Deborah Rigsby v. National School Boards Assoc., No. 20-2318 (4th Cir. 2023)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-2318 DEBORAH RIGSBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge; Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-00168-AJT-MSN) Submitted: April 28, 2023 Decided: May 19, 2023 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Deborah Rigsby, Appellant Pro Se. Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Thomas L. McCally, CARR MALONEY, PC, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Deborah Rigsby appeals the district court’s orders granting the National School Boards Association’s (“NSBA”) partial motion to dismiss the retaliation claim alleged in her amended complaint and granting summary judgment to NSBA on her failure-topromote claim. We have reviewed the record de novo and find no reversible error. Rigsby’s retaliation claim was properly dismissed because she failed to plausibly allege facts in the amended complaint supporting either materially adverse retaliatory actions or a causal nexus to her protected activity. The district court properly granted summary judgment on Rigsby’s failure-to-promote claim because Rigsby failed to produce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that NSBA’s explanation for its hiring decision was mere pretext. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Rigsby v. Nat’l Sch. Bds. Ass’n, No. 1:19-cv-00168-AJT-MSN (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 23 & entered Mar. 24, 2020; Nov. 6, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.