Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MARY INGRAM, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action
v. ) File No.
)
BUFORD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
GEYE HAMBY, in his individual and )
official capacities, and KALEEN )
PULLEY, in her individual and )
official capacities, )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________ )
Plaintiff, Ms. Mary Ingram, submits the following Complaint for Damages
and Equitable Relief against Defendants Buford City School District, Geye
Hamby, individually and in his official capacity, and Kaleen Pulley, individually
INTRODUCTION
1.
against Ms. Ingram and violation of her First Amendment rights by the
2.
paraprofessional educator serving the students of the Buford City School District
for nearly twenty years until she asked questions on behalf of herself and other
black citizens at a public meeting of the school Board as to why the District
refused to use school colors associated with a black school before the District’s
schools were integrated. After that, Defendant Hamby, who openly refers to black
at https://www.dropbox.com/s/qaopbjs0n2allkb/Audio%20from%20Sony%20ICD-
3.
42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She has timely filed a charge of
2
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 3 of 31
and awaits a Notice of Right to Sue letter. Upon receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue
letter, she will move for leave to amend this lawsuit to add race discrimination and
retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42
U.S.C. §2000e et. seq. She also asserts claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation
of the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. She seeks back pay and the lost economic benefits of her
punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation, and all other
4.
Ms. Ingram has satisfied all administrative prerequisites to perfect her claims
of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Specifically, she timely filed a
3
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 4 of 31
5.
Plaintiff’s claims present federal questions over which this Court has
6.
Georgia. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c), as a substantial part
of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Atlanta
Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
PARTIES
7.
Georgia.
8.
public school district operating by virtue of Art. VIII, § VII, ¶ 1 of the Constitution
maintain public schools within their limits but reserved authority in municipalities
4
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 5 of 31
Board of Education and may be served with process by service upon its Chief
9.
Defendant Geye Hamby is and was at all relevant times the Superintendent
Hamby is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and may be served with process
dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and
10.
Defendant Kaleen Pulley is and was at all relevant times the Principal of the
Buford Academy, a school in the Defendant BCSD. She is sued in her individual
and official capacities. Pulley is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and may be
served with process by personal service or leaving copies of the summons and
complaint at her dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of
suitable age and discretion residing there, or by delivering a copy of the summons
5
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 6 of 31
11.
12.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant BCSD was a state actor within
13.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Hamby and Pulley were
FACTS
14.
Despite the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),
15.
Prior to desegregation in 1969, the school colors used for the black high
school in the BCSD were different than those used for the white high school.
6
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 7 of 31
16.
At the time of desegregation, the BCSD agreed to use colors at the racially
integrated high school from both the black high school, Greenard-Watson, which
were purple and gold, and the predominantly white high school, Buford High
17.
Ms. Ingram graduated from the racially integrated high school in 1970.
18.
The school colors from Greenward-Watson and Buford High School were
not integrated and no change was made to the colors until 1971 after racial issues
between some black students and white students were settled, at which point the
color gold was added to the colors of green and white for the integrated school.
19.
received six excellent and four above average ratings in the competencies.
20.
Comments on the reviews said “Mary is a valued member of our school and
BCSS. She is dedicated to the students she works with and her love for the
7
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 8 of 31
students is obvious. She is always positive and eager to help with anything. She
21.
by the school system was sent to School District employees. The tour showed only
the colors green and white. Mary Ingram sent Defendant Dr. Hamby an email
telling him that she was concerned that the color gold was not being represented in
22.
In response to the email sent by Ms. Ingram, Dr. Hamby came over to the
academy where she worked and called her into Ms. Pulley’s office. He said that he
was going to show Mary Ingram she was wrong about the colors and pulled up the
virtual tour, whereupon he discovered that the color gold was not represented. He
also went into the clothes closet and saw that there was almost no gold represented
in any of the clothing items that are sold for the mandatory school uniforms. He
said he would talk to the PTO and ask if they would add more colors.
8
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 9 of 31
23.
Education from the Buford black community asking for the color gold to be
24.
On September 29, 2014, Ms. Ingram presented the signed petition to the
Buford Board of Education during the meeting. The School Board asked that
Ms. Ingram start to attend Board of Education meetings and the Buford City
Council meetings regularly and that she encourage others in the black community
to do so as well.
25.
