02/13/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
LYNCHBURG DIVISION

TWANNA SCOTT HANCOCK,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 6:19CV00005

LYNCHBURG CITY SCHOOLS |

LYNCHBURG CITY SCHOOL BOARD,

Serve:
Superintendent Crystal M. Edwards JURY TRIAL DEMAND
915 Court Street
P.O. Box 2497
Lynchburg, VA 24504

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

The above-named Plaintiff, Twanna Scott Hancock (hereinafter, “Ms. Hancock”

or “Plaintiff”), by counsel, states as her Complaint against Defendant Lynchburg City

Schools | Lynchburg City School Board (hereinafter, “LCS” or “Defendant”), the

following:

I. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter as it arises from the federal

questions presented by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified under 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) (“Title VII”), the Civil Rights Act of

1991, as amended, as codified under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq. (“Section 1981”), and 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”). See generally 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4).

1

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 1 of 21 Pageid#: 1

 2. This Court also possesses supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1367(a), as the acts and/or omissions giving rise to Ms. Hancock’s emotional distress

claims arose from the same basis of operative fact and same controversies under the

law. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), these claims are so related to claims involving

original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy.

3. Plaintiff Ms. Hancock is a resident of Forest, Virginia.

4. Defendant LCS is a public school district located in Lynchburg, Virginia. Due to

its contacts within the Commonwealth of Virginia, LCS avails itself to the jurisdiction

of this Court.

5. Venue is appropriate as the acts and/or omissions of LCS from which these

causes of action arise, occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia, within the Western District of

Virginia, Lynchburg Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).

6. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in June of 2018. Plaintiff received a Dismissal and

Notice of Rights from the EEOC, dated November 16, 2018, attached hereto as

EXHIBIT A. Plaintiff files suit within ninety (90) days of receipt of that Dismissal and

Notice of Rights.

II. THE PARTIES

7. Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American, and worked on a

consistent, full-time basis for LCS for more than four years until her unlawful demotion

and ultimate constructive discharge, which occurred on February 13, 2018.

8. LCS offers educational services to more than 8,000 students enrolled in

2

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 2 of 21 Pageid#: 2

preschool through adult classes in two high schools, three middle schools, and eleven

elementary schools.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Ms. Hancock was hired by LCS in or around December 2013 as a Second Grade

Teacher, and later worked as a Fourth Grade Teacher, and Coordinator for Student

Learning and Success.

10. Ms. Hancock was promoted to the position of Supervisor for Professional

Learning in 2017, a position she held until her unlawful demotion and re-assignment

to Sixth Grade English Teacher on or about November 27, 2017.

11. In her role as Supervisor for Professional Learning, Ms. Hancock supervised five

elementary school instructional coaches, oversaw new teacher support and mentoring

programs, conducted division level trainings, served as an internship and placement

liaison with local colleges, helped secure funding grants, and coordinated professional

development initiatives.

12. During Ms. Hancock’s employment with LCS, her work performance was

excellent and met or exceeded LCS’s expectations of her. Indeed, Ms. Hancock was a

model employee and educator, and truly enjoyed her work supporting students,

teachers, and administrators at LCS.

13. Unfortunately, Ms. Hancock was subjected to hostile and discriminatory

working conditions by former LCS Interim Superintendent Larry Massie during her

employment with LCS.

14. Upon information and belief, Dr. Massie demonstrated a discriminatory animus
3

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 3 of 21 Pageid#: 3

against Ms. Hancock, based upon her race/color, and perpetuated a climate of

race/color discrimination, intimidation, and retaliation at LCS.

15. As an example, upon information and belief, Dr. Massie referred to minority

(mainly employees who identify their race as “African-American” or “Black”)

employees as “the help,” and stated that he “would hang ‘em from a tree” when

referring to a perceived insubordinate minority employee – both of which are

derogatory terms specifically associated with racial minorities, particularly African-

Americans.

16. Upon information and belief, Dr. Massie did not refer to Caucasian employees

as “the help” and never made a similar “hang ‘em from a tree” comment with regard to

a Caucasian employee.

17. Upon information and belief, Dr. Massie also regularly commented that certain

African-American employees were “articulate,” suggesting that he was surprised by

this characteristic in African-Americans.

18. Additionally, upon information and belief, Dr. Massie stripped several African-

American LCS employees, including Ms. Hancock, from their responsibilities in 2017,

and engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination and harassment towards

minority LCS employees and those who spoke up against such discrimination.

