Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES—W.D. Va.: Demotion of administrative assistant may have violated due process, (Aug 13, 2025)

By Cathleen Calhoun

The employee allegedly shared confidential information on upcoming changes in salary for an employee and said, “the raise was not deserved.”

An administrative assistant to a school district superintendent, who was demoted to the role of an instructional assistant, may proceed with state and federal due process claims, and First Amendment and Virginia free speech claims, a federal district court in Virginia has concluded. The school district’s employment policies guaranteed the right to request a hearing with the superintendent before a disciplinary action, like demotion, but the employee was never given an opportunity to defend herself. The court found that she plausibly alleged a property interest in her role as executive assistant sufficient to state a claim for violation of due process and plausibly stated claims of violations of free speech (Dolosreyes v. Botetourt County Public Schools , No. 7:24-cv-00525 (W.D. Va. Aug. 7, 2025)).

Demotion. The employee worked for the county public school Superintendent for almost four years as his administrative assistant. Around August 4, 2022, she discussed with school board employees the impending raise of another employee and said that “the raise was not deserved and therefore was not an appropriate expenditure of public funds.” Around the same time, in responding to another employee via text, she asked if the first day of school “[i]s… like it is every year—a total shift [sic] show?” or words to that effect, the court noted. On August 11, 2022, she was informed by letter that, effective immediately, she was being placed on administrative leave with pay “due to a breach of confidentiality in the workplace and unprofessionalism.” She kept her $60,399 per year salary for the year, the higher rate, but was required to sign a new contract as an instructional assistant. In the two years following, her salary was $21,727 and $27,117.

Due Process. The court noted that the essential elements of the employee’s Fourteenth Amendment and procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Virginia Constitution are: (1) a property interest, (2) of which plaintiff was deprived by the defendant, (3) without due process of law. The court found that in this instance, since the school district had employment policies that guaranteed the right to request a hearing with the superintendent before a disciplinary action, like demotion or reassignment, and that the employee was denied that opportunity, she plausibly alleged a property interest in her role as executive assistant sufficient to state a claim for violation of due process. As a result, the court ruled that her state due process claim will proceed against the Superintendent in his individual capacity and the School Board, and the employee’s federal due process claim will also proceed.

Free speech. The employee alleged that her right to free speech was violated under the Federal and Virginia constitutions in two ways: (1) by removing her as “Executive Assistant for her speech concerning the wages of a government employee and the operation of the government;” and (2) by barring her from “communicat[ing] with anyone associated with BCPS except the Superintendent and human resources.” The court found that the employee plausibly stated both claims. The court wrote that the defendants, “...argue that the restriction is narrowly tailored to speech about the investigation.” However, the court reasoned that at this stage, it must accept the employee’s allegation that she was banned from any contact with the school district’s personnel. “This broad restriction necessarily sweeps in speech on matters of public concern,” the court wrote. As a result, First Amendment and Virginia free speech claims will proceed against the Superintendent in his individual capacity, and the School Board, the court held.

Breach of contract. The court granted the motion by the defendants to dismiss a breach of contract claim. The court found that the employment contract did not guarantee the employee a specific job title, and that she did not suffer damages since she was paid in full for the amount of her contract for the 2022-23 school year.

Other motions to dismiss. Motions to dismiss were also granted as to the claims asserted against the county public schools, the individual school board members, and the Superintendent in their official capacities, and the individual school board members in their personal capacities. Finally, the motion to dismiss was granted as to the federal due process claim against the Superintendent in his personal capacity.

The case is No. 7:24-cv-00525.

Judge: Ballou, R.

Attorneys: Meghan Ashley Strickler (Williams & Strickler) for LuAnn Delosreyes. Johneal Moore White (Glenn Robinson Cathey Memmer & Skaff) for Botetourt County Public Schools, the School Board for Botetourt County Public Schools, Jonathan Russ, Anne Weddle, Dana McCaleb, Jenny Wilson, Tim Davidick and Matthew East.

Companies: Botetourt County Public Schools; The School Board for Botetourt County Public Schools

Cases: PublicEmployees IndividualRights VirginiaNews