On November 4, 2014, Dr. Hamby saw Ms. Ingram in the hallway. She
commented to him that he did not speak to or acknowledge her when he saw her
with other team members earlier that day. He looked at Ms. Ingram with contempt
in his eyes and told her, “No, I didn’t speak to you and I don’t have to and
probably would never speak to you again.” Later Ms. Ingram was called into a
meeting with Dr. Hamby in Ms. Pulley’s office. Ms. Ingram asked for a witness, a
teacher Lucretia Smith, because she was afraid of Dr. Hamby because of the way
9
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 10 of 31
26.
During the meeting, Dr. Hamby kept referring to Ms. Ingram as “that one.”
He told Ms. Pulley that “Not only is she going to the Board of Education meeting,
27.
Ms. Ingram asked Dr. Hamby if her job would be in jeopardy if she went to
the meetings. He said that he could not stop her from going to the meetings, but he
28.
Ms. Pulley asked Ms. Ingram to run by with her what she would say at the
Board of Education or the City Council Board meetings so that she could let
Dr. Hamby know ahead of time. Ms. Ingram told them no, because that would
29.
In January 20, 2015, Ms. Ingram received her first write up by Ms. Pulley in
15 years of being at the Academy for requesting children to smile and accusing
10
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 11 of 31
30.
On January 22, 2015, Ms. Ingram responded to the write up, stating that she
had asked for a smile from the kids as they entered the building from the beginning
of the year. She said that the children said it was a positive gesture. She also told
Ms. Pulley that she had brought to her attention that the children were being
exposed to the cold needlessly out of concern for their well-being. Ms. Ingram had
never once expected to be written up for being concerned about the children being
cold. Ms. Ingram expressed in her rebuttal that she felt this was a direct retaliation
against her because she refused Ms. Pulley’s request to tell her what she would say
31.
32.
On May 5, 2015, Ms. Ingram received her performance review. Out of the
ten performance competencies, she received two excellent, five above average, two
comment section said that “teachers note that Mrs. Ingram is very easy to work
with and takes initiative to get involved in students. She works well with all
11
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 12 of 31
children in the classroom. She expresses her affection for her students and often
brings them treats or rewards them for good behavior.” It further asked
33.
On October 11, 2016, Ms. Ingram received a second write-up for allegedly
clipping coupons, wearing headphones while in class, cleaning her purse, and
34.
On October 16, 2016, Ms. Ingram replied to the write-up. She admitted she
clipped a couple of coupons while the kids were doing independent reading. She
admitted she had Bluetooth around her neck but that she never used it in the
classroom and never cleaned her purse. She said the inaccurate grading of papers
was never discussed with her and the answer key came from the teacher, not from
Ms. Ingram.
35.
In April 2017, Ms. Pulley told Ms. Ingram that she took her off the fifth
grade lunch duty because Ms. Ingram “argued with her” and she made a child
curse. Ms. Ingram did not argue, but simply stated that she did not make the child
12
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 13 of 31
curse, nor had she ever taught, encouraged him to curse or ever witnessed him
curse. Ms. Pulley insisted that Ms. Ingram made the child curse.
36.
On April 14, 2017, Ms. Ingram received a third write-up, dated April 12,
2017. This write-up for refusing to allow the fifth graders to enter the cafeteria
she was accused of causing to curse), not allowing parents to enter the building
when needing to drop off their students or have large items, and discussing
37.
On April 21, 2017, Ms. Ingram provided her written reply, which refuted
13
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 14 of 31
14
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 15 of 31
38.
On June 14, 2017, Ms. Ingram received a letter of termination. In that letter,
Ms. Pulley recited, among other things that Ms. Ingram was “perceived as being
environment.”
COUNT I
Race Discrimination in Violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the United States Constitution
(Asserted via 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Against All Defendants
39.
40.
States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to equal protection under the laws, including
41.
her race and the race of the citizens she represented at City of Buford Council
Board and Buford Board of Education meetings, rather than because of a legitimate
justification.
15
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 16 of 31
42.
of race as a basis for the employment decision giving rise to this Complaint.
43.
claims while acting under color of State, local law, regulations, customs or usages.
44.
45.
46.
and maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and her federally protected rights, entitling
47.
intentionally, maliciously and recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her federally
16
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 17 of 31
48.
Plaintiff.
49.
