STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF UNION IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS res steers} i'llt?il?ll?i'i?s?liit 3 t3 0 It CIVIL ACTION COVERSHEET Zill?-CP - gig? ZJ/o?lg Leigh Anne Arthur VS. Union Ceuntv Schools and David L. Individuallv and as Representative of Union Countv Schools, Defendant(s) Submitted By: John M. Read. IV SC Bar 012569 Address: Telephone 5864! 501-5110 THE READ LAW FIRM. LLC Fax 364 603-3840 101 Park Ave Other: Greenville, SC 29601 E?maii: ?endidpead-leaaleom 'I'he enversheet and Information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the ?ling and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law. Th'? form is required for the use of the Clerk of ('Iourt for the purpose of doeke?ng. It must be ?lled out completely. sigied, and dated. A. cop}r of this coversheet must he served on the defendant{s) along with the Summons and Complaint. DOCKETING INFORMATION (Check all out apple A dion is Judgment/Settlement do not complete JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint. NON-JURY TRIAL demanded in complaint, This case is subject to MEDIATION pursuant to the Court Annest Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. IE This case is subject to ARBITRATION pursuant to the Court Anllesed Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules. El This case is exempt from ADR. {Proof of ADRJExemption Attached) NATURE OF ACTION (Check One Box Below) Contracts Torts - Professional Malpractice Torts Personal Injury Real Property Consml?ions lee} Dental Malpractice {200'} Conversion {still elaim Delivery {400) El Debt Collection {i legal Malpractice (2H1) Motor Vehicle Accident {320} Condemnation (410] El General (130) Medical Malpractice (22(1} Premises Liahilitjvifflfim Foreclosure [420) El Breach of Contract {14m Previous Notice of Intent Case El Products liability}.r Mechanic's Lien (430) El l-?taudiund Faith {l?tl} 2? -NI- El Personal Injury {3501 Partition (440; El Failure to nclivcrl El lsuticcl File still {231:} El Wrongful Death (360} [1 Possession (450} Win-rams (160) [mm (299] El Assaultl'llatth: (370) Building Code vinlntinn {can} Employment Diserim (Jill) Shorten-"Libel {330} Ulher (499} Employment I 30} Other {399} Other (199} Ilunate Petitions LawfRelief .ludgmentsl'Setlleme-nts Appeals El res {500) El Reinstate Drv. License {800} Death settlement title} Arbitration (900) El Mandamus [520] El Judicial Review (810} Foreign Judgment {710] Magistrate-Civil (910) El unscat- Corpus {530) El Magistrate?s Judgment tree) Magistrate-Criminal (920;. Other (595)) Permanent Injunction (330) Minnr (T30) Municipal {930) Forfeiture-Petition (340) Transcript Judgment [7410) Probate Court [940} El otdcr {350) El Lit El (950} El odth {399} El Transfer ct Structured cump {see} Settlement Payment Rights [3 zoning mmId {970} Applicatim (1'60) Public Service Comm. [990) Speciaiftfomples IO?ther Confession ofludgment Employment SecuritvComm {991) Environmental Pharmaceuticals {630) Petition for Workers Automobile Art). to Unfair Trade Practices (64o) Compensation Settlement El othcr {999i Approval Medical ((120) El out?ni'siatc Dispositions (65o) Other (799} 01mg [699! Motion to Quash Subpoena in 31] (motif?County Action {ft-SD) El Sexual Predator {510) Pro?Suit Discovery Submitting Pa rty Signature: Date: 8-16 w? 42/ Note: Frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions pursuanl lo Rule I l, and the South Carolina Frivolous SCCA l? 234 (122015) Page 1 of 2 Civil Proceedings Sanctions Act, SC. Code Ann. et. seq. Effective January I, 2016, Alternative DiSpute Resolution (ADR) is mandatory in all counties, pursuant to Supreme Court Order dated November 12, 2015. SUPREME COURT RULES REQUIRE THE SUBMISSION OF ALL CIVIL CASES TO AN ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS, UNLESS OTHERWISE EXEMPT. Pursuant to the ADR Rules, you are required to take the following action(s): 1. L1) Please Note: SCCA 234 (meals) The parties shall select a neutral and file a ?Proof of form the ?ling of this action. If the parties have not selected a neutral within 210 days, the Clerk of Court shall then appoint a primary and secondary mediator from the current roster on a rotating basis from among those mediators agreeing to accept cases in the county in which the action has been ?led. The initial ADR conference must be held within 30? days after the filing of the action. Pro-suit medical malpractice mediations required by SC. Code ?15-?9-125 shall be held not later than 120 days after all defendants are served with the ?Notice of Intent to File Suit" or as the court directs. Cases are exempt from ADR only upon the following grounds: a. Special proceeding, or actions seeking extraordinary relief such as mandamus, habeas corpus, or prohibition; b. Requests for temporary relief; 0. Appeals d. Post Conviction relief matters: e. Contempt of Court proceedings; f. Forfeiture proceedings brought by governmental entities; g. Mortgage foreclosures; and h. Cases that have been previously subjected to an ADR conference, unless otherwise required by Rule 3 or by statute. In cases not subject to ADR, the Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes, upon the motion of the court or of any party, may order a case to mediation. Motion of a party to be exempt from payment of neutral fees due to indigency should be filed with the Court within ten (l0) days after the ADR conference has been concluded. You must comply with the Supreme Court Rules regarding ADR. Failure to do so may affect your case or may result in sanctions. Page 2 of2 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF UNION CA. No. 2016-CP-44- gM/clg Leigh Anne Arthur, Plaintiff, SUMMONS vs. (Jury Trial Requested) Union County Schools and David L. Eubanks, lndividually and as Representative of Union 2:33 3 County Schools. ?n c: CD so Defendants. .1, (a :3 in C3 its; c: 0 THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY directed to answer the Complaint in the above entitled action, a copy of which was filed in the Of?ce ofthe Clerk of Court on March 18, 2016, and to serve a copy of your Answer to the same on the subscriber at his of?ce, 101 Park Ave, Greenville, South Carolina, 29601, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service; and ifyou fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, the Plaintiff will apply to the court for default judgment and for the relief demanded in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted ack" M. Read, IV The Read Law Firm, LLC 101 Park Ave Greenville, SC 29601 (864)501-5110 Attorney for Plaintiff Greenville, South Carolina March 18, 2016 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SIXTEEN TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF UNION CA. No. 2016-CP-44-q4?4ci/ Leigh Anne Arthur, Plaintiff, COMPLAINT vs. (Jury Trial Requested}, a; F: 3 Union County Schools and David L. Eubanks, .n Individually and as Representative of Union a: County Schools. r1 if.? in Defendants. 