Marion County Schools Superintendent Dr. Donna Heston and HR administrator Kristin DeVaul have filed federal lawsuits accusing three West Virginia school-board members of sex discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and hostile-work-environment conduct. A recent amended complaint adds a sworn affidavit from the board’s former president and additional text-message evidence.
Two senior Marion County Schools administrators are suing the district’s Board of Education and three elected board members in federal court, alleging that years of rumors about their private lives developed into sex discrimination, workplace restrictions, retaliation, and efforts to remove Superintendent Dr. Donna Heston from her position.
Heston and Human Resources Administrative Assistant Kristin DeVaul allege that board President James Saunders and board members Kevin Rogers and Donna Costello repeatedly promoted or acted upon what the women describe as a false rumor that they were involved in an intimate same-sex relationship. The defendants have not been found liable, and the allegations remain unresolved in federal court.
The case became more significant in late August after Heston filed a second amended complaint that incorporated a sworn affidavit from former Marion County Board of Education President George Boyles and additional text-message evidence that her attorneys say supports the discrimination claims.
Editorial Note
This article summarizes allegations contained in pending federal lawsuits, sworn statements, public records, and reporting from multiple West Virginia news organizations. New To Education has not independently determined the truth of disputed factual allegations and does not adopt the legal claims, defenses, or conclusions of either side.
The filing of a lawsuit, amended complaint, affidavit, or other court document does not establish that discrimination, harassment, retaliation, constitutional violations, or other unlawful conduct occurred. Likewise, statements attributed to individual board members or witnesses should be understood in the procedural context in which they were made. The defendants are entitled to contest the allegations, present evidence, and seek dismissal or judgment in their favor.
This article is provided for educational and informational purposes and is not legal advice.
What We Know
Heston and DeVaul filed separate federal lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia at the end of July.
Both lawsuits name the Marion County Board of Education along with Saunders, Rogers, and Costello.
Heston’s case alleges sex discrimination, hostile-work-environment conduct, retaliation, and constitutional violations connected to the board’s treatment of her employment and superintendent contract.
DeVaul’s separate case alleges many of the same forms of discrimination and retaliation while also challenging restrictions allegedly imposed on her work responsibilities and claiming that she was paid less than comparable male central-office employees.
The women are represented by attorney Ryan Umina.
Neither lawsuit has resulted in a final judgment establishing liability.
The Lawsuits Center on Alleged Rumors About the Women’s Relationship
At the center of both cases is an allegation that certain board members repeatedly treated Heston and DeVaul differently because of rumors concerning their perceived sexual orientation and an alleged romantic relationship.
Both women deny that they were involved in the relationship described in the lawsuits.
According to the complaints, the disputed narrative was used to question DeVaul’s professional advancement and Heston’s leadership.
Heston alleges that board members interrogated her about her private life, monitored social-media activity, and later used concerns about what they allegedly referred to as her “lifestyle” as part of an effort to remove her as superintendent.
DeVaul alleges that the same rumors affected how board members treated her professional responsibilities and reputation.
Those allegations remain contested claims rather than established facts.
Heston’s Contract Became a Major Part of the Dispute
Heston’s employment status has been one of the central issues in the case.
According to the most recent amended complaint and supporting reporting, Heston received a positive performance evaluation in February 2026. Former board President George Boyles later stated in a sworn affidavit that Heston met or exceeded all of the performance criteria considered by the board.
Despite that evaluation, Costello, Rogers, and Saunders voted 3-2 against renewing Heston’s contract on February 16.
The board later reconsidered the issue and approved a one-year extension for the 2026–2027 school year.
Heston remains superintendent under that agreement.
Her lawsuit alleges that the board majority’s decision was influenced not by performance concerns but by discriminatory assumptions about her private life and perceived sexual orientation.
The board members have the opportunity to dispute that interpretation through the federal litigation.
Former Board President Files Sworn Affidavit
The litigation took a significant turn in late August.
Former Marion County Board of Education President George Boyles filed a sworn affidavit that Heston incorporated into a second amended complaint.
Boyles served on the board until the summer of 2026 and worked alongside Heston and the defendants during much of the period described in the lawsuit.
According to reporting on the affidavit, Boyles stated that conversations about removing Heston began in 2024 after board members discussed photographs and what they allegedly described as Heston’s “lifestyle.”
Boyles further stated that no performance-based reason was given during one discussion about removing Heston and that he warned fellow board members that they could not lawfully remove her based on perceived sexual orientation.
His affidavit also describes Heston as having received favorable evaluations.
An affidavit is sworn evidence submitted in litigation, but it is not the same as a court finding. The defendants remain free to challenge Boyles’ recollection, credibility, interpretation, or legal significance.
