Robyn Bomar v. Board of Education of Harford County

── Robyn Bomar v. Board of Education of Harford County ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: April 16, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-1065 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 1 of 20 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1065 ROBYN BOMAR; LETINA HALL; JONISE STALLINGS; SHAKERA ADKINS, Plaintiffs – Appellants, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY; SEAN BULSON, Defendants – Appellees, and STACEY GERRINGER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Lydia Kay Griggsby, U.S. District Judge. (1:21-cv-00870-LKG) Argued: October 24, 2025 Decided: April 16, 2026 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and BERNER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Corlie McCormick, Jr., MCCORMICK LAW FIRM, LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Adam Elliot Konstas, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, Maryland, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Edmund J. O’Meally, PESSIN KATZ LAW, P.A., Towson, USCA4 Appeal: 25-1065 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 2 of 20 Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1065 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 3 of 20 PER CURIAM: Appellants Robyn Bomar, Letina Hall, Jonise Stallings, and Shakera Adkins served as assistant principals in Harford County, Maryland Public Schools until they were reassigned pursuant to a county-wide reduction in force. Believing that their non-selection was unlawful, Appellants filed suit against the Board of Education of Harford County (School Board) and Superintendent of Harford County Public Schools Dr. Sean Bulson. Appellants, all Black women over the age of forty, allege that they were demoted because of their race, sex, and age. They also claim that the reduction in force procedure was unlawful because it disproportionately impacted Black women. They further allege that the School Board retaliated against them for raising concerns about this alleged unlawful discrimination. Hall and Adkins assert that Harford County retaliated against them because they took time off from work on protected medical leave. Finally, Appellants argue that Superintendent Bulson violated their constitutional rights. Following discovery, the district court granted summary judgment to the School Board and to Superintendent Bulson. On appeal, Appellants argue that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the reasons given by the School Board and Superintendent Bulson for their various employment actions were pretextual. We disagree. Appellants failed to produce evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find the School Board’s reasons pretextual. Nor have Appellants carried their burden to propose an alternative mechanism for a reduction in force that would adequately serve the School Board’s legitimate business necessities. Finally, Appellants failed to carry their burden to make out a prima facie case in support of 3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1065 Doc: 36 Filed: 04/16/2026 Pg: 4 of 20 their remaining retaliation claims. Accordingly, we affirm in full the ruling of the district court. I. Factual Background We present the facts in t