5.1.) t?v :0 COMES NOW THE PLAINTIFF, by and through her undersigned attorneys, who would respectfully show unto this Court the following: JURISDICTIONA STATEMENT 1. Plaintiff Leigh Anne Arthur is a citizen and resident of the COunty of Union, South Carolina. 2. Defendant Union County Schools is a body politic and local governmental unit organized pursuant to SC. Ann. Section 59-1740, et seq. (1976) to perform certain functions relating to the provision of education for the citizens of Union County, South Carolina and is subject to the jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, SC. Code of Laws 15-78-10, et seq, and as further set forth below. 3. Upon information and belief, Defendant David L. Eubanks is a citizen and resident of the County of Spartanburg, SC. This Court further has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this Complaint in accordance with Article 5, Section 11 of the South Carolina Constitution, Section 14-1-80 ofthe Code of Laws of South Carolina {1976) and the common law of South Carolina. Venue is proper in this case in accordance with SC. Code of Laws #3 15-78-1000)) and 15-7-30 because a substantial part of the acts alleged herein occurred in Union County, South Carolina. At all times relevant herein, Defendants acted by and through their duly authorized and appointed agents andi?or employees, who acted within the scope and authority of their employment andz?or agency. Plaintiff Leigh Anne Arthur (hereinafter ?Mrs. Arthur? or uPlaintiff") is a teacher with both bachelor?s and master?s degrees in Education who has worked for the Defendant Union County Schools since 2003. After teaching grade for two years, Mrs. Arthur taught and am grade math and science until 2012. During this time she served as lead teacher to create the curriculum for 6?1 grade science within the district. She also coached the grade Academic Challenge team and started the Education Machines curriculum. For her efforts, she received the Elementary and Middle School Endorsement from the State Department ofEducation. From 2012 to 2014 Mrs. Arthur taught sixth grade science. During this period her students achieved the highest PASS Science scores in the district. She coached the First League Lego Robotic Competition team. She served as head coach for the 6m 12. grade Academic Challenge team which won ?rst place in the district. She also received her Gifted and Talented Endorsement from the South Carolina Department of Education. In 2014 Mrs. Arthur was approached by a representative of Defendant Union County Schools to build and teach the previously undeveloped mechatronics course of study under the Career and Technology Education Center administered by Defendant Union County Schools. Mechatronics is a blend of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer control and information technology. The educational goal of the course is to prepare students to inspect, diagnose, repair, service, and install electro?mechanical equipment within such environments as automated manufacturing and similar machine systems. Mrs. Arthur taught her students skills in electronics, electrical control systems, hydraulics and pneumatics, mechanical power electrical systems, motors, programmable logic controllers and robotics. She also taught them to develop the critical thinking skills necessary to troubleshoot complex problems within the described systems. To meet the demands of the course, Mrs. Arthur spent thousands of dollars of her own money on materials. She secured donations of equipment worth thousands of dollars from businesses through face-to-face meetings scheduled on her personal time. She developed post?graduation placement options for her students. Over the spring/summer of 2015 she studied independently, paid the requisite fees and passed the test to receive her industrial electrician certification so that she could continue to teach the mechatronics class during the 2015?2016 school year and forward. L94 14. 15. 17. 18. 20. In April of 2015, Mrs. Arthur entered into a continuing employment contract with Defendant Union County Schools through its agent, The Board of Trustees, to teach as described above, during the 2015-2016 academic year. At no time has Mrs. Arthur breached any provision of said contract. On or about February 19, 2016, Mrs. Arthur left her classroom to attend to her duty to monitor the hall outside of the shop in which her classroom was situated during the five minute interval between classes. During this time, she left her cell phone in the classroom on her desk. During this ?ve minute period, one or more of her students, without her knowledge or permission, accessed her phone, scrolled to her photo application, opened her photo application, scrolled through her photographs and found four provocative pictures of her. Mrs. Arthur had taken these pictures earlier in the week for her husband for Valentine?s Day. The student or students then, using a separate phone, took pictures of the photographs displayed on the screen of Mrs. Arthur? 