Roncales v. Cnty. of Henrico, Civil Action No. 3:19cv234

• Court: United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Virginia)
• Writing for the Court: M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge
• Citation: 451 F.Supp.3d 480
• Parties: Rosa RONCALES, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF HENRICO, et al., Defendants.
• Decision Date: 31 March 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:19cv234

451 F.Supp.3d 480

Rosa RONCALES, Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF HENRICO, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19cv234

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

Signed March 31, 2020

451 F.Supp.3d 487

Nicholas Foris Simopoulos, Simopoulos Law, PLLC, Richmond, VA, Jeffrey E. Fogel, harlottesville, VA, for Plaintiff.

Denise Mary Letendre, Henrico County Attorney's Office, Henrico, VA, Lee Ann Anderson, County of Henrico, Henrico, VA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

M. Hannah Lauck, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Rosa Roncales brings this civil action against her former employer, the County of Henrico (the "County of Henrico" or the "County"), and her former supervisors at the Henrico Fire Department: Anthony McDowell, Alec Oughton, Scotty Roberts, and Eugene Gerald (collectively with the County, "Defendants"). In her Second Amended Complaint, Roncales claims Defendants unlawfully terminated her from her position as a Henrico County firefighter. She brings two causes of action: (1) that Defendants violated the First Amendment when they terminated her after she participated in a political protest (the "First Amendment Retaliation Claim"); and, (2) that Defendants denied her due process when they infringed on her protected liberty interests to "engage in any of the common occupancies of life, including fire-fighting" and tarnished her good name by placing stigmatizing information in her personnel file, (the "Due Process Claim"). (Compl.,¹ ECF No. 30.)

Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 31.) Roncales responded in opposition, (ECF No. 33), and Defendants replied, (ECF No. 34).

These matters are ripe for adjudication. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions,

451 F.Supp.3d 488

and argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a).² For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will allow Roncales's First Amendment Retaliation Claims against the individual Defendants, McDowell, Oughton, Roberts, and Gerald, to survive the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will allow Roncales's Due Process Claim against McDowell to survive the Motion to Dismiss. The Court will dismiss both claims against the County of Henrico and against McDowell in his official capacity.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Roncales brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983³ and the First⁴ and Fourteenth Amendments⁵ to the United States Constitution. Roncales brings her First Amendment Retaliation Claim against: (1) the County of Henrico; (2) McDowell, then the Henrico Fire Department Chief, in his individual and official capacities; (3) Alec Oughton, the Henrico Fire Department Assistant Chief, in his individual capacity; (4) Scotty Roberts, the Henrico Fire Department Battalion Chief, in his individual capacity; and, (5) Eugene Gerald, the Henrico Fire Department District Chief, in his individual capacity. (Compl. 2.) Roncales brings her Due Process Claim against (1) the County of Henrico; and, (2) McDowell, then the Henrico Fire Department Chief, in his individual and official capacities.⁶ (Id. )

A. Factual Background ⁷

Roncales's claims stem from her termination from the Henrico Fire Department

451 F.Supp.3d 489

in April 2017. (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 38.) Before her termination from the Henrico Fire Department, Roncales had worked as a firefighter for more than five years, first at the Petersburg Fire Department and then for the County of Henrico. (Id. ¶ 10.) Roncales asserts that prior to the events described here she had intended on pursuing a career as a firefighter. (Id. ¶ 11.)

1. Circumstances Leading to Roncales's Termination on April 4, 2017

The events leading to Roncales's April 2017 termination began in November 2016, shortly after the election of President Donald Trump. (Id. ¶ 12.) Roncales states that in November 2016 she "posted a graphic on her personal Facebook page severely critical of the incoming administration." (Id. ) According to Roncales, Robert Owens and Ronnie Thomas, her supervisors at the Henrico Fire Department, warned her " ‘to be careful’ about what she posted on social media." (Id. ¶ 13.) Owens and Thomas shared the post with Roncales's chain of command, including the individual Defendants, McDowell, Oughton, Roberts, and Gerald. (Id. ) "Soon thereafter, [her] Facebook post was disseminated and spread among members of the [Henrico Fire Department]." (Id. ¶ 14.)

