EX-CHIEF SAFETY OFFICER FOR FLOYD COUNTY, KENTUCKY SCHOOLS SUES FLOYD COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, ALLEGES HE WAS FIRED FOR ACTING ON STUDENT SEX ABUSE COMPLAINTS
AUGUST 1, 2026 – written by WADE QUEEN
The former chief safety officer for Floyd County Schools has filed a wrongful termination lawsuit, saying the board violated whistleblower protections by punishing him for reporting a child exploitation case, then kept him in the dark about another case.
Thomas Gearheart filed his complaint on Thursday, July 30 in Floyd Circuit Court against the Floyd County Board of Education Superintendent Tonya Horne-Williams and all five members of the school board.
Thomas Gearheart alleges that on March 24, 2025, he became aware of allegations that a minor student had exposed herself by telephone to an adult male while on a school bus.
Thomas Gearheart says in his complaint that he reported the incident to Kentucky State Police, as required by his job duties and state law.
However, shortly after he made the report, he claims Superintendent Tonya Horne-Williams voiced disapproval of his actions, saying he should have allowed the board to conduct an internal investigation before bringing in police.
A short time later, he said his office was moved from the board office to another location in the district.
Then, on March 26 of this year, Thomas Gearheart says the board learned of an incident involving allegations that a school bus driver had sexually assaulted a female student. However, he says he was not informed of the incident by the board, even though such matters would normally fall under his job duties.
Instead, he claims the board began conducting its own investigation without contacting police. Ultimately, the Prestonsburg Police Department learned of the allegations independently of the board and began their own investigation.
Thomas Gearheart says he learned that the bus driver allegedly deleted evidence from his phone, which he says might not have happened had he been allowed to do his job.
Thomas Gearheart complained about his exclusion from the investigation to the board’s Human Resources Department, saying he had concerns about “student safety, potential criminal conduct, preservation of evidence and compliance with legal obligations.”
Thomas Gearheart was also subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury about the bus driver on May 13.
On May 14, he was informed that his position was being eliminated and he would no longer be employed by the board.
Gearheart claims his job duties are now being performed by other board employees and that the elimination of his position was a pretext for retaliation against him for his actions in the two cases.
Gearheart is suing on grounds of violations of Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act, wrongful termination, retaliation for reporting child abuse, retaliation for cooperating with police and the grand jury, and disability discrimination.
The complaint does not identify the bus driver who was accused of inappropriate actions with a student. However, the timing and the Prestonsburg Police Department and state and federal grand jury investigations all line up with the case announced this week involving former bus driver Andrew Lewis, who was arrested on a charge of attempted online enticement.
Numerous regional media outlets ave reached out to the Floyd County Board of Education for comment; but they all were told through a spokesperson that Superintendent Tonya Horne-Williams was in meetings in Louisville all week and was not aware of the lawsuit, so there would be no comment at this time, and once the entire school board a chance to respond once they have had a chance to review the complaint.
A copy of Thomas Gearheart’s complaint follows
IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FLOYD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CASE NO.: THOMAS GEARHEART, Plaintiff, v. FLOYD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Serve: Attn: Tonya Horne-Williams 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 and TONYA HORNE-WILLIAMS, individually and in her personal capacity as School Superintendent; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 and LINDA GEARHEART, in her official capacity as a Board Member; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 WILLIAM NEWSOME, in his official capacity as a Board Member; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 STEVEN SLONE, in his official capacity as a Board Member; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622
KEITH SMALLWOOD, in his official capacity as a Board Member; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 CHANDRA VARIA, in her official capacity as a Board Member; Serve: 442 KY Route 550 Eastern, KY 41622 Defendants. COMPLAINT Comes Now Thomas Gearheart, the Plaintiff, (“Plaintiff”), by counsel, for his Complaint against these Defendants and states as follows: PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 1. Plaintiff Thomas Gearheart, a resident of Minnie, Kentucky, is an individual who was employed by Defendant Floyd County Board of Education. 2. Defendant Floyd County Board of Education is a public employer responsible for the operation and administration of the Floyd County, Kentucky school system. 3. At all relevant times, Defendant BOE acted through its agents, representatives, administrators, supervisors, Board Members, and employees, including but not limited to Tonya Williams and other individuals responsible for employment decisions concerning Plaintiff. 4. Defendant Horne-Williams is the Floyd County School Superintendent, and Plaintiff’s direct supervisor. 5. Defendants Gearheart, Newsome, Slone, Smallwood, and Varia are Board Members for the Floyd County Board of Education, and the governing body for the Defendant Floyd County Board of Education. 6. The Board acts through its Board Members.
