IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VERGINIA LYNCHBURG DIVISION GERALD ERNEST CRAIG, Plaintiff, Case No: 6:17CV00028 BEDFORD COUNTY, Serve: G, Carl Boggess County Administrator Bedford County Administration 122 East Main Street, Suite 202 Bedford, Virginia 24523. CURRY MARTIN, Inhis professional capacity as.a Supervisor of Bedford County and in his individual capacity. Serve: 431 Surrey Drive Huddleston, VA 24104 BILL THOMASSON, In his professional capacity as a Supervisor of Bedford County and in his individual capacity. Serve: 3915 Thomasson Mill Road Goodview, VA 24095 STEVE WILKERSON, Inhis professional capacity as a Supervisor of Bedford County and in his individual capacity. Serve: 2452 Bethel Church Road Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 1 of 17 Pageid#: 1Forest, VA 24551 ) ) and ) ) CARL BOGGE d Inhis professional capacity as County) Attorney and County Administrator > and in his individual capacity. > ) Serve: 3236 Villamont Road ? Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064 ) > Defendants. ) COMPLAINT COMES NOW Plaintiff Gerald Emest Craig, by counsel, and hereby files this, Complaint against Defendants Bedford County (hereinafter, at times, “the County") and, in their respective individual and professional capacities simultaneously, Curry Martin, Bill Thomasson, Steve Wilkerson and Cael Boggess. In support of his Complaint, Mr. Craig provides as follows: ‘THE PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 4. ‘This matter arises out of an employment relationship between Mr. Craig and his former employer, Bedford County, Virginia. 2. Mr. Craig is a sixty-three (63) year old resident of Bedford County, 3. Defendants Martin, Thomasson, Wilkerson and Boggess are all residents of Bedford County and are all currently employed by the County, Defendants Martin, Ikerson are current Supervisors serving on the Bedford County Board of Supervisors, the organized local government of the County. Defendant Boggess is the former County Attorney and current County Administrator of the Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 20f 17 Pageidi: 2County. 4. This Complaint incorporates three Counts, each one filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 5. Venueis appropriate as all acis and/or omissions of the Defendants occurred within the Western District of Virginia, EACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Portion of the Iceberg Above the Waterline: Mr. Craig’s Hire, Probation Extensions and Termination, 6, Mr. Craig was hired by the County on or about December 1,2014, as the Director of, ‘Tourism for the County. 7. Mr. Craig worked continuously as the Director of Tourism until his termination from employment on or around May 11, 2016. 8. County funds were used to pay Mr. Craig a salary, benefits, and establish a retirement account through the Virginia Retirement System, all in exchange for Mr, Craig's performance af certain job duties 9. Over the course and duration of his employment, Mr, Craig was supervised by the individual serving as the County Adutinistrator. 10, Regarding Mr. Craig's work performance, during the entirety of Mr. Craig's employment with the County, he never received a work performance evaluation / annual review nor did he receive any workplace discipline of anykind. Thronghout Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Dacument1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 3 of 17 Pageid#: 3is employment with the County, Mr. Craig never violated any policy of the County, nor was he placed on any performance improvement plan. 11, Repeated requests by Mr. Craig to his supervisor for any sort of work performance evaluation never yielded one in response. 12, Upon information and belief, Mr. Craig was never presented a work performance evaluation because a plan had been put in place to retaliate against Mr. Craig. 19, Practices and policies of the County typically require the implementation of written work performance evaluations. 14. There existed no legitimate reason to deny Mr. Craig work performance evaluations. 15. Guidance for employment practices at the County was encapsulated in a volume of policies within an employee handbook during the course of Mr. Craig's employment. 16, Of note, Section 2-8 of the County Handbook contains the following policy": arivtine employees shal ‘Se employee handbook excerpt appondes to this pleading as EXHIBIT A (emphasis added), 4 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 4 of 17 Pageid#: 417. Veracity of this policy is easily proven as all employees of the County are placed on this mandatory probation period for six months. 18. Employees classified as “probationary” within this six-month term are not eligible ‘to participate in any grievance procedures of the County. 19, Release from automatic probation for Mr. Craig shoold have occurred on or around June 2, 2015, the end of the six-month term, if the County had indeed followed the poliey. 20,Near ar around May 35, 66: Me Craig was directed to meet with then interim, County Administrator, Mr. Boggess, and Human Resources Director, Dawn Fields. 21. Mr. Craig believed that the purpose of this meeting was to provide him with a performance review; however, Mr, Craig never reveived one, The purpose of the meeting, as explained by Mr. Boggess ,was to extend Mr. Craig's probationary period by an additional six months. 22, Extensions of the probationary period were, at the time, unheard of at the County. 