The Virginia Supreme Court has rejected immunity claims by Suffolk City School Board officials in a defamation lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed against two school board members who argued they were protected from legal action.
In *Brooks-Buck v. Wahlstrom*, decided Oct. 16, 2025, the court unanimously affirmed a Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk ruling that denied demurrers filed by school board member Judith Brooks-Buck and official Tyron Riddick. The defendants had argued that common law and statutory immunity principles protected them from educator Deborah Wahlstrom's defamation and defamation per se claims.
Justice Teresa M. Chafin wrote the opinion for the court, which remanded the case for further proceedings after rejecting the immunity defense.
The dispute stems from a complex series of events involving Wahlstrom, an educator and former school administrator who frequently attended public meetings of the Suffolk City School Board to comment on educational and administrative issues. In 2021, Wahlstrom was escorted from school property by police officers after she refused to leave a school board meeting.
Following that incident, Wahlstrom sued the school board and school officials, including Brooks-Buck, who was serving as chairperson of the school board at the time. Wahlstrom asserted violations of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act in that litigation. The Virginia Supreme Court noted that Wahlstrom prevailed in the VFOIA case, referencing *Suffolk City Sch. Bd. v. Wahlstrom*, 302 Va. 188, 224 (2023).
The current defamation case arose from events in 2023, when Brooks-Buck filed an internal disciplinary complaint against Dawn Marie Brittingham, a school board member who valued Wahlstrom's input. Brooks-Buck alleged that Brittingham violated certain norms and protocols of the school board.
Crucially, Brooks-Buck submitted a written "narrative" addressing Brittingham's alleged misconduct. According to the court's opinion, the narrative contained several statements about Wahlstrom, including an allegation that Wahlstrom committed perjury in the prior VFOIA litigation.
Riddick, who was then serving as chairperson of the school board, issued a "notice" addressing Brittingham's alleged disciplinary violations. The court noted that while the notice itself did not directly reference Wahlstrom, it was part of the series of events that led to the defamation claims.
When Wahlstrom filed her defamation lawsuit, Brooks-Buck and Riddick moved to dismiss the claims through demurrers, arguing they were immune from suit. Demurrers are legal motions that challenge whether a complaint states a valid legal claim, even if all allegations are assumed to be true.
The defendants relied on both common law and statutory immunity principles in their defense. Such immunity protections are designed to shield public officials from certain types of lawsuits when they are acting in their official capacities, allowing them to perform their duties without fear of personal liability for good-faith actions.
However, the Circuit Court of the City of Suffolk rejected these immunity arguments and overruled the demurrers, allowing Wahlstrom's case to proceed. Brooks-Buck and Riddick appealed that decision to the Virginia Supreme Court.
The high court's unanimous decision to affirm the lower court's ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing legal battle between Wahlstrom and Suffolk City School Board officials. The court's rejection of the immunity claims means that the school board officials cannot escape the defamation lawsuit on immunity grounds and must defend the case on its merits.
Defamation cases involving public officials often involve complex legal questions about the scope of official immunity and the boundaries of protected speech. The Virginia Supreme Court's decision suggests that the specific allegations and circumstances in this case fall outside the protection typically afforded to public officials.
The case highlights the tension between protecting public officials from frivolous lawsuits that could impede their ability to govern effectively, and ensuring that individuals have recourse when they believe they have been defamed by public statements or actions.
With the immunity defense rejected, the case will now return to the trial court for further proceedings on the underlying defamation claims. Wahlstrom will need to prove that the statements about her were false, that they damaged her reputation, and that Brooks-Buck and Riddick acted with the appropriate level of fault required for defamation claims.
The outcome of this case could have broader implications for how immunity protections apply to school board members and other local government officials in Virginia, particularly when their statements about private individuals become the subject of defamation claims.
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision demonstrates that immunity protections for public officials, while important, are not absolute and must be balanced against the rights of individuals to seek redress for allegedly defamatory statements.