Renner - McDonald Complaint (FILED)

Case 3:21-cv-00005-GMG Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT MARTINSBURG ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
TINA RENNER and Jan 11 2021
PAMELA MCDONALD, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Northern District of WV
Plaintiffs.
3:21-cv-5 Judge Gina Groh

v. Civil Action No.
BONDY SHAY GIBSON,

Superintendent of Jefferson
County Schools, individually,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
This complaint, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution, for the Defendant’s retaliation against the Plaintiffs’ First
Amendment rights on or about January of 2021 in or about Jefferson County, West Virginia,
within the Northern District of West Virginia, Martinsburg Division.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Subject matter jurisdiction over the claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiffs in
this action is conferred on this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1988, 28 U.S.C.
§1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1343, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and other applicable law.
Venue in this District and division is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 and other
applicable law, because this District is the location where the underlying facts occurred, and
where the parties reside.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Tina Renner, was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Jefferson
County, West Virginia, and is a school bus driver for Jefferson County Schools.
1
2. Plaintiff Pamela McDonald, was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Jefferson
County, West Virginia, and is a school bus driver for Jefferson County Schools.
3. Defendant Bondy Shay Gibson was at all times relevant hereto the Superintendent
of Jefferson County Schools, being so employed in Jefferson County, West Virginia. Upon
information and belief, she is a resident of Charles Town, Jefferson County, West Virginia. She
is named herein in her individual capacity, and is being prosecuted herein for actions taken by
her under color of law while acting as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools, under the
employment of the Jefferson County Board of Education and the Jefferson County Commission.
FACTS
4. Plaintiff Tina Renner is a long-time school bus driver with Jefferson County
Schools, located in Jefferson County, West Virginia. She is a supporter of President Donald
Trump. On January 6, 2021, she departed from Charles Town, West Virginia, along with four
other local women, and drove to Frederick, Maryland to board a bus to the Donald Trump Rally
being held on January 6, 2021. The bus charter was organized by the Frederick County
Conservative Club.
5. Plaintiff Pamela McDonald is also a long-time school bus driver with Jefferson
County Schools, and also a supporter of President Donald Trump. She traveled with Tina Renner
on the charter bus to attend the Donald Trump rally in Washington D.C. Plaintiffs intended to
hear the President speak and to show their affiliation and support for President Trump.
2
6. The Plaintiffs boarded the bus and arrived in Washington D.C. at around 10:30
a.m. They were dropped off at the Holocaust Museum and were informed that the bus would
pick them up at the same location at 3:00 p.m. to depart back to Frederick, Maryland.
7. Following their arrival in Washington D.C., Plaintiffs and three other women
walked to the Washington Monument, arriving at approximately 10:45 a.m., where they waited
for President Trump to speak to the crowd of his supporters.
8. At around 11:40 a.m., the large television screen began displaying the President’s
speech, which the Plaintiffs watched.
9. At around 12:50 p.m., the Plaintiffs and the three other women walked
approximately 1.5 miles from where they had been standing to the U.S. Capitol. They did not
cross any barricades or barriers and at all times remained in the area designated for public
occupation.
10. Plaintiffs arrived at the steps immediately in front of the reflection pool to the
West of the Capitol at approximately 1:10 p.m. Plaintiff Tina Renner and one other woman then
sat on the steps of the reflective pool, due to being cold and tired, and waited while the others
walked closer towards the Capitol.
11. While Plaintiff Tina Renner and the other woman sat on the steps of the reflective
pool, Plaintiff Pamela McDonald and the other women walked some distance closer to the
Capitol building. They never crossed any barricades or into any prohibited areas, where they
observed the large crowd and the rally taking place. They observed no violence nor destruction
of property. The crowd was entirely peaceful from their point of view.
3
12. The reflecting pool where Tina Renner and the other woman were sitting, is
approximately 1,400 feet from any restricted or prohibited area surrounding the Capitol building
on January 6, 2021.
13. A short time later, Pamela McDonald and the other women returned to where Tina
Renner was sitting, and together they made the return walk to the Holocaust Museum, which is
the spot at which the bus was to pick them up to return home.
14. The women waited for the bus to arrive. When it arrived, all five of them boarded
the bus, which departed Washington D.C. at approximately 3:45 p.m. as planned.
15. Neither of the Plaintiffs witnessed any violence or destruction of property while in
Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. They only experienced and participated in a peaceful
protest and political rally for President Trump, who spoke at the rally. They did not witness, nor
did they participate in, the lawless actions which occurred that day closer to, and within, the
Capitol building. Neither of the Plaintiffs, nor anyone with whom they traveled, to their
knowledge, took part in such actions. Neither of the Plaintiffs, nor their associates, were
anywhere near crossing into prohibited areas at the Capitol Building during their time in
Washington D.C. They were among the thousands upon thousands of peaceful protestors and
rally participants that day who exercised their First Amendment protected speech in support of
President Trump.
16. Following the Plaintiffs’ return from Washington D.C., Defendant Gibson, who is
a known anti-Trump, left-wing activist, upon information and belief, instructed school
employees under her supervision to engage in surveillance of the social media accounts of
4
employees of Jefferson County Schools, including the Plaintiffs, in order to ascertain whether
any school employee had attended the Donald Trump rally in Washington D.C.
17. The day following the rally - on or about January 7-8, 2021 - the Plaintiffs each
received a phone call from JR Hollen, Director of Transportation, informing them that they
would be placed on administrative leave, and not to show up for work the following Monday. He
said it was due to their presence at the Trump Rally in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. He
further asked them not to discuss the substance of the phone call with anyone.
18. The following day, on January 8, 2021, Defendant Gibson sent the following
letter to Tina Renner, notifying her that she was being placed in suspension for attending the
Trump Rally:
I was made aware that you took part in the Electoral College protest that erupted into
deadly violence on January 6, 2021. I have been provided videos and photographs posted
on your public social media page that collectively threaten and demean public officials.
These images and statements are a cause for grave concern in our community. In
particular, a large number of our children have parents who are federal law enforcement
and government officials including several Capitol Hill police who were assaulted.
Additionally, I have confirmed that you failed to report your absence from work on this
day.
Accordingly, I have determined that you are on administrative leave with pay effective
immediately. A representative from the Human Resources Department will contact you to
schedule a meeting with me on Tuesday, January 12, 2021. As this meeting may result in
a recommendation of disciplinary action against you, up to and including the termination
of your employment, you may bring a representative with you.
During this suspension, you shall not enter upon any Jefferson County Schools’ property
or participate in any school activities.
Sincerely,
Bondy Shay Gibson, Ed.D.

