Stokes v. Benham et al, No. 3:2014cv00536 - Document 51 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 7/8/2015. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Stokes v. Benham et al Doc. 51 78IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division YOLANDA W. STOKES, Plaintiff, Civil Case No. 3:14-cv-536-JAG V. STEVEN BENHAM, et al. Defendants. OPINION Yolanda Stokes used to be a Commissioner on the Hopewell Redevelopment and Housing Authority, a position to which she was appointed by the Hopewell City Council. The City Council later changed its mind and removed her. Perceiving the removal as an act of retaliation for helping needy people, Stokes filed this law suit. Stokes has changed the identities of the defendants and the bases on which they should be held liable several times. After muUiple attempts to revise her allegations, and pursuant to this Court's order, she filed a third amended complaint, which contained three claims. First, she argues the defendants retaliated against her in violation of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Fair Housing Act. Second, she claims the defendants violated her constitutional right to equal protection. Finally, she claims defamation per se. Stokes' third amended complaint does not state a claim for relief Specifically, because the City Council appointed her to a position on the policy-making level, she does not enjoy the protections of Title VII. With respect to her other ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and FHA retaliation claims, she fails to put forward facts that show a causal connection between her protected Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
