David Hudson has long been considered one of the best elementary school principals in Richmond.

He has received praise from parents and plaudits from teachers and enjoyed the regard of students during his 11-year career at Linwood Holton Elementary School.

Among other honors, Mr. Hudson was awarded a $15,000 REB Award for Distinguished Educational Leadership in 2010 that allowed him to develop an outdoor garden and environmental studies space at the school on Laburnum Avenue.

Evidence of the esteem in which he is held came in June when the School Board quietly voted 6-3 to give him a raise of more than $12,000 to keep him from accepting a principal position in Henrico County.

That’s why a tabloid-style drama now surrounding Mr. Hudson has created such a buzz among teachers and staff in the school system.

The drama involves the removal and subsequent demotion of a former assistant principal at Linwood Holton and includes claims of sexual harassment and possible forgery as well as an accusation that Superintendent Dana T. Bedden and three members of the School Board, who apparently have children attending the school, rallied to protect Mr. Hudson.

The drama seeping from behind closed doors involves Mr. Hudson and Fernando J. Lightfoot, a 15-year Richmond Public Schools educator and school counselor, whom Mr. Hudson recruited to be assistant principal at Holton in the summer of 2014.

Mr. Lightfoot, now demoted to a school counselor and assigned to another school, has taken the drama to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

According to the EEOC complaint he filed July 30, Mr. Lightfoot alleges that Mr. Hudson sexually harassed him and then arranged to get rid of him when he did not respond to the overtures.

The EEOC review could take six months or more. The agency can initiate mediation or issue a letter allowing the complaining party to take the case to court.

Former City Councilman Sa’ad El-Amin, who now operates Employment Rights Advocates and represents employees in administrative hearings and EEOC filings, prepared Mr. Lightfoot’s complaint to the EEOC and also distributed the complaint to School Board members, Richmond’s commonwealth’s attorney and the Virginia attorney general, among others.

Mr. Hudson responded to the complaint through his attorney, Thomas Wolf of LeClair Ryan, who stated in an email to the Free Press: “There is no shortage of good lawyers in Richmond who will represent … anyone who has a remotely legitimate employment claim. Why do you think that rather than be represented by one of those, (Mr. Lightfoot) is represented by a convicted felon (Mr. El-Amin) who has been disbarred and is not even allowed to appear in court? 

“(Mr. Lightfoot and Mr. El-Amin) are defaming a public servant who is one of the shining lights among principals in a very challenging school system,” Mr. Wolf continued. “It would be disgraceful if your newspaper makes itself an instrument in this attempted character assassination.”

In an investigative report on the sexual harassment claim that two members of the Sands Anderson law firm prepared for Dr. Bedden and the School Board, Mr. Hudson denied the allegations. The report, a copy of which was provided to the Free Press along with other documents in the case, found insufficient evidence to support Mr. Lightfoot’s sexual harassment allegation. The Sands Anderson investigation did not include the forgery claim. Mr. Lightfoot’s EEOC complaint challenges the report as inadequate.

According to the documents, Mr. Hudson recruited Mr. Lightfoot to be the Holton assistant principal against the advice his superiors, including Dr. Anthony Leonard, director of elementary schools, because Mr. Lightfoot had no experience at that level, according to the documents.

In the investigative report, Mr. Hudson denied calling Mr. Lightfoot during the summer to encourage him to accept. However, Mr. El-Amin said later that Mr. Lightfoot has a log of calls showing repeated contacts with Mr. Hudson between June and August when he finally accepted the position.

In the EEOC complaint, Mr. Lightfoot alleges Mr. Hudson sexually harassed him soon after he started working at the school.

Mr. Lightfoot claims in the complaint that in the first week of September 2014, while standing in front of a seated Mr. Hudson, that Mr. Hudson looked at his crotch and said, “I have expensive taste — you need to take me to the Ritz-Carlton.” Mr. Lightfoot also alleges that on at least “10 or more occasions,” Mr. Hudson made “sexually suggestive comments, such as ‘When are you gong to take me to dinner?’ ”

Mr. Lightfoot further claims in his EEOC filing that when he ignored Mr. Hudson’s apparent advances, Mr. Hudson “became hostile, argumentative and highly critical” of Mr. Lightfoot’s job performance.