Superintendent
5
cc: Personnel File

JR Hollen, Director of Transportation
19. Also on January 8, 2021, Defendant Gibson wrote a letter, also delivered via
email, to Plaintiff Pamela McDonald, also notifying her of being placed on suspension, which
stated as follows:
VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ms. Pamela McDonald

111 McGregor Dr.
Ranson, WV 25438
[email protected]
Dear Ms. McDonald:
I was made aware that you took part in the Electoral College protest that erupted into
deadly violence on January 6, 2021. I have reviewed disturbing videos and photographs
posted that tagged you on a public social media page which included threatening and
demeaning statements regarding federal government officials. I understand that many
community members are upset by these images. Particularly in our community in which
a large percentage of children have parents who work in federal government including
federal law enforcement.
Accordingly, I have determined that you are on administrative leave with pay effective
immediately pending additional investigation. Should you have additional documentation
you wish to present please send to me in advance or bring to the meeting. A
representative from the Human Resources Department will contact you to schedule a
meeting with me for Tuesday, January 12, 2021. As this meeting may result in a
recommendation of disciplinary action against you, up to and including the termination of
your employment, you may bring a representative with you.
During this suspension, you shall not enter upon any Jefferson County Schools’ property
or participate in any school activities.
Sincerely,
6
Bondy Shay Gibson, Ed.D.

Superintendent
cc: Personnel File

JR Hollen, Director of Transportation
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gibson has sent essentially the same
letter to other Jefferson County Schools employees who were suspected by Gibson to have
attended the Donald Trump rally in Washington D.C.
21. In contrast to her disciplinary actions taken against supporters of President Trump,
on or about February 14, 2019, Jefferson County Schools teacher, Grant H. Prillaman, forcibly
“occupied” the office of Senator Joe Manchin at the U.S. Capitol, with other left-wing protestors,
and was arrested by Capitol Police for blocking the doors and hallways.1 The incident was
reported in the news - even mentioning Prillaman by name as a being a teacher. He was arrested
and charged by Capitol Police in Case No. 2019 PAF 000039, District of Colombia v.s Grant H.
Prillaman, with “Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.” Despite being Superintendent of
Jefferson County Schools at that time, Gibson did not suspend Prillaman, nor take other
disciplinary action against him. Nor did she contact the news media to report that a school
employee had been involved in an arrest by Capitol Police for “occupying” a senator’s office, as
Gibson did to the Plaintiffs. Upon information and belief, the reason she did not do so to
Prillaman is because she agrees with Prillaman’s left-wing politics and activism, whereas she
does not personally agree with the Plaintiffs’ support of President Donald Trump.
1
See, ‘Resist Rockwood’ Holds Sit-in of Senator Joe Manchin’s Office, Feb. 14, 2019, https://
www.dcmediagroup.us/2019/02/14/resist-rockwool-holds-sit-in-senator-joe-manchin-office/
7
COUNT ONE - CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION
22. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the prior paragraphs as though fully
restated herein.
23. The Plaintiffs engaged in protected First Amendment speech when they traveled
to Washington D.C. to express their political support, affiliation, and viewpoints for President
Trump. The U.S. Capitol has long been recognized as, and in facts is, a traditional public forum
and/or a designated public forum which has been open to citizen protests and political rallies. In
fact, the rally and protest which took place on January 6, 2021 took place pursuant to a permit
issued by the National Park Service. Indeed, on just about any controversial political and social
topic, protestors and rally participants have been found at the U.S. Capitol exercising their First
Amendment rights to petition, assemble and speak. In-person protests are a time-honored,
venerable means of expressing dissent in our constitutional republic. United States v. Grace, 461
U.S. 171 (1983).
In-Person Protests are Protected First Amendment Activities
24. The First Amendment, in relevant part, provides that “Congress shall make no law
... abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. The Fourteenth Amendment makes
this prohibition applicable to the states. See Fisher v. King, 232 F.3d 391, 396 (4th Cir. 2000).
25. Not only does the First Amendment protect freedom of speech, it also protects
“the right to be free from retaliation by a public official for the exercise of that right.” Suarez
Corp. Indus. v. McGraw, 202 F.3d 676, 685 (4th Cir. 2000).
8
26. The First Amendment bars the firing or discipline of public employees “solely for
the reason that they were not affiliated with a particular political party or candidate.” Knight v.
Vernon, 214 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir.2000). Such firings can impose restraints “on freedoms of
belief and association.” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 355 (1976).
27. "The First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such political expression
in order to assure the unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social
changes desired by the people." Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368 (4th Cir. 2013).
28. Viewpoint discrimination is itself a violation of the First Amendment. The
Supreme Court articulated this principle in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,
515 U.S. 819, 828-829 (1995), observing that while “[i]t is axiomatic that the government may
not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys,” and while
“government regulation may not favor one speaker over another,” that “[w]hen the government
targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the
First Amendment is all the more blatant.” Id. Thus, “[v]iewpoint discrimination is thus an
egregious form of content discrimination.” Id. at 829. “The government must abstain from
regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the
speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” Id. See, also, McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464,
484-485 (2014) (noting that permitting one class of speakers to speak and not another raises
questions of viewpoint discrimination).
9
Plaintiffs Were Suspended for Attendance at an In-Person Protest Wholly

Unrelated to their Employment with Jefferson County Schools
29. Plaintiffs are both low-level employees of the Jefferson County Schools, who are
not in confidential, policymaking, or public contact roles which could interfere with, or
undermine the operation of Jefferson County Schools as an agency by engaging in unrelated
politically affiliated speech or political activities.
30. The protected speech engaged in by the Plaintiffs attending the rally in D.C. did
not, and could not, impair the maintenance of discipline by supervisors at Jefferson County
Schools. Plaintiffs’ attendance at the Washington D.C. rally had no relation or relevance to their
employment with Jefferson County Schools, and their employment positions as school bus
drivers.
not, and could not, impair harmony among coworkers at Jefferson County Schools. Plaintiffs’
attendance at the Washington D.C. rally had no relation or relevance to their employment with
Jefferson County Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.
not, and could not, act so as to damage close personal relationships in the workplace. Plaintiffs’
attendance at the Washington D.C. rally had no relation or relevance to their employment with
Jefferson County Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.
not impede with the performance of the public employee’s duties as school bus drivers.
10
not, and could not, interfere with the mission of Jefferson County Schools. Plaintiffs’ attendance
at the Washington D.C. rally had no relation or relevance to their employment with Jefferson
County Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.
35. The protected speech engaged in by the Plaintiffs attending the rally in D.C. was
not communicated publicly in association with Jefferson County Schools, nor privately among
employees of Jefferson County Schools who were not already attending the event. Plaintiffs
attendance at the rally had no connection, either directly, nor indirectly, with Jefferson County
Schools.
not conflict with the responsibilities of the Plaintiffs’ within Jefferson County Schools. Both
Plaintiffs had sufficient leave days available to attend the rally. Plaintiffs’ attendance at the
Washington D.C. rally had no relation or relevance to their employment with Jefferson County
Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.
not involve the abuse of authority and public accountability that the Plaintiffs’ roles as
employees entailed, given the fact that they were school bus drivers.
38. The employment positions held by the Plaintiffs do not involve party or political
allegiance to any particular affiliation. Plaintiffs’ attendance at the Washington D.C. rally had no
relation or relevance to their employment with Jefferson County Schools, and their employment
positions as school bus drivers.
11
39. The exercise of the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights in attending the Donald
Trump rally was a substantial or motivating factor in the Defendant’s decision to suspend and
discipline them. Defendant Gibson would not have made the same decision absent the protection
expression of speech.
40. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gibson, an ardent anti-Trump activist,
misused her position as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools, to engage school
employees in online social media surveillance of attendees of the rally in Washington D.C., in
order to obtain information regarding whether any Jefferson County Schools employees were in
attendance.
41. Defendant Gibson was able to ascertain that both of the Plaintiffs, among others,
attended the rally in Washington D.C. However, she was not able to find any evidence that either
of the Plaintiffs engaged in any illegal or inappropriate behavior at the rally. She has recklessly
taken the false and illogical position that anyone attending the rally were “collectively”
responsible for violence, as well as “threatening” or “demeaning” public officials.2
42. Neither Plaintiff Renner, nor Plaintiff McDonald, engaged in - nor even witnessed
- violence on January 6, 2021. Likewise, neither Plaintiff were involved in “threatening,” nor
“demeaning” any public officials on January 6, 2021.
43. The only social media post in which Plaintiff McDonald was “tagged” was a
photograph taken on the charter bus, at a time when it wasn’t in Washington D.C. There was
2
In the letter to Plaintiff Renner, Defendant Gibson used the language, “I have been provided videos and
photographs posted on your public social media page that collectively threaten and demean public
officials.” In the letter to Plaintiff McDonald, Defendant Gibson used the language, “I have reviewed
disturbing videos and photographs posted that tagged you on a public social media page which included
threatening and demeaning statements regarding federal government officials.”
12
nothing inappropriate about the post in which she was tagged, nor in the conduct of riding a bus
with other individuals for the purpose of attending a political rally.
44. The only social media post which Plaintiff Renner was involved, was a short
video clip of her surroundings - approximately 10 seconds long - which contained nothing
inappropriate, and which contained no statements by Renner. The video was posted to a friend’s
personal Facebook page, and was not posted to Plaintiff Renner’s page - nor anywhere else
publicly. The video only showed Plaintiff Renner’s participation in, and attendance at, an in-
person protest and political rally, which is core First Amendment-protected activity and speech.
45. Upon information and belief, Defendant Gibson, directly or through one of her
subordinates, contacted WDVM news and leaked the allegations made in the letters to the
Plaintiffs for public dissemination. In an article and television news story dated January 9, 2021,
titled, “JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS REVEALS AT LEAST TWO STAFF ATTENDED
PROTESTS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., who reported as follows:
JEFFERSON COUNTY, W. Va. (WDVM) — Jefferson County Schools has revealed that
at least two staff members were in Washington D.C. to protest the electoral vote.
The statement details that Superintendent Bondy Shay Gibson was made aware on Friday
of the staff members’ participation that left the Capitol Building in shambles.
The statement reads,
“Jefferson County Schools fully supports the rights of employees and students to exercise
their first amendment freedoms, including the right to peaceably assemble and to petition
the government, but Wednesday’s protests involved violence and other unlawful
conduct.”
The District is now investigating whether any employee who participated in the protests
engaged in any illegal activity.
13
The statement also explained that the District cannot provide any additional information
at this time as “this involves a personnel matter.”
This is a developing story and will be updated.
46. Although Defendant Gibson did not specifically state the Plaintiffs’ names to the
media, the viral nature of the information on social media, and in the community, quickly
revealed the Plaintiffs’ names among those in and around Jefferson County. Moreover, it is
anticipated that the Plaintiffs’ name will become public once further steps are taken to terminate
the Plaintiffs’ employment, or otherwise discipline them, before the Jefferson County Board of
Education.
47. Defendant Gibson’s leak to WDVM recklessly and falsely insinuated that she had
evidence that the Plaintiffs were among those who committed criminal act at the Capitol by
engaging in violence and destruction of property in and around the Capitol building. In reality
these insinuations were patently false and outrageous.
48. The reaction of Defendant Gibson, as outlined above, to the Plaintiffs’
constitutionally-protected attendance at the January 6, 2021 in-person protest and rally, to
suspend them and seek to terminate their employment and/or otherwise punish them, including
attempting to publicly shame them in the media, are actions which would “chill a person of
ordinary firmness” from continuing to engage in the protected activity of attending in-person
protests, political rallies, sharing political opinions, viewpoints, ideas, and otherwise
participating in civil discourse.
49. The Plaintiffs’ protected free speech activity, as outlined above, was the
substantial, if not sole, motivating factor in Defendant Gibson’s conduct in suspending the
14
Plaintiffs, and seeking to terminate their employment and/or otherwise punishing them as
employees, attempting to publicly shame them in the media.
50. Defendant Gibson, acting as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools, acted
under color of law, and intended to interfere with the Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights, as
outlined herein.
51. The Plaintiffs have suffered substantial injury as a result, including both
constitutional injury, as well as other injuries, for which they are entitled to recover from
Defendant Gibson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant as prayed for,
including:
A. That damages be awarded against Defendant Gibson pursuant to Count One of the
Complaint for the violation of the Plaintiffs’ civil rights, as well as an award by the Defendant
for the costs of this action, including reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
B. Such other and further relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY
TINA RENNER and

PAMELA MCDONALD,
By Counsel
15
/s John H. Bryan
John H. Bryan (WV Bar No. 10259)
JOHN H. BRYAN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
411 Main Street
P.O. Box 366
Union, WV 24983
(304) 772-4999
Fax: (304) 772-4998
[email protected]
for the Plaintiff
16

Renner - McDonald Complaint (FILED)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renner - McDonald Complaint (FILED)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Renner - McDonald Complaint (FILED)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the nature of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs?

What is the nature of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs?

What actions are alleged to have been taken by the defendant against the plaintiffs?

What actions are alleged to have been taken by the defendant against the plaintiffs?

Case 3:21-cv-00005-GMG Document 1 Filed 01/11/21 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

3:21-cv-5 Judge Gina Groh

BONDY SHAY GIBSON,

within the Northern District of West Virginia, Martinsburg Division.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

where the parties reside.

for President Trump to speak to the crowd of his supporters.

speech, which the Plaintiffs watched.

walked closer towards the Capitol.

Bondy Shay Gibson, Ed.D.

cc: Personnel File

VIA EMAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Ms. Pamela McDonald

Dear Ms. McDonald:

Bondy Shay Gibson, Ed.D.

cc: Personnel File

attended the Donald Trump rally in Washington D.C.

Prillaman, with “Crowding, Obstructing, or Incommoding.” Despite being Superintendent of

COUNT ONE - CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. 1983

U.S. 171 (1983).

In-Person Protests are Protected First Amendment Activities

28. Viewpoint discrimination is itself a violation of the First Amendment. The

questions of viewpoint discrimination).

Plaintiffs Were Suspended for Attendance at an In-Person Protest Wholly

undermine the operation of Jefferson County Schools as an agency by engaging in unrelated

politically affiliated speech or political activities.

County Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.

Schools, and their employment positions as school bus drivers.

positions as school bus drivers.

misused her position as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools, to engage school

responsible for violence, as well as “threatening” or “demeaning” public officials.2

“demeaning” any public officials on January 6, 2021.

with other individuals for the purpose of attending a political rally.

titled, “JEFFERSON COUNTY SCHOOLS REVEALS AT LEAST TWO STAFF ATTENDED

PROTESTS IN WASHINGTON, D.C., who reported as follows:

The statement reads,

This is a developing story and will be updated.

these insinuations were patently false and outrageous.

48. The reaction of Defendant Gibson, as outlined above, to the Plaintiffs’

constitutionally-protected attendance at the January 6, 2021 in-person protest and rally, to

participating in civil discourse.

employees, attempting to publicly shame them in the media.

50. Defendant Gibson, acting as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools, acted

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY

TINA RENNER and

for the Plaintiff

You might also like