29. No act nor omission by Mr. Craig necessitated a probation extension for Mr. Craig. 24. The decision left Mr, Craig internally shocked because he had known of no other County employee who had received an extension of their probationary term beyond six months. Moreover, in the prior mont! Mr. Craig had only exhibited positive performance. 25. Mr, Boggess had no authority in his capacity as Administrator (0 extend Mr. Craig's probationary period. No provision within the employee handbook nor any statutory construct or enacted ordinance empower the Administrator to extend an Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document Filed 04/03/17 Page Sof 17 Pageidi: 5‘employee's probationary term beyond six months. 26, Mr. Boggess repeatedly referred to Mr. Craig as a “provisional employee” of the County even though no such classification exists at the County. 27. Another six months passed and, as before, Mr. Craig had only exhibited positive work performance. 28. Notwithstanding his excellent work performance and lack of any disciplinary action, in a meeting on or around November 24, 2015, Mr. Boggess again extended Mr. Craig's employment probationary period for an additional six months. 29. After the passage of another six months, on or around May 11, 2036, Mr. Craig again met with Mr. Boggess and Ms. Fields at their request and was informed that he was being terminated from employment. No specific reason was cited for this termination 30.Duting this May 11, 2016 meeting, Mr. Boggess handed Mr. Craig 2 letter, which hhas been appended to this pleading and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT B. Mr. Boggess did not allow Mr. Craig to open the envelope until after he had been terminated, subsequent to the termination meeting. The letter detailed a number of alleged issues with Mr. Craig's work performance, none of which had previously been communicated to Mr. Craig. ‘The letter concluded with the following passage: 6 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 6 of 17 Pageidé: 631. By denying Mr. Craig a Loudermill hearing, Mr. Craig was unable to grieve or contest the decision to terminate him. B. The Large Portion of leeberg Below the Waterline: What Occurred Behind the Scenes and the Conspiracy to Terminate Mr. Craig, 32.0n October 24, 2014, individuals organized as the local Republican party of Bedford County held a meeting to decide whether Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson should be publicly censured by the party for raising real estate taxes. 33-Approximately sixty (60) individuals identifying themselves. as Republicans of Bedford County voted regarding the decision to censure these Defendants, 34. Republican majority voted to censure these Defendants and they were censured. Mr. Craig participated in this meeting and voted to censure Defendants Martin, ‘Thomasson and Wilkerson. The decision to censure these Defendants was widely reported by various media outlets, 35. Mr. Craig's attendance at the meeting of the local Republican party was not part of 7 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 7 of 17 Pageid#: 7his job duties. Mr. Craig's participation in the vote to censure the aforementioned Defendants was a matter of protected political expression regarding a very publio concern, to-wit, the raising of real estate taxes. 36. Upon information and belief, these censured Defendants targeted Mr. Craig and put into a place a plan of retaliation against him for his participation and vote in the meeting, 37-in the fall of 2014, County Administrator Mark Reeter and Board Member Annie Pollard were part of a three-person team interviewing prospective applicants for the position of Director of Tourism. 38.After a vote, the hiring team decided to hire Mr. Craig, 39-However, after Mr. Reeter discussed the decision with Defendants Boggess, Martin, ‘Thomasson and Wilkerson, Mr. Reeter indicated to Mr. Sharp and Ms, Pollard that Defendants Boggess, Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson did not wish to hire Mr. Craig because they had been “upset” due to Mr. Craig's participation in the vote'to censure the Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson, 40.Mr. Sharp, concerned that a minority membership of the Board was improperly {injecting themselves into a hiring decision predicated on political reasons, discussed the matter with Mr. Reeter. 41. Mr. Reeter jowledged to Mr. Sharp and to Board Chairwoman Tamara Parker that Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson had pressuted Mr, Reeter not to hire Mr. Craig due to political reasons. 42.Mr. Reeter informed Ms. Parker that Defendant Thomasson was “furious” Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 8 of 17 Pageid#: 8regarding the hiring of Mr, Craig due to Mr. Craig's participation in the vote to censure Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson. 43.Mr. ‘Thomasson has, on numerous oecasions, informed Ms. Parker that the County “had to get rid of Carl Boggess before he gets us {the County’ into any more trouble,” Later, Defendant Thomasson voted in support of Mr. Boggess to become Administrator. Upon information and belief, the position of Administrator was offered to Mr. Boggess not based upon merit or a demonstration of positive work performance, but as a gesture of eronyism, to-wit, a political payback for Defendant Boggess’s participation in the plan to retaliation iegally against Mr. Craig. 44.Mr. Sharp informed Mr, Reeter that a miajority of the Board would support the hiring of Mr. Craig and that it was highly inappropriate to allow such political considerations to affect « personnel decision. 