19. On or about November 2, 2017, Dr. Massie and Marie Gee, LCS Director of

Personnel, both Caucasian, called Ms. Hancock into a meeting and informed her that

they had received an “anonymous” letter accusing Ms. Hancock of “bullying” the

instructional coaches she supervised, and that an investigation would occur.

4

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 4 of 21 Pageid#: 4

 20.These complaints were unsubstantiated and did not rise to the level of

misconduct or “bullying.”

21. Moreover, prior to Ms. Hancock’s November meeting with Dr. Massie and Ms.

Gee, she had never received a prior warning or counseling regarding any alleged

performance issues, nor did she have any direct knowledge of these complaints, as her

direct reports consistently provided her with positive feedback.

22. On November 3, 2017, Ms. Hancock met with Dr. Massie and Assistant

Superintendent John McClain, Caucasian, to discuss the letter.

23. Ms. Hancock received a written copy of the allegations against her, and voiced

her concerns that the investigation would be neither fair nor impartial. Dr. Massie

informed Ms. Hancock that he would consider her concerns.

24. On November 6, 2017, Ms. Hancock presented Dr. Massie and Dr. McClain with

a written rebuttal that refuted the allegations against her, and supported her position

that the complaints were unsubstantiated.

25. Later that morning, Ms. Hancock met with Dr. McClain, Ms. Gee, and Dr.

Massie. During this meeting, Dr. Massie informed Ms. Hancock that he had not yet

reviewed her rebuttal and that, while she could provide him with a list of individuals

who could speak to the allegations against her, he did not “want a long list of names,”

because he “couldn’t spend [his] whole time on this investigation” and had “to be

Superintendent at some point.”

26.Upon information and belief, neither Dr. Massie nor Ms. Gee even reviewed Ms.

Hancock’s rebuttal evidence, and when Ms. Hancock later inquired about the status of
5

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 5 of 21 Pageid#: 5

the investigation, she was advised by Dr. Massie not to “question” the “process” of the

individuals who would be making a determination concerning the complaints.

27. Ms. Hancock understood Dr. Massie’s comment to be a threat to her

employment and, unable to adequately defend herself against the false allegations

levied against her, again expressed her concerns to Dr. Massie that she would not

receive a fair investigation.

28.Dr. Massie also instructed Ms. Hancock that she could not contact her

instructional coaches or perform her regular job duties during the investigation.

29.Ms. Hancock then expressed her concerns that she was not being permitted to

be involved in the investigation in any meaningful way.

30.Ms. Hancock’s concerns proved correct as, upon information and belief, Dr.

Massie conducted the investigation in a biased and unfair manner that failed to adhere

to proper protocol and procedures, and was organized to discredit Ms. Hancock.

31. Specifically, Ms. Gee, upon information and belief, met with four of the five

instructional coaches Ms. Hancock supervised to coerce negative information about

Ms. Hancock during a group interview.

32. The lone employee excluded from this meeting was the one African-American

LCS employee supervised by Ms. Hancock, Chelsey Dews, who subsequently received

an abbreviated interview with Dr. Massie and the other instructional coaches at a later

date.

33. During this meeting, Dr. Massie, upon information and belief, also attempted to

coerce negative information about Ms. Hancock from the instructional coaches.
6

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 6 of 21 Pageid#: 6

 34. Moreover, Dr. McClain was initially included in the first round of instructional

coach interviews, but after he expressed valid concerns regarding the biased methods

and tone used by Dr. Massie and Ms. Gee during these meetings, Dr. McClain was

excluded from further participation in the investigation.

35. Dr. Massie and Ms. Gee conducted the sham investigation against Ms. Hancock

in order to intimidate her and remove her from her supervisory position.

36. Indeed, on November 27, 2017, Dr. Massie transferred and demoted Ms.

Hancock from her position as Supervisor of Professional Learning to the position of

Sixth Grade Teacher at a separate location, with a decrease in pay beginning in the

2018-2019 school year.

37. Dr. Massie also denied Ms. Hancock’s requests to review the investigation file,

and later informed her that she could not appeal his decision, nor would he continue

to discuss the matter with Ms. Hancock.

38.Moreover, when Ms. Hancock reported to the middle school to discuss her new

position, she was informed by the school principal that there was no open teaching

position available to her. When the principal contacted Dr. Massie and/or Ms. Gee to

inquire if he could utilize Ms. Hancock in an administrative role at his school, he was

instructed that Ms. Hancock was not permitted to have a supervisory role and could

only be assigned a teacher role.

39. Also, on November 27, 2017, in an effort to proactively defend her reputation

and career, Ms. Hancock contacted the Lynchburg City School Board (“School Board”)

to file a complaint and request a formal investigation regarding the prejudicial and
7

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 7 of 21 Pageid#: 7

false accusations made against her, and her resulting transfer, demotion, and reduction

in pay.