A July Phone Call Is Also Part of the Case
Heston’s amended complaint also references a July 27 telephone conversation with Saunders.
According to the lawsuit and reporting on the filing, Saunders allegedly did not realize the call remained connected after he finished speaking with Heston.
Heston alleges that she then overheard Saunders discussing her perceived sexual orientation with another person.
The amended complaint includes a subsequent text exchange in which Heston challenged Saunders about what she says she heard.
Reporting on the complaint says Saunders responded that he had been repeating what other people were saying.
That exchange is now part of the evidence Heston is relying upon in support of her discrimination claims.
Its ultimate legal significance will be determined through the litigation rather than through the allegations alone.
DeVaul Alleges Restrictions on Her Work
DeVaul’s separate lawsuit focuses heavily on how the alleged discrimination affected her day-to-day employment.
She claims board members imposed unusual restrictions on her work, including limitations on leaving her office, attending professional meetings, and traveling with the superintendent.
According to her complaint, those restrictions were not applied in the same way to similarly situated male administrators.
DeVaul also alleges that her salary was lower than male central-office employees whom she describes as having comparable or lesser qualifications.
Her lawsuit seeks relief under federal civil-rights law and the West Virginia Human Rights Act.
Those compensation and workplace-treatment allegations have not yet been resolved by the court.
The Cases Raise Title VII and Equal Protection Claims
Both lawsuits invoke major federal employment-discrimination protections.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits covered employers from discriminating against employees because of sex and also prohibits unlawful retaliation connected to protected complaints about discrimination.
The lawsuits also raise equal-protection claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and claims under the West Virginia Human Rights Act.
Heston’s case argues that she was subjected to adverse employment treatment because of sex and perceived sexual orientation.
DeVaul similarly alleges that she was subjected to different workplace restrictions and compensation treatment because she is a woman and because of the alleged relationship attributed to her.
Whether the plaintiffs can establish each required element of those claims remains a question for the federal court.
Why Perceived Sexual Orientation Can Matter Legally
An important feature of this case is that Heston and DeVaul deny the alleged relationship.
That does not necessarily eliminate the discrimination issue they are raising.
Employment-discrimination law can focus on why an employer allegedly acted, not simply whether the employer’s assumptions about an employee were factually correct.
If an employee can establish that adverse employment treatment occurred because decision-makers believed or perceived the employee to have a particular protected characteristic, the accuracy of that belief may not be the central question.
The plaintiffs therefore argue that the board members’ alleged perception of their sexual orientation and relationship influenced employment decisions even though the underlying relationship itself is denied.
The defendants may dispute both the factual allegations and whether any employment decisions were motivated by unlawful discrimination.
The State Has Also Raised Governance Concerns
The lawsuits are unfolding against a broader backdrop of tension involving Marion County Schools governance.
The West Virginia Department of Education assigned a liaison to the district after concerns arose regarding the board’s handling of Heston’s contract and other governance issues.
State education officials reported that the Office of Accountability had received correspondence from Marion County stakeholders, interviewed board members and district personnel, and developed a corrective-action process.
That intervention is separate from the federal lawsuits.
The state’s involvement does not establish that Heston or DeVaul’s discrimination allegations are true, but it demonstrates that concerns about board governance extend beyond the federal litigation itself.
Employment Decisions and Board Governance Can Become Legally Connected
School boards have broad responsibility for supervising superintendents and making major employment decisions.
That authority, however, is still constrained by federal and state civil-rights law.
A board can decide not to renew a superintendent because of legitimate performance, leadership, financial, operational, or governance concerns.
It cannot lawfully make an employment decision because of a protected characteristic.
The legal question in Heston’s case is therefore not whether school boards possess authority over superintendent contracts.
They clearly do.
The question is whether Heston can prove that the particular decisions challenged in her lawsuit were motivated, at least in legally significant part, by discriminatory considerations or unlawful retaliation.
That factual dispute is likely to be central as the case develops.
What Happens Next
The newest amended complaint was filed in late August.
According to reporting on the filing, summonses give the named defendants a limited period after service to respond.
The defendants could answer the allegations, seek dismissal of some or all claims, or raise additional legal defenses.
If significant portions of the cases survive preliminary motions, the litigation could move into discovery.
That stage could be particularly important because discovery may involve board communications, employment records, performance evaluations, social-media evidence, emails, text messages, witness testimony, and depositions.
The current complaints tell the plaintiffs’ version of events.
Future responses and court rulings will provide a fuller picture of the defendants’ position and which claims, if any, are legally viable.
Why This Matters
The Marion County cases illustrate how school-board authority can intersect with employment discrimination and constitutional protections.