7. This action arises from Defendants’ unlawful retaliation and adverse employment actions taken against Plaintiff after Plaintiff engaged in protected conduct, including reporting suspected criminal conduct involving a minor child, fulfilling mandatory reporting obligations, raising concerns regarding student safety and investigative procedures, cooperating with law enforcement, and preparing to provide testimony in a criminal investigation. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 5. Plaintiff was employed by the Floyd County Board of Education as its Chief Safety Officer beginning on or about November 21, 2021. 6. In his position as Chief Safety Officer, Plaintiff was responsible for safety-related matters involving the school district, including matters concerning student safety, school transportation issues, and reporting obligations arising under applicable law. 7. During his employment, Plaintiff reported to Defendant Tonya Horne-Williams. 8. On or about March 24, 2025, Plaintiff became aware of an incident involving a minor child and allegations that the child had exposed herself to an adult male through the use of a cellular device while on a school bus. 9. Based upon the information available to him, Plaintiff reported the matter to the Kentucky State Police, Post 9, as part of his employment responsibilities and his obligations as a mandatory reporter under Kentucky law, including KRS 620.030. 10. Plaintiff made the report because he believed the matter involved potential criminal conduct, student safety concerns, and circumstances requiring notification of appropriate authorities.
11. Following Plaintiff’s report to law enforcement, Defendant Horne-Williams expressed disapproval that Plaintiff had contacted law enforcement directly rather than allowing the Board to conduct an internal investigation before contacting outside authorities. 12. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff’s office location was moved from the Board’s administrative facility to another facility within Floyd County at the direction of Defendant HorneWilliams. 13. Plaintiff alleges that the criticism of his report to law enforcement and the relocation of his office were adverse actions connected to his protected reporting activity. 14. On or about March 26, 2026, the Board became aware of allegations that a school bus driver had sexually assaulted a minor female student passenger. 15. The allegations involved school transportation and student safety issues that fell within Plaintiff’s area of responsibility as Chief Safety Officer. 16. Despite Plaintiff’s position and responsibilities, Plaintiff was not initially notified of or included in the Board’s response or investigation into the allegations. 17. Instead, the Board began investigating the matter without Plaintiff’s involvement. 18. Prior to Plaintiff becoming involved in the investigation, the Prestonsburg City Police Department became involved. 19. During the period before law enforcement involvement and before Plaintiff was included in the investigation, the bus driver allegedly deleted information from his cellular phone. 20. Plaintiff believed that the failure to promptly involve him and to implement appropriate investigative and evidence-preservation procedures potentially resulted in the loss or destruction of information relevant to the investigation.
21. Approximately two days after learning of the circumstances surrounding the investigation, Plaintiff raised concerns with the Board’s Human Resources department regarding his exclusion from the investigation and his concerns that evidence may have been lost because appropriate investigative and preservation procedures were not followed. 22. Plaintiff’s concerns involved student safety, potential criminal conduct, preservation of evidence, and compliance with legal obligations. 23. On or about May 7, 2026, Plaintiff was summoned to appear and provide testimony before a grand jury concerning the investigation involving the bus driver. 24. Plaintiff’s grand jury proceeding was scheduled for May 13, 2026. 25. On or about May 8, 2026, shortly after the Board became aware of Plaintiff’s anticipated grand jury testimony, representatives of the Board attempted to contact Plaintiff regarding ending his employment with the Board. 26. On May 13, 2026, Plaintiff sought medical treatment related to hypertension prior to testifying before the grand jury. 27. As a result of his medical condition, Plaintiff was removed from work for a period of at least two weeks. 28. Plaintiff provided medical documentation regarding his condition and his need for leave from work. 29. Prior to this period, the Board had knowledge of Plaintiff’s hypertension. 30. On May 14, 2026, Defendant Horne-Williams informed Plaintiff that his position as Chief Safety Officer was being eliminated and that his services would no longer be needed. 31. Plaintiff was not offered another position with the Board.