40.On November 28, 2017, School Board Chairman Michael Nilles informed Ms.

Hancock that the School Board would “look into these issues.”

41. On or about November 30, 2017, Dr. McClain filed a similar Report of

Harassment on behalf of himself, Ms. Hancock, and other African-American LCS

employees against Dr. Massie and Ben Copeland, LCS Assistant Superintendent for

Operations and Administration, that detailed the racial harassment and hostile work

environment perpetuated by Dr. Massie, Dr. Copeland, and other supervisors at LCS.

42. In Dr. McClain’s complaint, he specifically referenced his firsthand knowledge

of Dr. Massie’s unfair and prejudicial investigation of Ms. Hancock, and provided

additional supportive evidence that LCS maintained a pattern and practice of

discrimination and retaliation against Ms. Hancock and other minority employees.

43. LCS’s ongoing discriminatory and retaliatory behavior towards Ms. Hancock

caused her significant stress and anxiety, and resulted in Ms. Hancock’s admission to

the emergency room on December 8, 2017 for chest pains and severe migraines.

44. Ms. Hancock then requested, and was subsequently approved for, leave

pursuant to the Family Medical Leave Act, as codified under Title 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et

seq. (“FMLA”), beginning in December 2017 to manage and treat her symptoms.

45. Upon information and belief, the School Board combined Ms. Hancock and Dr.

McClain’s complaints into a single investigation (or, alternatively, never specifically

addressed Ms. Hancock’s allegations) and, while Ms. Hancock was on medical leave,
8

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 8 of 21 Pageid#: 8

the School Board tasked Lynchburg College Director of Human Resources Linda Hall

to investigate Dr. McClain and Ms. Hancock’s allegations.

46.On January 4, 2018, Ms. Hall requested that Ms. Hancock participate in the

School Board’s investigation.

47. Although she was on medical leave, Ms. Hancock agreed to Ms. Hall’s request

because she felt that it was important that her voice be heard, and that Dr. McClain

and her claims against LCS were further substantiated.

48.Ms. Hancock also provided significant written evidence supporting her position

to Ms. Hall.

49.On or about January 18, 2018, Ms. Hall presented her findings to the School

Board.

50.Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting Ms. Hancock’s claims of race

discrimination and retaliation, on February 6, 2018, LCS issued an Investigative

Report addressing Dr. McClain’s allegations (but not specifically Ms. Hancock’s

allegations), including the claims regarding the discriminatory treatment endured by

Ms. Hancock, and found no wrongdoing on the part of LCS, Dr. Massie, or Dr.

Copeland.

51. Upon information and belief, LCS’s determination was a foregone conclusion,

as LCS had no intention of providing Dr. McClain or Ms. Hancock redress for their

complaints, and instead conducted a sham investigation in order to downplay the

systemic race discrimination and retaliation perpetuated by LCS supervisory

employees.
9

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 9 of 21 Pageid#: 9

 52. LCS’s prejudicial and discriminatory investigative process and failure to

effectively address Ms. Hancock’s and Dr. McClain’s claims of race discrimination and

retaliation were devastating to Ms. Hancock, created an intolerable work environment,

and caused her continued stress and anxiety.

53. Ms. Hancock was fully capable of working and had no plans to resign. However,

LCS’s ongoing discriminatory conduct left Ms. Hancock with no other choice but to

submit her notice of resignation to LCS on February 13, 2018.

54. Accordingly, Ms. Hancock was constructively discharged on February 13, 2018.

55. Shortly thereafter, on or about May 2, 2018, Dr. McClain, Ms. Hancock’s most

ardent supporter, was advised that his employment position was being “eliminated.”

COUNT I: CLAIM FOR TITLE VII RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION

56. Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint.

57. Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American/Black.

58.At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and hostile to Ms.

Hancock and other minority employees.

59. LCS violated federal law by creating and permitting a work environment to exist

that was discriminatory and hostile to Ms. Hancock and other minority employees, and

by wrongfully demoting and transferring Ms. Hancock, and subjecting her to a biased

and unfair investigation that was organized to discredit Ms. Hancock and downplay

LCS’s systemic race and color based discriminatory practices – ultimately resulting in
10

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 10 of 21 Pageid#: 10

Ms. Hancock’s constructive discharge from employment.

60.Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in the

course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions; therefore,

LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Their actions

against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their place of

employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

61. As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has suffered and

will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

62.At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in a discriminatory practice or

practices with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms.

Hancock so as to support an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages.

