Allegations of defamation, due process violations, and retaliation have been raised in a federal lawsuit involving a tenured professor and former vice dean at a public university. The suit centers on the handling of student complaints about disability accommodations and subsequent actions by university administrators that the plaintiff claims damaged his reputation and career prospects.
The complaint was filed by Scott McCoy, Ph.D., in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on April 20, 2026. The defendants named are the College of William & Mary, along with Katherine A. Rowe, Ph.D., Peggy Agouris, Ph.D., Kara Fifield, Jenelle M. Job, Ph.D., and Wilmarie Rodriguez, Ed.D.
According to the filing, the dispute began when a student identified as “Student A” alleged that he was denied approved accommodations during a quiz administered by Professor William Skimmyhorn in February 2025. The student claimed he was not allowed to use a laptop as permitted under his accommodation plan. The complaint states that this issue arose only after Student A failed the quiz and had not previously discussed such needs with Professor Skimmyhorn.
The document reports that Kara Fifield, then Director of Student Accessibility Services (SAS), made several statements to Student A about Professor Skimmyhorn’s history with accommodations. These included remarks such as “the SAS office ‘had issues with this professor [Professor Skimmyhorn] in the past’” and “this has happened multiple times and multiple semesters.” As a result of these interactions, Student A pursued an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) claim against Professor Skimmyhorn.
Vice Dean McCoy became involved when he provided guidance on what constituted “written output” for accommodation purposes—a definition developed through collaboration between himself and SAS staff. Despite this effort to clarify procedures for faculty members regarding accommodations requiring written responses (such as essays), confusion persisted about how these policies should be applied.
The complaint alleges that both Fifield and Rodriguez made false statements about Vice Dean McCoy’s conduct during investigations into Student A’s allegations. For example, it is claimed that Fifield told investigators Vice Dean McCoy sent out guidance without SAS approval—an assertion McCoy disputes—and Rodriguez stated that McCoy gave instructions restricting Student A’s movements during exams. According to McCoy’s filing, video evidence contradicted these accounts.
After internal reviews were conducted by Jenelle M. Job as Director of Title IX and Civil Rights Compliance—and despite what McCoy describes as clear evidence refuting Student A’s claims—the investigation concluded without findings against either Professor Skimmyhorn or Vice Dean McCoy because Student A withdrew his complaints following settlement discussions.
McCoy asserts that he suffered reputational harm from being named in these investigations; he now must disclose having been accused in civil rights matters on future employment applications. He also alleges emotional distress resulting from these events.
In addition to defamation claims against Fifield and Rodriguez for their statements during investigations (which he characterizes as defamatory per se), McCoy accuses Rowe (President), Agouris (Provost), Job (Director), and the College itself of violating his procedural due process rights under the U.S. Constitution by closing investigations without allowing him to present his defense or clear his name fully.
The suit further alleges First Amendment retaliation: “Vice Dean McCoy engaged in protected activities…when he exercised his rights under the First Amendment…about (1) the integrity of the SAS office; and (2) reporting Student A for a potential Honor Code violation.” It is claimed that required ADA training imposed specifically on him after closure of investigations amounted to punitive action based on protected speech.
Under Title II of the ADA, McCoy contends he was retaliated against for participating in disability-related investigations concerning both himself and another faculty member.
The relief sought includes compensatory damages up to $3 million each from Fifield and Rodriguez for emotional distress; presumed damages up to $2 million each; punitive damages up to $350,000 from all individual defendants; compensatory damages up to $5 million from institutional defendants; an injunction preventing mandatory training related to settlements; attorney’s fees; interest; costs; and any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorney Richard F. Hawkins II represents Scott McCoy in this matter under case number 4:26cv73.
Source: 426cv00073_McCoy_PHD_v_College_of_William_and_Mary_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