45-In November of 2015, a letter signed by purported “Bedford County: Tourism Stakeholders”, appended to this pleading and made a part hereof as EXHIBIT C, was hand-delivered to the County by Lee Walker, a political operative and associate of Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson. 46. Upon information and belief, this letter was drafted by National D-Day Memorial Foundation President April Cheek-Messier, ‘The leiter was highly critical of the County’s decisions and actions related to tourism and highly critical of Mr. Craig. 47.In a stark deviation from proper procedure this letter was not immediately date- stamped upon receipt. Pursuant to proper practice and procedure, this letter should have been immediately delivered to the active Board members in November Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 9 of 17 Pageid#: 9of 2015. 48.However, the letter was deliberately concealed by individuals involved in. the conspiracy to terminate Mr. Craig from Board Members until January of 2016 when the memabership of the Board had changed 49.Upon information and belief, Defendants Boggess, Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson worked in concert with April Check-Messier to draft the letter for the sole purpose of establishing a pretext to political retaliation against Mr, Craig. 50:In December of 2015, Defendant Boggess announced at a meeting of the Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce that Defendant Boggess was going to be hired as the next County Administrator despite the fact that the position would be advertised and other applicants were to be interviewed in 2016. 51. Upon information and belief, Defendant Boggess was given the position of County Administrator through the decisions and machin ions of Defendants Martin, ‘Thomasson and Wilkerson as a payback for agreeing to terminate Mr. Craig for political reasons. 52. Mr, Reeter left the employ of Bedford County in the Spring of 2015 and Defendant Boggess became the acting Administrator. 53."Two days prior to Mr. Craig's tormination, Defendant Boggess informed the Board. in aclosed meeting that he had determined to termi: r. Craig. At this meeting, Mr. Sharp questioned Defendant Boggess whether he had ever provided any details or information to Mr. Craig regarding how he might improve his job performance. Mr, Boggess informed Mr. Sharp that, from the first time he met with Mr. Craig, he 10 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 10 of 17 Pageidit: 10had already had his “mind made up to terminate him’ and that he “had just had to figure out how he was going to do it.” 54. Upon information and belief, Mr. Craig's replacement was the direct subordinate of National D-Day Memorial Foundation President April Cheek-Messier, the author of the November 2015 aforementioned letter, thus lending further evidentiary support for a conspiracy of retaliation. COUNT 1:1 Amendment Freedom of Expression Retaliation and Wrongful Termination in Violation of 42 U.S.C § 1983 55. Mr. Craig hereby incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this, Complaint. 56.Mr. Craig engaged in political speech, to-wit, the participation in a vote by local Bedford County Republicans to censure Defendants Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson. This vote touched upon matters of public concern. 457: At all times, Mr. Craig acted contemporaneously as a concerned citizen and his comments and actions at the meeting of loeal Bedford County Republicans were made in order to bring the issues to light. 58. Mr. Craig’s interest in participating in political speech regarding matters of public concern outweighed the governmental interest in managing the warking environment, '59-Mr. Craig's vote, a method of political speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, was designed to ensure proper functioning of the County; not in order to disrupt any function of the County. i Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page i10f17 Pageidt#: 1160.Defendants Boggess, Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson retaliated against Mr. Craig through various machinations and agents to illegally extend Mr. Craig's probationary employment, legally deny Mr. Craig due process of law, and to terminate Mr. Craig, all in retaliation for Mr. Craig's involvement in political speech. 61. The Defendants violated Mr. Craig's First Amendment rights sueb that a cause of action arose out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 62.Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Craig has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss. 63.The Defendants were, or should have been, aware that they violated Mr. Craig's First Amendment rights when they terminated Mr. Craig because of protected political speech. 64.The Defendants acted with reckless and/or callous indifference when they terminated Plaintiff because of this cot Uh ‘Wrongful Termination in Violation of 42.U.S.C§ 1983 65. Mr. Craig hereby incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this Amendment Fre Complaint. 66. Mr. Craig engaged in political patronage and association, to-wit, the participation in a vote by local Bedford County Republicans to censure Defendants Martin, ‘Thomasson and Wilkerson. This vote touched upon matters of publie coneern. 