Thompson v. Rockingham Cnty.

663 F.Supp.3d 509

Christine A. THOMPSON, Plaintiff, v. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-00023

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

Signed March 21, 2023

Timothy Earl Cupp, Shelley Cupp Schulte, P.C., Harrisonburg, VA, for Plaintiff.

Brittany Elizabeth Shipley, Rosalie Pemberton Fessier, TimberlakeSmith, Staunton, VA, for Defendants Virginia Rockingham County, Patricia Davidson, City of Harrisonburg, Virginia.

Donald Stephenson Schwinn, Taylor Reid Miles, Jordan Coyne, L.L.P., Fairfax, VA, for Defendants Family Educational Services, LLC, Debra S. Clatterbuck.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

THOMAS T. CULLEN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Christine Thompson ("Thompson"), a former local government employee, filed this action against five Defendants—Rockingham County, Virginia ("the County"), Harrisonburg, Virginia, and Patricia Davidson (collectively, the "Municipal Defendants"), as well as Family Educational Services, LLC ("FES") and Debra S. Clatterbuck (collectively, the "FES Defendants")—alleging that they violated her federal due process rights, defamed her, tortiously interfered with her employment, and fired her in violation of public policy. (See Compl. ¶¶ 63-131 [ECF No. 4-1].) Defendants have moved for summary judgment on each of Thompson's claims against them. (ECF Nos. 40, 42.) After reviewing the pleadings, motions, and the voluminous factual record, the court will grant the Municipal Defendants' motion as to Counts I and VI and deny the motions in all other respects.

I. BACKGROUND

The following facts are either undisputed or presented in the light most favorable to Thompson. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

A. Factual Setting

Plaintiff Christine Thompson is a Virginia resident who, from 2005 to February 20, 2020, worked in the Children's Services Act ("CSA")¹ office for Harrisonburg and Rockingham County. (Compl. ¶ 11; Christine Thompson Dep. 12:1-3, 252:20, Nov. 16, 2022 [attached hereto as Appendix A].) Thompson originally served as CSA coordinator until 2018, when she was promoted to CSA manager. In that position, her duties included overseeing day-to-day operations of the CSA office, facilitating invoice payments, and supervising three CSA employees. (Thompson Dep. 14:12-18, 15:1-21, 18:7-20, 19:14-20, 30:24-31:10, 252:25-253:5; CSA Manager Job Description [ECF No. 41-6].)

Once promoted to CSA manager, Thompson was directly supervised by Patricia Davidson—Rockingham County's finance director—who co-chaired the CPMT along with Ande Banks, Davidson's counterpart in the City of Harrisonburg. (Davidson Dep. 38:10-18.) When Thompson was promoted, Stephen King, County Administrator for Rockingham County, instructed Davidson that one of her primary responsibilities would be improving "the level of professionalism and customer service by the CSA office managed by Thompson," and was directed "to inform [King] about complaints when they occurred...." (Stephen King Aff. ¶ 11, Jan. 18, 2023 [ECF No. 41-1]; see Promotion Email Chain [ECF No. 41-5].)

In her role as CSA manager, Thompson recommended local policy and procedure to the CPMT, implemented policies approved by the CPMT, and communicated those policies to member agencies, which she did by helping to draft a manual summarizing those policies. (Thompson Dep. 23:5-24:10, 224:9-20; Davidson Dep. 31:9-14, 32:6-11.) But Thompson did not have the authority to create or approve policy on her own, despite being the day-to-day policy and procedural driver. (Id. 21:5-17, 23:24-24:10, 223:15-21; Davidson Dep. 31:8-32:2.) Thompson also did not have any authority to approve or deny payments to vendors, as that was within the province of the FAPT; it made final decisions regarding which vendors were eligible for CSA funds. (Id. 51:12-53:8, 191:4-7.)

Once the FAPT met and approved services for youth and families to be rendered by a particular vendor, Thompson would oversee the CSA office's generation of a purchase order that listed the vendor, the child, the approved services, the duration and cost of services, and the total amount of funds earmarked for the designated services. (Id. 90:2-15; Karen Tanner Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7, Jan. 28, 2023 [ECF No. 47-12].) The purchase order would also contain an invoice that was to be completed by the vendor and returned to the CSA office before payment would be issued.² (Id.; Tanner Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7) Karen Tanner—the CSA data specialist that Thompson supervised—would prepare the original invoice once the FAPT approved the services and provide that invoice to the vendor. (Tanner Decl. ¶ 7.) The vendor was then required to complete the information on the invoice; attach supporting documentation to show the date, type, and amount of services actually provided to the child or family listed on the invoice; then sign, date, and submit the invoice to the CSA office. (Id.) Until the CSA office received invoices and supporting documentation from the vendor, the CSA office considered those invoices to be "outstanding."³