However, according to the documents, Mr. Lightfoot did not raise the issue of sexual harassment until spring 2015 when Dr. Bedden was considering Mr. Hudson’s request to remove Mr. Lightfoot as assistant principal. Mr. Lightfoot asserts in his complaint that he brought his claim about being sexually harassed to the attention of Donald Coleman, chairman of the School Board, and Dr. Leonard in April as Dr. Bedden decided on whether to renew his assistant principal contract.

The documents show that Dr. Bedden hired Sands Anderson to conduct an investigation as soon as he learned of Mr. Lightfoot’s allegation. Dr. Bedden stated in the report he learned about the allegation May 18, nearly a month after he had decided to demote Mr. Lightfoot to his former position of counselor in the school year that begins next month.

The EEOC complaint alleges that Dr. Bedden and three School Board members have a conflict of interest when it comes to Mr. Hudson because their children attend Holton.

The board members named are Glen H. Sturtevant Jr., 1st District, who is now running for the state Senate; Kimberly B. Gray, 2nd District; and Jeffrey M. Bourne, 3rd District, a deputy attorney general, according to the complaint. Mr. Bourne confirmed to the Free Press that he has children attending Holton. Dr. Bedden, Mr. Sturtevant and Ms. Gray did not respond to a Free Press query on whether they have children attending the school.

In addition, Mr. Lightfoot’s complaint alleges that after he failed to respond to Mr. Hudson’s advances, Mr. Hudson forged Mr. Lightfoot’s signature on two letters of reprimand spelling out Mr. Lightfoot’s work deficiencies, letters Mr. Lightfoot alleges were designed to create a paper trail to justify his later removal and demotion by Dr. Bedden.

The documents filed with the EEOC complaint show the first letter of reprimand is dated Sept. 9, 2014, just a few days after school opened and just weeks after Mr. Lightfoot started as assistant principal.

The documents also show that Dr. Bedden included the letters of reprimand among the reasons he would not renew Mr. Lightfoot’s contract as an assistant principal.

Mr. Lightfoot stated in his complaint that he did not see the letters of reprimand until March 25 after he received notification from Dr. Bedden of the recommendation to remove him from the position of assistant principal. Mr. Lightfoot also stated that the signatures on two of the letters are not his.

According to the EEOC complaint, the School Board previously fired a female assistant principal at another school who forged a principal’s signature. However, a majority of the School Board, including the three members who apparently have children at Linwood Holton, has refused to investigate the allegation of forgery, according to the EEOC complaint.

Mr. Lightfoot raised the forgery allegation in a nine-page statement he submitted to Dr. Bedden rebutting Mr. Hudson’s critique of his performance. In his statement, which also is part of the EEOC filing, Mr. Lightfoot asserted that Mr. Hudson did not keep his promise to mentor him, but instead used his position to “bully, intimidate (and) threaten …”

Dr. Bedden on April 23 confirmed Mr. Lightfoot’s nonrenewal as an assistant principal, according to a document accompanying the complaint, based in large measure on Mr. Hudson’s recommendation that Mr. Lightfoot had “demonstrated an inability to effectively perform the duties and responsibilities of the position.”

In a closed meeting June 15 that is described in the complaint, Dr. Bedden told the School Board that both Mr. Hudson and Mr. Lightfoot had denied they had anything to do with forged signatures.

Further discussion of the issue of forged signatures was later cut off, according to the complaint. Mr. Sturtevant, Ms. Gray and Ms. Bourne did not respond to a Free Press question about the forgery issue.

Dr. Bedden defended his actions in the Lightfoot case in a statement issued Wednesday through Richard D. Davis III, RPS spokesman:

“Any suggestion that Dr. Bedden would allow personal feelings toward a school to impact his ability to perform his duties as superintendent is reckless and false.

“The allegations made by Mr. Lightfoot regarding alleged forgery were considered and reviewed but lacked any proof that could be acted upon,” the statement continues. “The investigation was assigned to and conducted by a third-party law firm, (and) the Office of the Superintendent did not exert any influence … and had no impact on the investigation’s results or findings.”