Superintendents work directly for elected boards, which gives board members enormous influence over contract renewal, evaluations, compensation, and working conditions.
Human Resources administrators can likewise become vulnerable when disagreements with board members move beyond ordinary governance disputes and begin affecting job responsibilities or professional reputation.
That makes clear boundaries especially important.
Boards must be able to question administrators, evaluate performance, and make difficult personnel decisions.
At the same time, employment power cannot lawfully be used to punish employees because of sex, sexual orientation, or another protected characteristic.
The Marion County litigation will test whether the actions challenged by Heston and DeVaul were legitimate exercises of board authority or unlawful discrimination and retaliation.
No court has answered that question yet.
Key Takeaways
• Marion County Schools Superintendent Dr. Donna Heston and HR administrator Kristin DeVaul have filed separate federal lawsuits against the Marion County Board of Education and board members James Saunders, Kevin Rogers, and Donna Costello.
• The lawsuits allege sex discrimination, hostile-work-environment conduct, retaliation, and related civil-rights violations.
• Both women say board members acted upon false rumors that they were involved in an intimate same-sex relationship.
• Heston alleges that those assumptions influenced efforts to remove her despite a positive performance evaluation and ultimately resulted in only a one-year contract extension.
• Former board President George Boyles has submitted a sworn affidavit that Heston says supports her claims, including allegations that board members discussed removing her because of her perceived “lifestyle.”
• DeVaul separately alleges that board members restricted her professional duties and paid her less than comparable male administrators.
• The allegations remain unresolved. Filing complaints and affidavits does not establish that the defendants violated federal or state law.
Frequently Asked Questions
Were the board members found guilty of discrimination?
No. These are pending civil lawsuits. No final court judgment has established that the board or individual board members discriminated against Heston or DeVaul.
Is Donna Heston still superintendent?
Yes. After initially declining to renew her contract, the board later approved a one-year agreement covering the 2026–2027 school year.
Why is the former board president’s affidavit important?
George Boyles says he personally witnessed discussions in which board members allegedly connected efforts to remove Heston with her perceived sexual orientation rather than her job performance. Because he was a board member during the relevant period, his testimony could become significant evidence. It remains subject to challenge by the defendants.
Does the lawsuit claim Heston and DeVaul were actually in a relationship?
No. Both women deny the alleged relationship. Their lawsuits argue that board members nevertheless acted on rumors or assumptions about their sexual orientation and private lives.
Has the school board responded in court?
The newest amended filing was submitted in late August, and reporting indicated the defendants had time after service to formally respond. Their eventual filings may provide additional defenses and factual context.
Final Thoughts
The Marion County litigation has moved beyond a disagreement about a superintendent’s contract.
Two senior administrators now allege that elected board members used their official authority in ways shaped by sex-based assumptions, rumors about sexual orientation, and retaliation.
The recent addition of a former board president’s sworn affidavit makes the case more significant, but it does not decide it.
Heston and DeVaul still must prove their claims under the applicable legal standards, and the board members are entitled to dispute both the facts and the legal conclusions presented in the complaints.
As the cases proceed, the most important developments will be the defendants’ formal responses, any rulings on motions to dismiss, and whether discovery produces additional evidence regarding why employment decisions were made.
Until those questions are resolved, this remains a developing federal employment and school-governance dispute rather than a finding of wrongdoing.
Related Articles
Former Wisconsin Principal Alleges School Board Pushed Him Out Because He Is Gay
A related New To Education report examining allegations that a school board and district officials pushed a principal out because of his sexual orientation. The claims remain pending in federal court.
A public-school employment case involving allegations of retaliation, administrative discipline, and constitutional protections.
A school-governance story involving a superintendent’s departure alongside unresolved federal civil-rights litigation and allegations of retaliation and due-process violations.
Sources
Independent public-media reporting on the original federal filings, the defendants named in the cases, and the discrimination allegations.
WV MetroNews — Marion County Schools superintendent, HR administrator sue BOE
Local reporting detailing the allegations made by Heston and DeVaul, including the contract dispute and alleged July phone-call incident.
Reporting on Heston’s amended federal complaint, allegations of sex discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and the broader board-leadership dispute.
August 24 reporting on Heston’s second amended complaint, the Boyles affidavit, text-message evidence, and the newest allegations.
WV MetroNews — Former Marion BOE president files affidavit in federal complaint
Follow-up reporting on former Board President George Boyles’ sworn affidavit and his account of the superintendent’s performance evaluation and alleged board discussions.
Detailed reporting on Kristin DeVaul’s separate federal complaint, including alleged workplace restrictions, compensation disparities, and retaliation.
