Albemarle families file federal lawsuit against Albemarle School Board and two ACPS officials

An Albemarle County family has filed suit in the United States District Court of Western Virginia against the Albemarle County School Board and two top officials claiming that the school system failed to protect a child from another student’s inappropriate touching.

“On August 19, 2025—their second day at an Albemarle County high school—fifteen year-old J. Doe, a student with autism and a specific learning disability, was sexually assaulted in class by another student,” reads the first paragraph of the complaint filed on October 29.

“The Albemarle County School Board and its employees already knew that the assailant had been touching other students inappropriately and had taken no action to protect students from ongoing assaults,” the paragraph continues.

The suit filed by Charlottesville attorney Lauren Baum names both Erin E. Stone and Josiah Black as defendants. Stone is the Title IX coordinator for ACPS and assistant school division counsel. Black is the chief legal officer for the school division.

Stone was among three ACPS employees arrested by the Albemarle County Police Department earlier this month on three charges failing to report evidence of child abuse or neglect. The next hearing in Albemarle Circuit Court is scheduled for December 7.

The Doe suit does not have any direct connection to the felony indictment and subsequent arrest of former ACPS employee Michael Swiney of Buckingham County on multiple charges of aggravated sexual battery and indecent liberties.

The complaint alleges that school officials kept J. Doe in the same class as the alleged assailant and retaliated against the family by withholding instruction unless they agreed to drop all claims.

“When J. Doe’s outside therapist made a mandated report of the assault, [Stone]… cut J.’s in-home mental health support,” reads the second paragraph which also claims Stone convinced the Commonwealth’s Attorney not to press charges against the assailant.

According to the complaint. J. Doe was unable to attend school for three months due to the trauma and the school division did not supply instruction according to the Individualized Education Program. The parents kept asking for a resolution or alternate placement and took their request to Black, former Superintendent Matthew Haas, and the School Board.

“[The] School Board, through Ms. Stone and Mr. Black, conditioned J. Doe’s annual IEP meeting and special education placement on a written agreement requiring J. Doe’s parents to release every claim against the School Division and its employees, to keep the agreement confidential, to refrain from ‘disparaging’ anyone associated with the School Division, and to communicate with the School Board only through designated staff,” reads a portion of paragraph 3.

The complaint describes much of this in detail with several paragraphs including descriptions of the assailant, identified only as Student A. A case manager employed by ACPS had observed this person touching students and relayed the information to her supervisor.

“Upon information and belief, before August 19, 2025, multiple ACPS staff members observed Student A touching other students inappropriately even after being told to stop,” reads paragraph 20.

The complaint alleges there was no investigation as required and no report to either Child Protective Services of the Albemarle County Police Department. Another student also reported an incident that happened that day.

“The school counselor notified the Assistant Principal, who notified the Principal,” reads paragraph 24. “The Principal and Assistant Principal then called Defendant Black, Chief Legal Officer, and notified him of the reported assault.”

Paragraph 25 argues none of this was reported and the complaint goes on to document other multiple other incidents involving Student A.

“On August 20, September 1, and September 17, 2025, ACPS received reports through its ‘HelpMe’ reporting application concerning Student A,” reads paragraph 26. “Upon information and belief, no mandated report was made as to any of these incidents.”

J. Doe did not return to school on August 20 and the complaint documents how Student A was allowed to stay in class and J. Doe’s parents were told that an additional adult could be made available.

“The Parents objected, noting that seeing Student A would harm J.’s emotional well-being and safety given J.’s disabilities,” reads a portion of paragraph 31.

“When J. learned they would remain in class with Student A, J. understood that they would have to leave if they felt unsafe, and they feared they were being punished for having been touched,” reads a portion of paragraph 33.

The parents asked for ACPS to pay for trauma therapy and were told that would not happen. Later that month, J. Doe began seeing a therapist and described the incident in more detail.

“The therapist made a mandated report to Child Protective Services, which referred the matter to law enforcement,” reads a part of paragraph 41.

“When the Parents told Defendant Stone about the mandated report, she reacted with evident displeasure and insisted that it was her role to coordinate with law enforcement,” reads the entirety of paragraph 42.

The complaint continues to document a pattern where ACPS officials sought to discourage the parents from filing a formal Title IX complaint.

By September 2025 a criminal investigation was underway and J. Doe participated in an interview with a detective.

“The investigating detective found J.’s account credible, told the Parents that he had no doubt an assault had occurred, and said he believed sexual battery charges were appropriate, subject to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s decision,” reads paragraph 52.

The parents met with the Commonwealth’s Attorney sometime around October 20, 2025 and were told that charges would not be pursued in part because of discussions with both Stone and Black.

“Defendant Stone and the Principal had no legitimate educational reason to advocate to the Commonwealth’s Attorney on behalf of Student A, who sexually assaulted J.,” reads paragraph 55. “Their intervention came after the Parents had cooperated with law enforcement and declined Defendant Stone’s demand to control that contact.”