32. Following the termination of his employment, Plaintiff learned and/or believes that the duties previously performed by him as Chief Safety Officer continued to be performed and were delegated to other existing Board employees rather than eliminated. 33. Plaintiff alleges that the stated elimination of his position was a pretext for retaliation and that the true reasons for the Board’s actions included Plaintiff’s protected reports, communications concerning student safety, cooperation with law enforcement, anticipated grand jury testimony, and medical leave. COUNT I: Violation of Kentucky Whistleblower Act KRS 61.101–61.103 34. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as stated verbatim herein. 35. Plaintiff was employed by a public employer as defined under the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. 36. Plaintiff disclosed and reported suspected violations of law, improper conduct, and dangers to public safety. 37. Plaintiff reported suspected child exploitation involving a minor student to the Kentucky State Police. 38. Plaintiff later raised concerns regarding the Board’s handling of a student sexual assault investigation and potential failures concerning preservation of evidence. 39. Plaintiff’s disclosures involved matters of public concern, including student safety, criminal conduct, and compliance with legal obligations. 40. After making these disclosures, Plaintiff experienced adverse employment actions, including criticism, relocation of his office, exclusion from an investigation related to his duties, attempts to end his employment, and termination.
41. Defendants’ actions violated the Kentucky Whistleblower Act. COUNT II: Wrongful Termination in Violation of Kentucky Public Policy 42. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as stated verbatim herein. 43. Kentucky recognizes clearly established public policies favoring the protection of children, reporting suspected child abuse, cooperation with law enforcement, and reporting unlawful conduct. 44. Plaintiff acted in furtherance of these public policies by reporting suspected criminal conduct involving a minor child, raising concerns regarding student safety, and cooperating with law enforcement authorities. 45. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment because of actions taken in furtherance of these important public policies. 46. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff violated Kentucky public policy. COUNT III: Retaliation for Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse 47. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as stated verbatim herein. 48. Plaintiff was required by Kentucky law and his employment responsibilities to report suspected child abuse or exploitation. 49. Plaintiff fulfilled those obligations by reporting the matter to law enforcement. 50. Plaintiff’s supervisor criticized Plaintiff for making the report. 51. Plaintiff’s employment relationship deteriorated following his report. 52. Defendants later terminated Plaintiff’s employment in retaliation for fulfilling mandatory reporting obligations.
COUNT IV: Retaliation for Cooperation With Law Enforcement and Grand Jury Proceedings 53. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as stated verbatim herein. 54. Plaintiff cooperated with a criminal investigation involving allegations of sexual assault against a minor student. 55. Plaintiff received a grand jury subpoena on or about May 7, 2026. 56. Defendants attempted to end Plaintiff’s employment shortly after learning of Plaintiff’s anticipated grand jury testimony. 57. Plaintiff’s grand jury testimony was scheduled for May 13, 2026. 58. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment on May 14, 2026. 59. The timing and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination create a strong inference that Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff because of his cooperation with law enforcement and anticipated testimony. COUNT V: Disability Discrimination and/or Retaliation Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS Chapter 344 60. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as stated verbatim herein. 61. Defendant had prior knowledge of Plaintiff’s hypertension. 62. Plaintiff sought medical treatment on May 13, 2026, and was removed from work for at least two weeks. 63. Plaintiff provided medical documentation regarding his condition and need for leave. 64. Defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment one day later. 65. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him and/or retaliated against him, either in whole or in part, because of his medical condition and/or medical leave.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendants, awarding all damages and equitable relief available to him under applicable law, together with costs, attorney fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL TRIABLE ISSUES Plaintiff, by counsel: /s/ Nathan D. Brown_________ Nathan D. Brown (KYSB# 96094) Joshua S. Ferrell (KYSB# 95277) Ferrell & Brown, PLLC PO Box 401 Williamson, West Virginia 25661 304.235.5674 – p 304.235.5675 – fNathan@ferrellandbrown.com Counsel for Plaintiff