12 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 12 0f17 Pageidd: 1267.At all times, Mr. Craig acted contemporaneously as a concerned citizen and his comments and actions at the meeting of local Bedford County Republicans were nade in order to bring the issues to light. 68.Mr. Craig's interest in participating in political speech regarding matters of public concern ontweighed the governmental interest in managing the working environment. 69.Mr. Craig's vote and association with the local Republican party are protected activities under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 70.Defendants Boggess, Martin, Thomasson and Wilkerson: retaliated against Mr. Craig through various machinations and agents to illegally extend Mr. Craig's probationary employment, illegally deny Mr. Craig due process of law, and to terminate Mr. Craig all in retaliation for Mr. Craig's involvement in political association and expression. 71. The Defendants violated Mr, Craig's First Amendment rights such that a cause of action arose out of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 72.As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Craig has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss 73. The Defendants were, or should have been, aware thet they violated Mr. Craig's First Amendment rights when they terminated Mr. Craig because of protected political association. 74.The Defendants acted with reckless and/or callous indifference when they Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 13 of 17 Pageid#: 13terminated Mr. Craig because of his political association. 75.'The position of Director of Tourism does not require political leanings or necessary association(s) as a requirement of the job, 76. The Defendants violated Mr. Craig's right to freedom of association. COUNT Ii; Procedural Due Process Deprivation in Violation of a2 U.S.C § 1983, 77. Mr. Craig hereby incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this ‘Complaint. 78.Mr, Craig held a legitimate expectation of continued employment with the County as his term of employment exceeded the six-month probationary term applied to all County employees. 79.\ir. Craig possessed a proprietary interest in his employment as Director of Tourism. 80.The Defendants deprived Mr. Craig of due process of the law when Mr. Craig's probationary period was illegally extended. 81. The Defendants deprived Mr. Craig of due process of the law illegally when Mr. Craig's employment was terminated in such a way that Mr. Craig could not contest the matter in any way, such as in a grievance proceeding. 82.Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Craig has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss. Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 14 of 17 Pageidit: 14COUNT IV: Due Process Deprivation of a Liberty Interest in Violation of 42 U.S.C 8 1983 83.Mr. Craig hereby incorporates by reference herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 84, Due to the acts and/or omissions of the Defendants, Mr. Craig's honor, integrity, name and reputation were damaged. 85.This damage has created a stigma limiting Mr. Craig's future employment ‘opportunities. 86.The Defendants intentionally failed to offer Mr. Craig owed notice or a hearing, such as a grievance, by which he could seek to clear his name, 87. Atall times, the Defendants acted to create and disseminate a false and defamatory impression regarding Mr. Craig in connection with his termination such that his Iiberty interests were deprived. 88.4s a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Craig has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary loss, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss, . ive Deprivatis in Violation of ons ‘89, Mr. Craig hereby incorporates by referenee herein the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 90.The retaliation suffered by Mt. Craig at the hands of the Defendants was a substantial infringement of law prompted by group animus and a deliberate 1s Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 15 of 17 Pageidit: 15flouting of the law such that Mr. Craig's due process rights were significantly trammeled. 91. The conspiracies, schemes and machinations of the Defendants to retaliate against Mr. Craig was to such a degree as to shock the conscience and violate Mr. Craig's substantive due prooess rights. 92.Asa direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions, Mr. Craig has suffered and will continue to suffer pecuniary Joss, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary loss, WHEREFORE Plaintiff Gerald Ernest Craig prays for judgment against the Defendants consistent with these allegations and requests that the Court award him back pay, front pay, compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of ‘Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000.00) together with pre-judgment interest from the date of the aforementioned statements and actions, as well as incidental and consequential costs associated herewith, including attorneys’ fees and such other relief as a competent Court would deem appropriate, ‘TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED. Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 16 of 17 Pageid#: 16Respeetfully submitted, Homan Facil (Sb# 75488 fa & Leigh R, Stretka (VSB473355) 4's STRELKA LAW OFFICE, PC Ne Warehouse Row 119 Norfolk Avenue, 8.W., Suite 330 Roanoke, VA 24011 Tel: 540-283-0802 thomas@strelkalaw.com leigh@stretklaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff 17 Case 6:17-cv-00028-NKM Document 1 Filed 04/03/17 Page 17 of 17 Pageid#: 17