Court rejects former Pitt Co. attorney’s racial discrimination suit

The 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a former Pitt County government attorney’s lawsuit blaming racial discrimination for his firing. The decision Wednesday upheld a trial judge’s ruling against Bryan Wardell.

Pitt County commissioners selected Wardell as the county attorney in June 2023, and he was the first black person to hold that job, according to the 4th Circuit’s unsigned opinion.

“Wardell’s tenure with the County, however, was short, as the Board of Commissioners voted to terminate his employment in November 2023,” according to the opinion. “Wardell then commenced this action.”

Wardell sued the county, Manager Janis Gallagher, and Commissioner Christopher Nunnally in May 2024.

“In his complaint, Wardell alleged that the County engaged in a ‘recurrent pattern of racially discriminatory personnel practices’ and that his termination was ‘inspired by … unlawful motives,’” appellate judges wrote.

“As to the termination of his employment specifically, Wardell alleged that County Manager Gallagher and Christopher Nunnally, presented ‘false justifications for [his] termination’ to the County Board, which ‘effectively rubber-stamped [those] unlawfully motivated claims,’” the appellate opinion explained. “Wardell also alleged that County Manager Gallagher ‘put limitations on the scope of his role,’ blocking his offer to a Black attorney to serve as an assistant county attorney. He claimed that Gallagher ‘blocked the hire on the ostensible grounds that new personnel had to be reserved for the next budget cycle,’ yet she ‘routinely approved other mid-budget cycle additions of personnel in departments run by white officials.’”

Wardell also documented a disagreement with Nunnally about whether proposed spending on a lake and dam project would violate the state constitution, according to the 4th Circuit ruling.

Gallagher and Nunnally led a November 2023 closed-door discussion with county commissioners about terminating Wardell’s contract, according to the appellate ruling. “During the meeting, Gallagher characterized Wardell as ‘insubordinate,’ ‘unqualified,’ and often in conflict with County officials. Nunnally, in turn, repeated his claim that Wardell had been ‘dishonest’ about the County’s legal authority in negotiations with a local attorney.”

US District Judge James Dever dismissed Wardell’s entire complaint.

“Recognizing that the Pitt County Board of Commissioners, not Gallagher, acted as the ‘final policymaking authority over personnel decisions,’ Wardell purported to allege a ‘cat’s paw’ theory of liability,” the 4th Circuit opinion explained. “Such a theory of liability imputes ‘the discriminatory animus of an employee … onto the employer to establish causation.’”

“But here, Wardell failed to plausibly allege that Gallagher was the ‘actual decisionmaker,’” appellate judges wrote. “As Wardell’s complaint acknowledges, the Board acted as the ‘final policymaking authority’ over personnel matters, and it was the Board that voted to terminate Wardell’s employment on November 20, 2023.”

“While Wardell did make the conclusory allegation that the Commissioners effectively “rubber-stamped” [Gallagher’s] recommendation, he does not plead facts sufficient to support an inference that Gallagher was ‘principally responsible’ for the decision,” the 4th Circuit opinion explained.

“Moreover, Wardell’s allegations of Gallagher’s animus are only speculative and conclusory,” appellate judges wrote. “Most of his allegations described Wardell’s disagreements with Gallagher’s management style. For example, she declined to invite him to an annual networking event; and she disagreed with him over the purported ‘deficiencies’ of two proposed contracts. But the ‘[l]aw does not blindly ascribe to race all personal conflicts between individuals of different races.’”

“Wardell failed to allege any impermissible policy or custom that was used to terminate his employment,” the opinion explained. “While he does allege that the Board, acting as the final decisionmaker, voted to terminate his employment, he failed to plead that the Board acted with racial animus or that the Board made the decision with ‘deliberate indifference to the risk that a violation of a particular constitutional or statutory right’ would follow the decision.”

“He simply alleged that Gallagher provided several race-neutral justifications for her recommendation to terminate Wardell’s employment — including that he was insubordinate, unqualified, and in conflict with County leadership — and that the Board followed the recommendation, ‘rubber-stamping’ it,” appellate judges continued. “But the complaint does not include any allegation that an impermissible policy or custom played any role in the Board’s decision to terminate his employment.”

Judges Paul Niemeyer, Robert Bruce King, and Nicole Berner made up the panel that issued the unanimous decision.

“Court rejects former Pitt Co. attorney’s racial discrimination suit” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.