Approximately two months later, on January 20, 2017, Roncales says she "participated in a political march and rally in Washington, D.C., along with thousands of other participants, in opposition to the inauguration of Donald Trump." (Id. ¶ 15.) Roncales states that she "attended the protest on her own time and wore no clothing or other markings that would identify her" as a Henrico County firefighter. (Id. ¶ 16.) During that event she was "swept up in a large-scale arrest of several hundred people by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department and, subsequently, charged with several offenses." (Id. ¶ 17.) The D.C. Metropolitan Police Department later dismissed the charges against Roncales. (Id. )

Henrico Fire Department policy required Roncales to report her arrest to her supervisor, Ronnie Thomas, which she did. (Id. ¶ 18.) Although Roncales asked her supervisor to keep her arrest confidential, she claims that this information "was immediately disseminated" throughout the department. (Id. ) After disclosing her arrest, McDowell and Oughton transferred Roncales "to a light position, reducing her firefighting duties and responsibilities." (Id. ¶ 19.) Roncales states that, in late January, all of the Defendants knew about her Facebook post and the circumstances surrounding her arrest. (Id. ¶ 20.)

2. Roncales's Supervisors Question Her Three Times About the Protest

"Days later, on January 30, 2017," Roncales received a memorandum from "Oughton that she would be questioned as part of an ... administrative investigation into her arrest." (Id. ¶ 21.) That same day, Roberts and Gerald conducted the questioning. (Id. ¶ 22.) Prior to receiving that memorandum, Roncales did not know that such questioning would occur. (Id. ) Roncales states that after receiving the memorandum and before the questioning began, she "requested a brief delay so she could consult with her legal counsel but Defendants Roberts and Gerald instructed her that she had only until 2 p.m. to subject herself to their ‘interrogation’ or face termination." (Id. )

Roncales claims that McDowell and Oughton directed Roberts and Gerald to question her. (Id. ) Roncales asserts that, before questioning, either Roberts or Oughton "commented that it would be ‘sticky if she doesn't come clean.’ " (Id. ¶ 25.) Roncales further alleges that either Roberts or Oughton said someone instructed

451 F.Supp.3d 490

them to "hear that shit and nip it in the bud." (Id. ) During the January 30, 2017 questioning, Roncales was asked how she had " ‘become associated’ with the group at the political rally and whether she had attended the rally because she ‘had a similar ideology’ to said group." (Id. ¶ 26.) Roncales states that she sat for questioning because she did not want to lose her job but the "investigation itself was a pretext" for her ultimate discharge. (Id. ¶ 23.)

One week after the initial questioning, on February 7, 2017, Roberts and Gerald again questioned Roncales. (Id. ¶ 24.) In the second round of questioning, "Roncales was specifically asked if she shared the political views of those with whom she was demonstrating. [Roncales] acknowledged that she did." (Id. ¶ 27.) Roncales further alleges that she was asked about what she wore during the rally, whether she had participated in other events with that organization, and "whether she shared the violent actions of some people." (Id. ¶ 28.) Roncales answered that "she had no intention to break the law and when she saw others doing so, she made every effort to get away from them." (Id. ¶ 29.) Roncales believes McDowell and Oughton approved Roberts and Gerald's questions regarding her political affiliations. (Id. ¶ 30.) Roncales further states that Roberts and Gerald discussed her responses with McDowell and Oughton. (Id. )

Roughly two months later, on April 4, 2017, Roncales met with McDowell and Oughton. (Id. ¶ 32.) During that meeting, McDowell told Roncales that "he believed there were discrepancies between what she told [Roberts and Gerald] and the information provided by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department." (Id. ¶ 33.) Either McDowell or Oughton then told Roncales that the police "had a video of her watching the windows of a McDonalds being broken by protesters." (Id. ¶ 34.) Roncales told McDowell and Oughton that the allegation was not true and that "her legal counsel had possession of a video demonstrating that was not true." (Id. ) McDowell and Oughton responded that "they did...