63. Prior to Ms. Hancock’s wrongful demotion, transfer, and constructive

discharge, Ms. Hancock was performing her work at a satisfactory level and meeting

or exceeding LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

64.Any reasons cited by LCS for Ms. Hancock’s demotion, transfer, investigation

results, and/or constructive discharge were pretextual as Ms. Hancock’s work

performance was meeting LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

65. The above-described acts by LCS constitute race/color discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

66.Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

11

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 11 of 21 Pageid#: 11

 COUNT II: CLAIM FOR TITLE VII RACE/COLOR RETALIATON

67. Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint.

68.Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American/Black.

69.At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and retaliation, and

hostile to Ms. Hancock and other minority employees.

70. LCS violated federal law by permitting a work environment to exist that was

discriminatory, hostile, and offensive to Ms. Hancock and other minority employees,

and that punished, retaliated against, and prejudiced a victim of a discriminatory work

environment for complaining of the same.

71. Ms. Hancock experienced discrimination based upon her race/color.

72. Ms. Hancock engaged in the protected activity of complaining about this

discriminatory work environment and was subsequently targeted and unfairly

demoted, transferred, and subjected to a biased investigation, which ultimately

resulted in Ms. Hancock’s constructive discharge from employment.

73. Ms. Hancock was unfairly demoted, transferred, investigated, and

constructively discharged from employment in direct retaliation for her complaints

about workplace discrimination.

74. Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in the

course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions; therefore,

LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Their actions
12

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 12 of 21 Pageid#: 12

against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their place of

employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

75. Prior to Ms. Hancock’s wrongful demotion, transfer, and constructive

discharge, she was performing her work at a satisfactory level and meeting or exceeding

LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

76. Any reasons cited by LCS for Ms. Hancock’s demotion, transfer, investigation

results, and/or constructive discharge were pretextual as Ms. Hancock’s work

performance was meeting LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

77. As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has suffered and

will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

78. At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in retaliatory practices with malice or

reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Hancock so as to support

an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages.

79. The above-described acts by LCS constitute retaliation in violation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

80.Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

COUNT III: TITLE VII HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

81. Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint.

82.Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American, color as Black, and is

13

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 13 of 21 Pageid#: 13

protected from race/color discrimination and a hostile work environment by Title VII.

83.At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and hostile to Ms.

Hancock and other minority employees.

84.LCS violated federal law by creating and permitting a work environment to exist

that was discriminatory, hostile, and offensive to Ms. Hancock.

85.LCS’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was unwelcome, unlawful, and

based on Ms. Hancock’s race/color, as evinced by the disparate treatment she received

during her employment with LCS.

86.The conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to alter the conditions

of Ms. Hancock’s employment and to create an abusive atmosphere. Indeed, Ms.

Hancock was unlawfully demoted, transferred, investigated, and constructively

discharged due to LCS’s racially discriminatory, retaliatory, and hostile conduct.

87. Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in the

course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions; therefore,

LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Their actions

against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their place of

employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

88.As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has suffered and

will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

89.At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in a practice or practices supporting
14

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 14 of 21 Pageid#: 14

a hostile work environment with malice or reckless indifference to the federally

protected rights of Ms. Hancock so as to support an award of liquidated and/or

punitive damages.

90.The above-described acts by LCS constitute the creation of a hostile work

environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

Civil Rights Act of 1991, as codified under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”).

91. Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

COUNT IV: CLAIM FOR § 1981 RACE/COLOR DISCRIMINATION

92.Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this

Complaint.

93. Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American, color as Black, and is

protected from race/color discrimination by Section 1981.

94.At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and hostile to Ms.

Hancock and other minority employees.

95. LCS violated federal law by creating and permitting a work environment to exist

that was discriminatory and hostile to Ms. Hancock and other minority employees, and

by wrongfully demoting and transferring Ms. Hancock, and subjecting her to a biased

and unfair investigation that was organized to discredit Ms. Hancock and downplay

LCS’s systemic race and color based discriminatory practices – ultimately resulting in

Ms. Hancock’s constructive discharge from employment.

15

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 15 of 21 Pageid#: 15

 96.Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in the

course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions; therefore,

LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Their actions

against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their place of

employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

97. As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has suffered and

will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental

anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

98.At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in a discriminatory practice or

practices with malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms.

Hancock so as to support an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages.

99.Prior to Ms. Hancock’s wrongful demotion, transfer, and constructive

discharge, Ms. Hancock was performing her work at a satisfactory level and meeting

or exceeding LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

100. Any reasons cited by LCS for Ms. Hancock’s demotion, transfer,

investigation results, and/or constructive discharge were pretextual as Ms. Hancock’s

work performance was meeting LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

101. The above-described acts by LCS constitute race/color discrimination in

violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.

102. Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

16

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 16 of 21 Pageid#: 16

 COUNT V: CLAIM FOR § 1981 RACE/COLOR RETALIATON

103. Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs

of this Complaint.

104. Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American, color as Black, and

is protected from race/color discrimination and retaliation by Section 1981.

105. At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and retaliation, and

hostile to Ms. Hancock and other minority employees.

106. LCS violated federal law by permitting a work environment to exist that

was discriminatory, hostile, and offensive to Ms. Hancock and other minority

employees, and that punished, retaliated against, and prejudiced a victim of a

discriminatory work environment for complaining of the same.

107. Ms. Hancock experienced discrimination based upon her race/color.

108. Ms. Hancock engaged in the protected activity of complaining about this

discriminatory work environment and was subsequently targeted and unfairly

demoted, transferred, and subjected to a biased investigation, which ultimately

resulted in Ms. Hancock’s constructive discharge from employment.

109. Ms. Hancock was unfairly demoted, transferred, investigated, and

constructively discharged from employment in direct retaliation for her complaints

about workplace discrimination.

110. Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in

the course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions;
17

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 17 of 21 Pageid#: 17

therefore, LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Their actions against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their

place of employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

111. Prior to Ms. Hancock’s wrongful demotion, transfer, and constructive

discharge, she was performing her work at a satisfactory level and meeting or exceeding

LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

112. Any reasons cited by LCS for Ms. Hancock’s demotion, transfer,

investigation results, and/or constructive discharge were pretextual as Ms. Hancock’s

work performance was meeting LCS’s legitimate business expectations.

113. As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has

suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

114. At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in retaliatory practices with

malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Hancock so as to

support an award of liquidated and/or punitive damages.

115. The above-described acts by LCS constitute retaliation in violation of the

Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.

116. Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

COUNT VI: § 1981 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

117. Ms. Hancock incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs

of this Complaint.
18

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 18 of 21 Pageid#: 18

 118. Ms. Hancock identifies her race as African-American, color as Black, and

is protected from race/color discrimination and a hostile work environment by Section

1981.

119. At all times material hereto, LCS had an obligation to maintain a work

environment that was not charged with race/color discrimination and hostile to Ms.

Hancock and other minority employees.

120. LCS violated federal law by creating and permitting a work environment

to exist that was discriminatory, hostile, and offensive to Ms. Hancock.

121. LCS’s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was unwelcome, unlawful,

and based on Ms. Hancock’s race/color, as evinced by the disparate treatment she

received during her employment with LCS.

122. The conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to alter the

conditions of Ms. Hancock’s employment and to create an abusive atmosphere. Indeed,

Ms. Hancock was unlawfully demoted, transferred, investigated, and constructively

discharged due to LCS’s racially discriminatory, retaliatory, and hostile conduct.

123. Dr. Massie, Ms. Gee, Dr. Copeland, Dr. Nilles, and others were acting in

the course and scope of their employment with LCS at the time of their actions;

therefore, LCS is liable for their actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Their actions against Ms. Hancock were committed during working hours and at their

place of employment and/or were in conjunction with work-related responsibilities.

124. As a direct and proximate result of LCS’s actions, Ms. Hancock has

suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, emotional pain, suffering,
19

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 19 of 21 Pageid#: 19

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss.

125. At all times material hereto, LCS engaged in a practice or practices

supporting a hostile work environment with malice or reckless indifference to the

federally protected rights of Ms. Hancock so as to support an award of liquidated

and/or punitive damages.

126. The above-described acts by LCS constitute the creation of a hostile work

environment in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981,

et seq. (“Section 1981”).

127. Ms. Hancock is entitled to all reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees,

associated with this matter, plus interest, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Twanna Scott Hancock prays for judgment against

Defendant Lynchburg City Schools | Lynchburg City School Board, for equitable relief,

compensatory, liquidated and/or punitive damages, together with prejudgment

interest from the date of Ms. Hancock’s separation from employment, and for costs

and attorneys’ fees, and for such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ N. Winston West IV

Thomas E. Strelka, Esq. (VSB# 75488)
L. Leigh R. Strelka, Esq. (VSB # 73355)
20

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 20 of 21 Pageid#: 20

 N. Winston West, IV, Esq. (VSB # 92598)
STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC
Warehouse Row
119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., Suite 330
Roanoke, VA 24011
Tel: 540-283-0802
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiff

21

Case 6:19-cv-00005-NKM Document 1 Filed 02/13/19 Page 21 of 21 Pageid#: 21