February 26, 2007 – Suit filed in the
United States District Court in Norfolk, Virginia alleging violation of
Title VII and First Amendment to the United States Constitution, seeking
to hold Sheriff of Chesapeake, Virginia accountable to the law he is sworn
On February 26, 2007, David Cahoon, filed suit
against Sheriff Newhart of Chesapeake, Virginia alleging retaliation in
violation of Title VII and of the First Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States of America. After
21 years of faithful service, David Cahoon was one of only two
Sheriff’s deputies not re-appointed when Sheriff Newhart was
re-elected to serve a new term beginning January 1, 2006.
David Cahoon had been subpoenaed as a witness in a civil rights
suit by Tony Ellis, a Black deputy alleging, among other things racial
discrimination in violation of Title VII.
David Cahoon had made it clear that he would answer truthfully
any questions put to him as a witness.
Although Tony Ellis lost his Title VII case before David Cahoon
was called as a witness, Sheriff Newhart failed to continue the service
of only two deputies – David Cahoon and Tony Ellis.
David Cahoon was not reappointed despite having received a
“Outstanding” performance evaluation only a few months before this
incident. The suit
follows the determination by the Equal Employment Commission for the
United States of America that found “Based on the evidence of
record there is reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Party
[David Cahoon] was subjected to retaliatory discharge (or denied
reappointment) in retaliation for having participated in a protected
activity.” Title VII
prohibits retaliation against individuals who oppose discrimination or
who participate in the legal proceedings of a Title VII claim.
Copy of lawsuit (pdf 596 kb)
Cahoon v. Newhart, Sheriff of the
City of Chesapeake, Virginia et al., 2:07cv87, filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk
Division on 2/26/2007
The facts and circumstances of each case are unique and
therefore the fact that a law firm has obtained significant verdicts and results
in other cases in no way guarantees that other cases will have similar results.