Defendants’ actions were reckless and were taken in willful disregard of the
50.
Protection Clause, Plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages, emotional
COUNT II
42 U.S.C. § 1981 - Race Discrimination
(Asserted via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Buford City School District
and via § 1981 against Defendants Hamby and Pulley)
Against all Defendants
51.
17
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 18 of 31
52.
which, inter alia, Plaintiff worked for Defendants and Plaintiff was compensated
53.
54.
on the basis of race with regard to the making and enforcing of her employment
55.
and terminating her employment because of her race and the race of the citizens
she represented at City of Buford Council Board and Buford Board of Education
56.
18
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 19 of 31
57.
claims while acting under color of State, local law, regulations, customs or usages.
58.
59.
established law.
60.
unlawful conduct intentionally and maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and her
61.
undertook his unlawful conduct recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her
19
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 20 of 31
62.
wrongful actions she undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
63.
established law.
64.
maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and his federally protected rights, entitling
65.
66.
Plaintiff.
20
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 21 of 31
67.
Defendants’ actions were reckless and were taken in willful disregard of the
68.
1981 and § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages, emotional
COUNT III
RETALIATION
Retaliatory Discipline, Retaliation in the Terms and Conditions of
Employment, and Retaliatory Termination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981
(Asserted via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Buford City School District
and via § 1981 against Defendants Hamby and Pulley)
Against all Defendants
69.
70.
which, inter alia, Plaintiff worked for Defendants and Plaintiff was compensated
21
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 22 of 31
71.
72.
objecting to, advocating for and with other black citizens, and complaining against
race discrimination prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil
73.
because she opposed, objected to, and complained against race discrimination
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
74.
subjected her to retaliation because she advocated for and with other black citizens
and opposed, objected to, and complained against illegal race discrimination.
her including, but not limited to: (a) selectively imposing and enforcing workplace
22
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 23 of 31
disciplinary action or more severe disciplinary actions, on the basis of her exercise
of federally protected rights as compared with employees who did not engage in
75.
76.
77.
respect to Plaintiff and her federally protected rights, or additionally, and in the
alternative, undertook their conduct recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her
federally protected rights, entitling her to recover punitive damages against them.
78.
Defendants took their actions against Plaintiff under color of State and local
23
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 24 of 31
79.
80.
established law.
81.
undertook his unlawful conduct recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her
82.
wrongful actions she undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
83.
maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and his federally protected rights, entitling
24
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 25 of 31
84.
Plaintiff.
85.
Defendants’ actions were reckless and were taken in willful disregard of the
86.
Defendants, including back pay and lost benefits, compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorney’s fees and costs of litigation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and
COUNT IV
Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech
(Asserted via 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Against all Defendants
87.
herein.
25
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 26 of 31
88.
89.
90.
91.
acting under color of state law, and local ordinances, regulations, customs or usages
of the School District and Defendant Hamby in his Official Capacity, in violation of
School District in retaliation for her exercise of free speech under the First
Buford City School District, Geye Hamby and Brenda Brown, USDC Northern
26
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 27 of 31
92.
In addition, Defendants Hamby and Pulley acted in their individual and official
93.
harm and/or were committed with reckless disregard of the harm caused to
94.
had been damaged and is entitled to the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT V
Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Association
(Asserted via 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
Against all Defendants
95.
herein.
96.
meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution by assembling with other black
27
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 28 of 31
citizens for the purpose of petitioning the BCSD for redress of grievances and
97.
associating and assembling with other black citizens to petition the BCSD for redress
and association.
98.
99.
The Defendants’ actions have deprived the Plaintiff of her right to freedom of
100.
acting under color of state law, and local ordinances, regulations, customs or usages
of the School District and Defendant Hamby in his official capacity, in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
28
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 29 of 31
101.
in terminating Plaintiff for her exercise of her First Amendment right to freedom of
association..
102.
harm and/or were committed with reckless disregard of the harm caused to
103.
has been damaged and is entitled to the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
violated the Constitution of the United States and the federal statutes listed above.
29
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 30 of 31
E. That the Court award Plaintiff back pay and front pay in an amount to
H. That the Court award Plaintiff her costs in this action and reasonable
I. That the Court grant Plaintiff the right to have a trial by jury on all
J. That the Court grant such additional relief as the Court deems proper
and just.
30
Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 31 of 31
31