Pam Kincaid v. James Anderson, 681 F. App'x 178

Background

Pam Kincaid, a probationary social work supervisor at Russell County Dept. of Social Services (RCDSS), sued Russell County, RCDSS, the RCDSS Board, five individual board members, and her former supervisor James W. Anderson asserting Title VII claims (sex and religion discrimination, harassment, retaliation), FMLA claims, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 due process claims, and Virginia state-law claims (defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress).
The district court dismissed most claims and granted summary judgment to defendants on the remaining claims; Kincaid appealed.
Defendants asserted state sovereign immunity for RCDSS, the Board, and board members in their official capacities, and moved to dismiss or for summary judgment on individual-capacity and merits grounds.
Key factual premise: Kincaid served in the supervisory role on a probationary basis and was temporarily demoted to a nonsupervisory position; she did not allege public disclosure of demotion reasons or publication of false statements by board members.
The district court excluded certain interrogatory responses as not properly attested when ruling on summary judgment; the court relied on the remaining record evidence to enter judgment for defendants.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether RCDSS/Board are entitled to state sovereign immunity	Kincaid argued entities/board are not arms of the state and thus not immune	Defendants argued RCDSS/Board function as an arm of the state and thus immune except for Title VII claims	Affirmed: RCDSS/Board function as an arm of the state; sovereign immunity bars claims except Title VII
Whether Kincaid stated a due process claim against individual board members	Kincaid argued demotion deprived her of protected property/liberty interests	Defendants argued she had no property interest because position was probationary and no public disclosure of demotion reasons for liberty interest	Affirmed dismissal: no property interest; no liberty interest alleged
Whether defamation and IIED claims against individual board members were sufficiently pleaded	Kincaid alleged reputational and emotional harms from board actions	Defendants argued no allegation that board members published false statements and conduct not sufficiently outrageous	Affirmed dismissal: no publication of false statements; IIED elements not met
Whether district court erred in excluding interrogatory answers and granting summary judgment on Title VII/FMLA/Anderson claims	Kincaid argued interrogatory responses and other evidence created genuine disputes	Defendants argued interrogatory answers were not properly attested and record lacks material factual disputes	Affirmed: exclusion of improper interrogatory responses was not abuse of discretion; no genuine dispute of material fact; summary judgment proper

Key Cases Cited

Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999) (state sovereign immunity principle)
Cash v. Granville County Bd. of Educ., 242 F.3d 219 (4th Cir. 2001) (factors to determine whether entity is an arm of the state)
Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (property interest for due process)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard to survive dismissal)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (limits on accepting legal conclusions in pleadings)
Sciolino v. City of Newport News, Va., 480 F.3d 642 (4th Cir. 2007) (liberty interest/publication requirement)
Jordan v. Kollman, 612 S.E.2d 203 (Va. 2005) (defamation elements under Virginia law)
Russo v. White, 400 S.E.2d 160 (Va. 1991) (IIED standard under Virginia law)