SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY
Virginia Case Summary
Brooks-Buck v. Wahlstrom
Virginia Court of Appeals
No. 250246
Decided: October 16, 2025
School board members may not be covered by legislative, sovereign, or statutory immunity for certain actions taken while performing their school board duties.
Background
Plaintiff, an educator and former school administrator, frequently attended school board meetings to provide comments regarding educational and administrative issues. At a meeting in 2021, police escorted Plaintiff from the premises after she refused to leave a meeting. Plaintiff subsequently filed, and prevailed upon, a lawsuit against the school board asserting violations of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. In 2023, following the first lawsuit, one of the individual Defendants filed an internal disciplinary complaint against her fellow school board member, alleging that she violated certain protocols of the school board. The Defendant attached a narrative statement to her internal complaint that elaborated on the alleged misconduct. That narrative contained several statements about Plaintiff, including an allegation that Plaintiff committed perjury in her 2021 lawsuit against the school board. The other Defendant, then-school board president, circulated the complaint and narrative to the entire school board and the superintendent of schools.
After this, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Suffolk Circuit Court alleging defamation and defamation per se against two of the individual Defendants, claiming that the statements in the narrative attached to the internal disciplinary complaint defamed her. Both Defendants filed demurrers asserting that the allegations in the Complaint established that they were entitled to legislative, statutory, and sovereign immunity. The Trial Court overruled their demurrers, finding that they were not entitled to any immunity. Defendants sought an interlocutory review of the Court’s decision from the Virginia Court of Appeals.
Holding
The Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the Lower Court’s decision that they were not entitled to any of the three claimed immunities. First, legislative immunity does apply to local legislators, such as school board members, when they are acting within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity. Although disciplining a school board member falls within the scope of a legislative act, the statements about Plaintiff were gratuitous and non-essential to the function of disciplining a school board member. Plaintiff was a private citizen who was a third party to the disciplinary proceedings, such that the statements about her fell outside the scope of legitimate legislative activity, and therefore, were not subject to legislative immunity.
Second, school boards are protected from tort liability under sovereign immunity, and school board members are further protected when sued in their official capacity. However, sovereign immunity does not extend to school board members when they are sued in their individual capacity. Here, the school board was not a party to this action and Plaintiff’s Complaint specifically sought judgment against the Defendants in their individual capacities. Accordingly, Defendants were not entitled to sovereign immunity.
Third, Virginia Code § 8.01-223.2 extends statutory immunity to individuals who make statements to governing bodies. The statute clarifies that immunity is not extended to any statements the declarant knew were false, or were made with reckless disregard as to whether they were false. Under the demurrer standard in Virginia, the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, when viewed most favorably to Plaintiff, implied that the statements in the narrative were false, made with ill-will, and were baseless. Thus, a demurrer claiming this statutory immunity must fail. For the foregoing reasons, the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Lower Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Questions about this case can be directed to Amanda Finney at 571.470.0394 or afinney@tthlaw.com.