Once an invoice was properly submitted to the CSA office, it would be sent to the Department of Social Services ("DSS" or "HRSSD") for review, approval, and signature by the requisite social worker and supervisor. (Thompson Dep. 109:6-11; Tanner Decl. ¶ 10.) After reviewing and signing the invoice, DSS would return it to the CSA office, where Tanner would put the date of receipt on the unfiled vendor report; Thompson would review, approve, and date the invoice, then place it in a box where it would be picked up by County finance office staff who were responsible for making payment. (Id. 109:12-17, 111:17-25.) Ultimately, payment was to be issued within 45 days of the vendor submitting its invoice. (Id. 242:24-243:2; Davidson Dep. 166:6-10, 182:22-183:4; Tanner Decl. ¶ 8.) If a vendor did not abide by these procedural requirements, CSA was not obligated to pay for the vendor's services. (Provider Contract ¶ 10; Tanner Decl. ¶ 8.)

B. Historical Issues with FES

The CSA office's invoice system occasionally led to problems with some vendors and, specifically, FES,⁴ a company founded by Debra S. Clatterbuck in 2002.⁵ (Clatterbuck Dep. 16:24-17:2; Davidson Dep. 203:13-14.) FES was a large vendor that had a Provider Contract with the CSA office and had a history of providing improper documentation to the CSA office. (Tanner Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 8, 11-13; Thompson Dep. 139:3-25; Davidson Dep. 200:14-15.) For example, on at least one occasion in 2018, FES billed for services that were not covered by the CSA, but CSA approved payment. (Thompson Dep. 243:23-244:4; Clatterbuck Dep. 52:18-53:20; Davidson Dep. 174:19-175:7.) When Thompson found out about the payment for unauthorized services, she brought the issue to Davidson and Banks, the CPMT co-chairs, who told her that FES would be required to pay the money back. (Id. 244:7-16; Davidson Dep. 175:8-10.) Thompson requested repayment from FES in a series of three letters,⁶ the first two of which were not responded to. (Id. 244:19-245:8.) Nine months after the first letter was sent, FES sent the CSA office a check in the amount of $1,132.50 to satisfy the CSA office's payment for unauthorized services. (Thompson Letter to Taylor Wolf at 11.)

C. Purported Issues with Thompson's Job Performance & Corrective Action Notices

Davidson testified that, beginning in November of 2019, she started "having some real issues, serious issues, like every month," with Thompson. (Davidson Dep. 133:22-134:5.) Davidson apparently met with Banks on November 6, 2019, to discuss these issues. (Id. 134:9-11.) Though Davidson does not remember exact details of her conversation with Banks, she followed up with him in an email that included a list of instances⁷ "where [Davidson] had to correct or redirect" Thompson's conduct so that Banks could be better informed of what Davidson "was dealing with." (Id. 133:22-25, 134:3-8; Davidson's November 6, 2019 Email to Banks.) Indeed, Davidson's email stated that "[t]he number of instances that [Thompson] requires redirection, coaching, reminding ... seems like quite a bit for a manager position." (Davidson's November 6, 2019 Email to Banks (cleaned up).) At the conclusion of the email, Davidson added that, in her job as CSA manager, Thompson had "not done a good job at movement [sic] the dial forward." (Id.)

In January 2020, two months following Davidson's meeting with Banks, Thompson received two Corrective Action Notices ("CANs") dated January 10 and January 21, 2020, respectively. (See CANs [ECF No. 41-7].) The January 10, 2020 CAN related to a situation where funding was denied, at Thompson's behest, in four cases regarding services for the Comprehensive Services Board ("CSB"). (CANs at 2; Davidson's Jan. 2, 2020 Email Chain [ECF No. 43-4].) The CAN details that the CSB had to conduct its own research which demonstrated that funding should have been provided, contrary to what Thompson had advised. (Id.) Davidson believed that "[Thompson] should have done many things differently," and that her handling of the situation was improper. (Id.)

On January 21, 2020, Thompson received her second CAN, which stemmed from a meeting between Davidson and Clatterbuck on January 16, 2020. (Id. at 3.) On that date, the two met to discuss money Clatterbuck claimed that FES was owed for services rendered in November and December 2019.⁸ (Clatterbuck Dep. 62:15-22; Davidson Dep. 163:19-23.) Clatterbuck complained that FES had approximately $40,000 in unpaid invoices for services rendered in November and December 2019.⁹ (Davidson Dep. 164:1-6.) According to Plaintiff, Clatterbuck told Davidson:

FES was having issues regarding not getting paid in a timely manner for services performed for the CSA office; FES was owed more than $40,000 for November and December 2019 and [Clatterbuck] needed money to pay bills and that Clatterbuck had emailed CSA and received no response;

...