Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—4th Cir.: Black assistant principals, subject to RIF, cannot revive claims, (Apr 21, 2026)

By Todd Harrison, J.D.

They failed to propose an alternative for the reduction in force that would adequately serve the school board’s legitimate business necessities.

Affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against various discrimination claims asserted by four former assistant principals for Harford County, Maryland Public Schools, the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, found that they failed to adduce evidence of pretext and could not make out a prima facie case of retaliation. The assistant principals were terminated as part of a reduction in force after being required to apply anew for their positions, along with all other current assistant principals who wished to stay in their position. This process followed a standardized format, and decisions were based in part on each school principal’s list of their preferred top five applicants (Bomar v. Board of Education of Harford County, No. 25-1065 (4th Cir. Apr. 16, 2026, unpublished)).

RIF. Shortly after becoming superintendent of Harford County Public Schools in 2018, the superintendent learned that the school system was facing a budget deficit. In response, he decided to significantly reduce the number of administrative staff, including assistant principals. After discussions with the school board regarding previous procedures for reductions in force, he opted to create a new procedure, one aimed at better evaluating employees and that would provide supervisors with more of a say regarding which employees would retain their positions.

Reassignment plan. To achieve these goals, the superintendent, in consultation with the school board, developed a new RIF procedure. Under the plan, all current assistant principals interested in continuing to serve in their positions were required to apply anew. The application process included submitting a resume along with recorded video and written responses to uniform questions.

School principals were asked to review and score each applicant’s responses. The principals were also asked to provide ranked lists of their top five applicants for assistant principal.

Appellants’ applications. In February 2019 the appellants, all Black women over the age of 40, submitted an application in accordance with the reassignment plan. None scored in the top percentile of applicants. During the reassignment period, two of the appellants took time away from work for medical reasons.

That June, each appellant received a letter notifying them that they would be placed in a different role in the school system. Although 101 applications were submitted, the appellants were the only Black women over the age of 40 who had applied. Of the 13 applicants who were not selected, 30 percent were Black while 70 percent were white.

Post-RIF openings. Later that summer and into the following year, several assistant principal positions became vacant. One school principal initially selected one of the appellants as his first choice for assistant principal. However, after the school board requested that the principal submit additional choices, the appellant was not chosen for the position.

Additional assistant principal positions opened up during the spring and summer of 2020. Two of the appellants were not considered for these positions, despite having been informed that they would remain in the applicant pool for three years following their non-selection. Similarly, neither were considered for openings in 2021.

Complaints. Subsequently, each appellant submitted an administrative charge with the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights and the EEOC, alleging that they had been the subject of unlawful discrimination and retaliation on the basis of race, sex, and age.

In addition, three of the four appellants raised claims unique to their circumstances. One asserted that she had submitted a discrimination complaint with U.S. Department of Education and the school board became aware of her complaint on July 19, 2019. The two others alleged that they were not selected in retaliation for taking protected medical leave.

Lawsuit. Upon receiving right-to-sue letters, the appellants filed this multi-plaintiff lawsuit asserting claims for race, sex, and age discrimination in violation of Title VII, the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (MFEPA), and the ADEA. They premised their discrimination claims on theories of both disparate treatment and disparate impact.

The appellants also alleged that the school board retaliated against them for having objected to their allegedly discriminatory treatment. Further, they separately alleged that the superintendent violated their constitutional rights in violation of Section 1983 by subjecting them to unlawful discrimination. Finally, two of the appellants asserted claims for retaliation in violation of the FMLA. The district court granted summary judgment against all claims, leading to this appeal.

Disparate treatment. First, the court addressed the appellants’ discrimination claims, beginning with their disparate treatment theory. The court assumed, without deciding, that each had made out their prima facie case. The court then found that the school district had articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its failure to select the appellants—their applications fell short when compared to other applicants.

In response, the appellants argued that the school board failed to meet its burden to produce evidence that they were not selected because of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons. They contended that the reassignment plan failed to include adequate safeguards to ensure that the process was legitimate and not arbitrary or discriminatory.

“This argument misunderstands the inquiry at this second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework,” said the court, explaining that the school board need only proffer evidence to support its legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for non-selection. The school board satisfied its burden by pointing to applicants’ interview scores, applicants’ immediate supervisor references, and principals’ top five applicant lists.

Turning to whether these proffered reasons were pretextual, the court found the appellants had failed to produce sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the grant of summary judgment against their claim for disparate treatment discrimination was affirmed.

Disparate impact. In addition to their disparate treatment claim, the appellants also alleged that the reassignment plan disparately impacted Black women candidates because four out of five Black women candidates were not selected.

Again, assuming without deciding, that the appellants had established their prima facie case, the court found that the school board had adduced sufficient evidence that it implemented the reassignment plan to support legitimate business necessities, including ensuring that school principals were given an opportunity to provide input about which applicant was chosen to serve as assistant principal at their school.

“Appellants put forward no available alternative employment practice that would have less disparate impact and still have served the School Board’s legitimate necessities as required,” said the court, affirming the grant of summary judgment against the disparate impact claims.

Retaliation. Next, the court addressed the appellants’ claims that the school board retaliated against them in violation of Title VII and the MFEPA because they filed formal charges of discrimination and had complained internally. One appellant further claimed that she was retaliated against for filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education.

Although these actions constituted protected activity, the court found the appellants had failed to produce evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that members of the school board were aware of the protected activity at the time of the alleged adverse actions. Without evidence of a causal relationship, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment as to this claim.

FMLA retaliation. Turning to the two appellants’ claims for FMLA retaliation, the court found that they had successfully established their prima facie case as it related to the 2019 reassignment plan. However, the school district again proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their non-selection—other applicants had performed better. The appellants again failed to show that this proffered reason was pretextual and summary judgment was appropriate against this claim.

With regard to the appellants’ assertion that they were also retaliated against because their names had been excluded from the applicant pool for positions that had opened in 2020 and 2021, the court found these claims stumbled at the first step of the McDonnell Douglas framework.

The sole support for this claim was one of temporal proximity. However, both appellants’ FMLA leave periods ended more than a year before they were excluded from the applicant pool.

“This significant lapse of time cannot create an inference that there is a causal connection between a protected activity and an adverse employment action,” said the court, affirming the grant of summary judgment.

Section 1983. Finally, the court turned to the appellants’ Section 1983 claims brought against the school superintendent. Because the elements required to prevail on Section 1983 claims of employment discrimination are the same as those under Title VII, the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment against this claim.

The case is No. 25-1065.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Corlie McCormick, Jr. (Law Offices of Corlie McCormick, Jr.) for Robyn Bomar, Letina Hall, Jonise Stallings, and Shakera Adkins. Adam Elliot Konstas (Pessin Katz Law) for Board of Education of Harford County.

Companies: Board of Education of Harford County

Cases: Discrimination AgeDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination SexDiscrimination Discharge EmployeeLeave PublicEmployees Retaliation MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews