Hamby Complaint

Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
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. )
_________________________________ )
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
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
and in her official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),
showing the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION
1.
This is employment case arising from race discrimination and retaliation
against Ms. Ingram and violation of her First Amendment rights by the
administration of the Defendant Buford City School District.
2.
Ms. Ingram, an African American or black woman, was a dedicated
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
people as “niggers,” (see Audio Recording of Hamby, available
at https://www.dropbox.com/s/qaopbjs0n2allkb/Audio%20from%20Sony%20ICD-
BX140%202018-01-16.mp3?dl=0) and Defendant Kaleen Pulley disciplined and
terminated Ms. Ingram without any justification.
3.
Plaintiff asserts claims for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of
42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. She has timely filed a charge of
2
discrimination at the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
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
employment, reinstatement or front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of litigation, and all other
relief this Court may deem just.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
4.
Ms. Ingram has satisfied all administrative prerequisites to perfect her claims
of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Specifically, she timely filed a
Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”), and is awaiting investigation of her allegations and the issuance of a
Notice of Right to Sue or EEOC intervention in this case.
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5.
Plaintiff’s claims present federal questions over which this Court has
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a).
6.
The violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in the Northern District of
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.
Plaintiff Mary Ingram is a black female who currently resides in Gwinnett
County, Georgia, which is in the Atlanta Division of the Northern District of
Georgia.
8.
Defendant Buford City School District (“BCSD” or “the District”) is a local
public school district operating by virtue of Art. VIII, § VII, ¶ 1 of the Constitution
of the State of Georgia, which granted authority to counties to establish and
maintain public schools within their limits but reserved authority in municipalities
4
to maintain existing independent school systems. BCSD is governed by the Buford
Board of Education and may be served with process by service upon its Chief
Executive Officer, Superintendent Geye Hamby.
9.
Defendant Geye Hamby is and was at all relevant times the Superintendent
of the Defendant BCSD. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
Hamby 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 his
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 and complaint to
an agent authorized to receive service of process.
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
and complaint to an agent authorized to receive service of process.
5
11.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant BCSD was Plaintiff’s
“employer” as defined by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
12.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant BCSD was a state actor within
the meaning of the Constitution.
13.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendants Hamby and Pulley were
acting under color of state law.
FACTS
14.
Despite the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),
the BCSD was, prior to 1969, racially segregated.
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
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
School, which were green and white.
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.
On May 21, 2014, out of ten performance competencies, Mary Ingram
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
students is obvious. She is always positive and eager to help with anything. She
will go above and beyond when asked.”
21.
In September of 2014, a virtual tour of the new multi-purpose facility built
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
the new facility or in the school shirts.
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
23.
Ms. Ingram decided to create a petition to Buford City School Board of
Education from the Buford black community asking for the color gold to be
represented in the school colors.
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
he responded to her earlier.
9
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,
but now she is going to the City Council Board meetings.”
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
felt for her to express community concerns would be a conflict of interest.
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
infringe on her constitutional rights.
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
colleagues of deliberately not closing a bus hallway door.
10
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
in advance before school Board or City Council meetings.
31.
In August 2015, Ms. Ingram was assigned to be the paraprofessional for
Dr. Hamby’s niece, Landon Forbes.
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
satisfactory and one “needs improvement” rating in the competencies. The
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
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
Ms. Ingram to “please adhere to procedures for representing Buford Academy
outside of school.” (emphasis added).
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
inconsistent/inaccurate grading of papers.
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
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
prior to 12:43, being confrontational/argumentative with a student (the same child
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
inaccurate information with colleagues regarding the security door installation.
37.
On April 21, 2017, Ms. Ingram provided her written reply, which refuted
Ms. Pulley’s accusations, and stated the following:
Attending the school board meetings is my legal

right as a citizen of the City of Buford. I am concerned
this is a direct retaliation against me because of our
conversation on November 4, 2014 when I refused your
request for me to tell you what questions I would raise or
statements I would make at the City of Buford Council
Board and Buford Board of Education meetings. During
this meet, you asked that in the future I run by you what I
was going to say prior to me attending each meeting. I
told you that would infringe on my Constitutional Rights.
Recently, I have asked for sidewalks in my neighborhood,
and I also asked for the Gold color to be more
represented in our school colors in the City of Buford
13
Council Board and Buford Board of Education meetings.

At this point, I feel that every time I speak up for things
concerning my community, my job is threatened.
My performance evaluations, comments over the

last few years speak highly of my value, initiative to get
involved with students, flexibility, dedication, affection
and love for the students, willingness to go above and
beyond, and how I am easy to work with. Just last
month, I received letters from previous students now in
Middle School stating how much they loved me and
thanking me for the love that I have shown them. I have
never received a performance review that was less than
satisfactory.
I have worked for this school for nearly 15.5 years

without any issues. In fact, I had a excellent record until
I started attending the City of Buford Council Board and
Buford Board of Education meetings.
Now that I am being reprimanded for following the

rules and directives given to me in the lunchroom and the
car line, being accused of making a child curse, and
being accused of saying false things about the second
board meeting. I feel this is an act of retaliation and
discrimination. I love my job, my students, and my co-
workers, and at this point, I am an a loss of what I could
do to lessen the threat of losing my job short of stopping
attending the City of Buford Council Board and Buford
Board of Education meetings.
I will not stop attending these meetings and I will

not be threatened or harassed into doing so. I will
continue to be professional and courteous to all that I
encounter.” (Emphasis added).
14
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
disrespectful, argumentative and unfriendly and not a good fit in a school
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.
All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
40.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution entitles Plaintiff to equal protection under the laws, including
equal protection with respect to race.
41.
Defendants disciplined and terminated Plaintiff’s employment based upon
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
42.
No compelling or other governmental interest supports the Defendants’ use
of race as a basis for the employment decision giving rise to this Complaint.
43.
Defendants undertook all of the unlawful conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claims while acting under color of State, local law, regulations, customs or usages.
44.
Defendant Hamby, individually and in his official capacity, violated clearly
established law prohibiting the termination of employees based on race.
45.
Defendant Pulley, individually and in her official capacity, violated clearly
established law prohibiting terminating employees based on race.
46.
Defendant Hamby undertook his unlawful conduct intentionally, recklessly
and maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and her federally protected rights, entitling
Plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages against him, individually.
47.
Additionally, Defendant Pulley undertook her unlawful conduct
intentionally, maliciously and recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her federally
16
protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages
against her, individually.
48.
Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton, and intentionally directed to harm
Plaintiff.
49.
Defendants’ actions were reckless and were taken in willful disregard of the
probable consequences of their actions.
50.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of the Equal
Protection Clause, Plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages, emotional
distress, inconvenience, loss of benefits, humiliation, and other indignities.
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.
All preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
17
52.
Plaintiff and Defendants were parties to an employment agreement under
which, inter alia, Plaintiff worked for Defendants and Plaintiff was compensated
for her work.
53.
Plaintiff performed her contractual obligations.
54.
42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits Defendants from discriminating against Plaintiff
on the basis of race with regard to the making and enforcing of her employment
with the School District.
55.
Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by disciplining
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
meetings, rather than for legitimate justification.
56.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1981, Plaintiff has suffered damages including emotional distress, inconvenience,
loss of income and benefits, humiliation, and other indignities.
18
57.
Defendants undertook all of the unlawful conduct giving rise to Plaintiff’s
claims while acting under color of State, local law, regulations, customs or usages.
58.
Defendant Hamby possessed final policymaking authority with respect to the
wrongful actions he undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
59.
Defendant Hamby, individually and in his official capacity, violated clearly
established law.
60.
Defendant Hamby, individually and in his official capacity, undertook his
unlawful conduct intentionally and maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and her
federally protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive
damages against him.
61.
Additionally, Defendant Hamby, individually and in his official capacity,
undertook his unlawful conduct recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her
19
62.
Defendant Pulley possessed final policymaking authority with respect to the
wrongful actions she undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
63.
Defendant Pulley, individually and in her official capacity, violated clearly
established law.
64.
Defendant Pulley undertook her unlawful conduct intentionally and
maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and his federally protected rights, entitling
Plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages against her.
65.
Additionally and in the alternative, Defendant Pulley, individually and in her
official capacity, undertook her unlawful conduct recklessly with respect to
Plaintiff and her federally protected rights, entitling Plaintiff to recover
compensatory and punitive damages against her.
66.
Plaintiff.
20
67.
68.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ violations of 42 U.S.C. §
1981 and § 1983, Plaintiff has suffered damages including lost wages, emotional
distress, inconvenience, loss of benefits, humiliation, and other indignities.
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)
69.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates each and every preceding paragraph as if set
forth fully herein.
70.
Plaintiff and Defendants were parties to an employment agreement under
which, inter alia, Plaintiff worked for Defendants and Plaintiff was compensated
for her work.
21
71.
Plaintiff performed her contractual obligations.
72.
Plaintiff is a black citizen who engaged in statutorily protected activity by
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
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
73.
42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits the Defendants from retaliating against Plaintiff
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
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
74.
During Plaintiff’s employment with the School District, Defendants
subjected her to retaliation because she advocated for and with other black citizens
and opposed, objected to, and complained against illegal race discrimination.
Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by taking various retaliatory actions against
her including, but not limited to: (a) selectively imposing and enforcing workplace
policies, practices, and procedures against her; (b) subjecting Plaintiff to
22
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
similar statutorily protected activity.
75.
The above-pled retaliatory conduct toward Plaintiff constitutes unlawful
retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
76.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff
has suffered lost compensation and other benefits of employment, emotional
distress, inconvenience, loss of income, humiliation, and other indignities.
77.
Defendants undertook their conduct intentionally and maliciously with
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
law, ordinances, customs or usages.
23
79.
Defendant Hamby possessed final policymaking authority with respect to the
wrongful actions he undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
80.
Defendants Hamby, individually and in his official capacity, violated clearly
established law.
81.
Additionally, Defendant Hamby, individually and in his official capacity,
undertook his unlawful conduct recklessly with respect to Plaintiff and her
82.
Defendant Pulley possessed final policymaking authority with respect to the
wrongful actions she undertook against Plaintiff which are complained of herein.
83.
Defendant Pulley undertook her unlawful conduct intentionally and
maliciously with respect to Plaintiff and his federally protected rights, entitling
Plaintiff to recover compensatory and punitive damages against her.
24
84.
Plaintiff.
85.
86.
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff is entitled to damages against
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
all other relief recoverable under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
COUNT IV
Violation of First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech
87.
The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
25
88.
Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected activity by, inter alia, speaking
as a citizen on matters of public interest.
89.
Defendants took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff because of her
constitutionally protected speech, and/or it was a motivating factor in their decisions
to take those actions against her.
90.
Defendants’ actions have deprived Plaintiff of her right to freedom of speech
as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
91.
This violation of rights was proximately caused by Defendants, who were
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. Indeed, Hamby has previously terminated an employee of the
School District in retaliation for her exercise of free speech under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution. See Claudia Michele Threlkeld v.
Buford City School District, Geye Hamby and Brenda Brown, USDC Northern
District Ga., Atlanta Division, Civil Action File No. 1:10-cv-3073-TCB.
26
92.
In addition, Defendants Hamby and Pulley acted in their individual and official
capacities in terminating plaintiff for exercising her First Amendment rights.
93.
Defendants’ actions were willful, deliberate, and intended to cause Plaintiff
harm and/or were committed with reckless disregard of the harm caused to
Plaintiff, and were in derogation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
94.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff, she
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
95.
The preceding paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth
herein.
96.
Plaintiff is a black citizen who engaged in expressive association within the
meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution by assembling with other black
27
citizens for the purpose of petitioning the BCSD for redress of grievances and
exercising their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association.
97.
Plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected activity by, inter alia,
associating and assembling with other black citizens to petition the BCSD for redress
of grievances and exercise their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression
and association.
98.
Defendants took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff because of her
constitutionally protected associational activities, and/or they were a motivating
factor in their decisions to take those actions against her.
99.
The Defendants’ actions have deprived the Plaintiff of her right to freedom of
association as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
100.
This violation of rights was proximately caused by Defendants, who were
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
101.
In addition, Defendants Hamby and Pulley acted in their individual capacities
in terminating Plaintiff for her exercise of her First Amendment right to freedom of
association..
102.
Defendants’ actions were willful, deliberate, and intended to cause Plaintiff
harm and/or were committed with reckless disregard of the harm caused to
Plaintiff, and were in derogation of Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
103.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions against Plaintiff, she
has been damaged and is entitled to the relief set forth in the Prayer for Relief below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a TRIAL BY JURY and that the
following relief be granted:
A. That this Court take jurisdiction of this matter;
B. That process be served;
C. That Plaintiff be awarded a declaratory judgment that Defendants
violated the Constitution of the United States and the federal statutes listed above.
D. That this Court enter a permanent injunction, prohibiting Defendants
29
from engaging in unlawful employment practices, including race discrimination
and retaliation for engaging in protected speech and violation of constitutional
rights to freedom of speech and association;
E. That the Court award Plaintiff back pay and front pay in an amount to
be determined at the trial of this case;
F. That the Court award compensatory damages in an amount to be
determined by the trier of fact;
G. That the Court award Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendants
Hamby and Pulley, individually, in amounts to be determined by the trier of fact;
H. That the Court award Plaintiff her costs in this action and reasonable
attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and other applicable laws;
I. That the Court grant Plaintiff the right to have a trial by jury on all
issues triable to a jury; and
J. That the Court grant such additional relief as the Court deems proper
and just.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of June, 2018.
30
BUCKLEY BEAL, LLP
By: /s/Edward D. Buckley

Edward D. Buckley
Georgia Bar No. 092750
edbuckley@buckleybeal.com
Brian J. Sutherland
bsutherland@buckleybeal.com
Promenade, Suite 900

1230 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 781-1100
Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
HOLLBERG & WEAVER, LLP
By: /s/ George M. Weaver

George M. Weaver
gweaver@hw-law.com
2921 Piedmont Road NE, Suite C

Atlanta, GA 30305
Telephone: (404) 760-1116
Facsimile: (404) 760-1136
Counsel for Plaintiff
31

Hamby Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Hamby Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:18-cv-03103-ELR-WEJ Document 1 Filed 06/27/18 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

and in her official capacity (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”),

showing the Court as follows:

This is employment case arising from race discrimination and retaliation

administration of the Defendant Buford City School District.

Ms. Ingram, an African American or black woman, was a dedicated

people as “niggers,” (see Audio Recording of Hamby, available

BX140%202018-01-16.mp3?dl=0) and Defendant Kaleen Pulley disciplined and

terminated Ms. Ingram without any justification.

Plaintiff asserts claims for race discrimination and retaliation in violation of

discrimination at the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

employment, reinstatement or front pay in lieu of reinstatement, compensatory and

relief this Court may deem just.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(“EEOC”), and is awaiting investigation of her allegations and the issuance of a

Notice of Right to Sue or EEOC intervention in this case.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(a).

The violations of Plaintiff’s rights occurred in the Northern District of

Plaintiff Mary Ingram is a black female who currently resides in Gwinnett

County, Georgia, which is in the Atlanta Division of the Northern District of

Defendant Buford City School District (“BCSD” or “the District”) is a local

of the State of Georgia, which granted authority to counties to establish and

to maintain existing independent school systems. BCSD is governed by the Buford

Executive Officer, Superintendent Geye Hamby.

of the Defendant BCSD. He is sued in his individual and official capacities.

by personal service or leaving copies of the summons and complaint at his

discretion residing there, or by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to

an agent authorized to receive service of process.

and complaint to an agent authorized to receive service of process.

At all times relevant to this action, Defendant BCSD was Plaintiff’s

“employer” as defined by Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

the meaning of the Constitution.

acting under color of state law.

the BCSD was, prior to 1969, racially segregated.

School, which were green and white.

On May 21, 2014, out of ten performance competencies, Mary Ingram

will go above and beyond when asked.”

In September of 2014, a virtual tour of the new multi-purpose facility built

the new facility or in the school shirts.

Ms. Ingram decided to create a petition to Buford City School Board of

represented in the school colors.

he responded to her earlier.

but now she is going to the City Council Board meetings.”

felt for her to express community concerns would be a conflict of interest.

infringe on her constitutional rights.

colleagues of deliberately not closing a bus hallway door.

in advance before school Board or City Council meetings.

In August 2015, Ms. Ingram was assigned to be the paraprofessional for

Dr. Hamby’s niece, Landon Forbes.

satisfactory and one “needs improvement” rating in the competencies. The

Ms. Ingram to “please adhere to procedures for representing Buford Academy

outside of school.” (emphasis added).

inconsistent/inaccurate grading of papers.

prior to 12:43, being confrontational/argumentative with a student (the same child

inaccurate information with colleagues regarding the security door installation.

Ms. Pulley’s accusations, and stated the following:

Attending the school board meetings is my legal

Council Board and Buford Board of Education meetings.

My performance evaluations, comments over the

I have worked for this school for nearly 15.5 years