that "[b]etween June and September 2021, Defendants including, but not limited to, Defendant[s] [Brown, Hill, Wells, Snook, Boyles, [James] Mooney (Former Assistant Police Chief), and [Sena] Magill (City Councilor)] assembled, physically and virtually, to conspire and agree to mutually undertake together for the purpose of willfully and maliciously injuring [Plaintiff's] reputation." Id. ¶ 66. They did so, she argues, "in efforts to gain supportive reasoning to terminate her as Chief." Id.

Plaintiff received notification of her "without-cause" termination on September 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 68. The termination would be effective November 30, 2021. Id. And, "[p]ursuant to [Plaintiff]'s Employment Agreement, she was to receive ninety (90) days advance written notice prior to her effective termination date." Id. ¶ 69.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants interfered with her employment on September 1, 2021. Id. ¶ 70. Defendant Lisa Robertson "ordered the IT Department to access [Plaintiff]'s email account and copy/archive [Plaintiff]'s emails and change her signatures and fonts, despite [Plaintiff] still being employed until November 30, 2021." Id. ¶ 71. And Defendant Boyles, on September 1 and 3, wrote and published press releases and made comments about Plaintiff's termination. Id. ¶ 72. Plaintiff asserts that the statements these Defendants made between September 2021 and the present about her, her employment, and her termination, "were made with actual malice, knowledge of the falsity, and/or reckless disregard for the truth." Id. ¶¶ 73-74. Defendant Snook, on or about October 4, 2021, in an interview on CBS19 News, "explain[ed] he supported the decision to fire Plaintiff because: 'Even Black women officers were leaving.'" Id. ¶ 75. Defendant Boyles published a press release on September 3, 2021, which stated:

However, in order to dismantle systemic racism and eliminate police violence and misconduct in Charlottesville, we need a leader who is not only knowledgeable in that work, but also is effective building collaborative relationships with the community, the department, and the team at City Hall [...] [w]hile very good work and progress has been made, I ultimately decided new leadership was required to continue the City's progress towards building a new climate and culture within the department.

Id. ¶ 76 (emphasis in Compl.). He "insinuat[ed] Plaintiff's termination was 'for cause' stating she was 'not a good fit.'" Id. ¶ 77 (emphasis in Compl.).

Defendant Boyles wrote an opinion piece in The Daily Progress on September 17, 2021, stating the following:

[d]espite successes in modernizing the department, recent public statements made by the Virginia Police Benevolent Association brought to the public's attention two officer surveys assessing officers' opinions of the current state of leadership in the department. These surveys revealed substantial concerns of trust and confidence in the leadership. I found these concerns troubling, especially when factoring in the known strained relationships across government, community, religious and regional stakeholder groups. These relationships are critically important; and when internal and external strife are present, it is imperative to act. [...] In hindsight, I would have engaged the City Council more directly in my deliberations and worked in partnership with [Plaintiff] to develop an improvement plan. Fact is, I just did not have the luxury of time. I found the moment critical to act and felt the larger community would respect my intentions to guide our police department to a stable and evolving law enforcement outfit capable of making all residents safe, respected, and proud.

Id. ¶ 79 (emphasis in Compl.). Defendant Boyles also stated the following during a Council meeting on September 20, 2021, referring to Plaintiff: "I in no way intend to malign her character, professional acumen or ability to perform. I am simply indicating 'Fit' is more than size and measurement, but feel and function." Id. ¶ 80.³

Plaintiff asserts that "[t]he articles and press conferences are libel per se, made with actual malice, knowledge of the false statements contained therein, and/or reckless dis[reg]ard for...