Meanwhile, representatives for Student B filed a formal Title IX complaint and J. Doe joined the case on September 11, 2025. Doe’s parents also asked for Stone to be replaced as the Title IX coordinator for their child’s case. When this didn’t happen, they withdrew the complaint. Black referred them to Brodie Downs, the deputy chief human resources officer.

“When the Parents raised their concerns about Defendant Stone with Mr. Downs, he told them he could not do anything, went silent for a month, and ultimately referred them elsewhere,” reads paragraph 60. “Mr. Downs did not investigate their complaint.”

Downs was arrested in early October of this year along with Stone and Joseph Downes McCauley, the former principal of Hollymead Elementary School.

A new IEP

In October of last year, J. Doe’s IEP was up for an annual review. The parents used this process to seek placement in a different school five days a week. They went through Special Education Coordinator Ruth Tapscott and not Stone. However, Tapscott informed Stone anyway and paragraph 65 alleges that staff came up with a plan without the input of parents.

“The proposed agreement offered a placement at School C for the remainder of the school year, an IEP reflecting that placement, and up to 33 hours of trauma-informed therapy,” reads paragraph 68.

According to the complaint, there were six demands including releasing ACPS from “any and all complaints, claims, due process hearings, administrative complaints, demands, grievances, lawsuits, charges and actions of any kind” relating to J.’s education,” the complaint continues.

The complaint alleges the school system had no legal authority to impose any restrictions. The parents wrote a letter on November 2, 2025 saying as much to the chair and vice chair of the School Board, Tapscott, and Stone to state their case. They allegedly received no response.

Five days later, the parents went to the Virginia Department of Education seeking intervention. After the Deputy Secretary for Special Education got involved, ACPS agreed to provide 15 hours of trauma therapy and J. Doe was placed in School C on November 20, 2025.

“J. returned to school full-time at School C after the Thanksgiving break, having missed roughly three months of school,” reads paragraph 75.

Later paragraphs describe how J. Doe’s has suffered from both the incident and the gap in education.

The complaint also notes the October 5, 2026 indictment of Stone and Down for failing to report, arguing what happened to J. Doe is part of a much wider pattern of secrecy and silence.

“Upon information and belief, the School Board knew of Defendant Stone’s approach to reports of sexual misconduct before J. was assaulted,” reads paragraph 95. “In March 2025, Defendant Stone reported to the School Board regarding allegations of inappropriate conduct toward students by another ACPS employee, and that matter was not opened as a Title IX case.

That employee was later charged with multiple felony sex offenses against children.”

On October 8, the plaintiffs sent a demand to the School Board, the acting superintendent and Black seeking a resolution. They did not hear back.

On October 15, the Albemarle Board of Supervisors went into closed session to discuss the matter. Afterward they issued a statement calling for the School Board to take multiple steps as I reported.

“Recent events within the Albemarle County Public Schools—including the arrests of school personnel for alleged failure to comply with Virginia’s mandatory child‑abuse reporting laws, serious parental and community concerns regarding a reported culture of fear among employees, and significant erosion of public trust—have raised urgent questions about the ACPS’s internal climate, reporting practices, and transparency,” reads the statement read by Supervisor Ned Gallaway after coming back from closed session.

This continues to be an ongoing story and I’ll have a further update on Monday, November 2, 2026.

Plaintiffs seek a jury trial

There are eleven counts in the complaint.

• Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a): Deliberate Indifference Before the Assault (J. Doe against the School Board)
• Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a): Deliberate Indifference After Notice of the Assault (J. Doe against the School Board)
• Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a): Retaliation All Plaintiffs against the School Board)
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (J. Doe against the School Board)
• Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (J. Doe against the School Board)
• Retaliation and Interference Under Section 504 and Title II, 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 and 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (All Plaintiffs against the School Board)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: First Amendment Retaliation and Unconstitutional Conditions (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Stone and Black, in their individual capacities, and the School Board)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983: Equal Protection (J. Doe against Defendants Stone and Black, in their individual capacities, and the School Board)
• Gross Negligence (J. Doe against Defendants Stone and Black)
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Stone and Black)
• Parents’ Claim for Loss of Services (James Doe and Jane Doe against Defendants Stone and Black)

The plaintiffs seek eight outcomes:

• They want a declaration that the School Board violated Plaintiff’s rights under the First and Fourteen amendments.
• They want up a minimum of $5 million in compensatory damages to be determined at trial.
• They want punitive damages against Stone and Black.
• They want nominal damages for those counts that do not result in compensatory damages.
• They want injunctive relief seeking reform. See the image below for details.
• They want attorneys’ fees paid for by the defendants.
• They want interest as allowed by law
• “Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.”

Before you go: The goal of Town Crier Productions is to increase awareness about what is happening at the local, regional, state, and federal government levels. Please share the work with others if you want people to know things.

Paid subscribers cover the cost of conducting research for this article which was originally published in the October 30, 2026 edition of Charlottesville Community Engagement.  You can either subscribe through Substack or make a charitable contribution.