5 phone. The student or students then placed Mrs. Arthur?s phone on her desk before she returned to the classroom. Upon information and belief, that same day the student or students published the pictures via social media. The next day Mrs. Arthur was informed by a concerned student that these pictures had been published. Mrs. Arthur discussed with Defendant Union County Schools the steps to address the actions of the responsible student or students and then, accordingly, addressed the matter directly with the parents of the students. 22. 24. 25. 26. At no time has any representative of Defendants identi?ed any law, regulation, guideline, policy, procedure or administrative rule that Mrs. Arthur has violated. Nevertheless, several days later, Defendants directed that she be removed from class while she was teaching. They then instructed her to tender her resignation within one day and had her escorted from the premises by a uniformed police officer. After composing herself, Mrs. Arthur sought additional answers directly from the district of?ce. There, Defendants explained that if she failed to tender her resignation as directed, Mrs. Arthur would go before the school board. Defendants stated to her that if the board did not find her culpable ofa violation, then she would still lose her job with the district. Defendants stated further that if the board found her culpable of a violation, then her teaching certificate would be terminated immediately. This would mean that she would no longer be eligible to teach at all in the State of South Carolina. The process described by Defendants in the above paragraph does not comport with the procedures promulgated by either the defendants themselves or the statutory authority of the State of South Carolina governing the employment and dismissal of teachers. Because of the pressure of these and other inaccurate representations, Mrs. Arthur was forced to resign. Subsequently, Defendants submitted a series of verbal and written false and defamatory statements to individuals and to the media for publication about Mrs. Arthur, conveying and insinuating that: 27she failed to fulfill her responsibility for the proper supervision and care of her students; b. she was not in her assigned position at the time of the incident; c. she allowed students to use her personal cell phone on a regular and routine basis; d. her phone was routinely left on her desk fer student use and was never locked; e. she has used the media to transmit false information; her failure to properly supervise students entrusted to her care will negatively impact the lives of students and their parents; g. she made false statements; h. she is unfit to continue as a classroom teacher; and, i. her actions may have contributed to the delinquency of a minor. Plaintiff hereby specifically pleads the following causes of action alternatively where consistent construction requires. FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract) Plaintiff realleges all above paragraphs; to the extent not inconsistent herewith, as if each is set forth in toto hereunder. Plaintiff contracted with the Defendant Union County Schools to be employed as a school teacher for the 190 day term identified as the 2015-2016 school year. The terms and conditions of the contract were subject to the South Carolina Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act, SC Code Section 59-25-410 et. seq. The terms and conditions of the contract were subject to Defendant Union County Schools? employee handbook and policies and procedures. Plaintiff ?llfilled all of her duties and responsibilities under the contract. 33. 34. 36. 37. 33. Defendant Union County schools materially and substantially breached Plaintiff?s employment contract by: a. unilaterally changing, without consideration. the terms and conditions of Plaintiff? 5 employment; b. forcing her to tender her resignation under the above-described circumstances; and, c. failing to follow its own procedures and those laws enacted by the State of South Carolina governing teacher employment and dismissal. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth fully hereunder, thereby entitling Plaintiff to actual, special, consequential and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court and the citizens of Union County empaneled and empowered to hear such cause. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing) Plaintiff realleges all above paragraphs, to the extent not inconsistent herewith, as if each is set forth in mm hereunder. There is an implied covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in all contracts entered into or to be performed in the State of South Carolina. The actions of Defendant Union County Schools, as alleged herein were unreasonable, willful, reckless, and unjusti?ed, and amount to a breach of the implied-in-law duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing inherent in all contracts. As a proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered actual and consequential damages. 39direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged as set forth fully hereunder, thereby entitling Plaintiff to actual, special, consequential and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court and the citizens of Union County empaneled and empowered to hear such cause. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation: Slander, Libel, Slander Per Se and Libel Per Se) Plaintiff realleges all above paragraphs, to the extent not inconsistent herewith, as if each is set forth in mm hereunder. Upon information and belief, Defendants made the above-referenced statements verbally and in writing to third parties. Defendants? statements are defamatory in that they tend to impeach the honesty, integrity, virtue or reputation of Plaintiff and expose her to public hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy and cause her to be shunned or avoided and to injure her in her occupation. Defendants? words further tended to reduce her character or reputation in the estimation of friends, acquaintances or the public and to disgrace her. By making these statements, Defendants conveyed, insinuated and imputed that Plaintiff was un?t for her profession, had broken the law and was unchaste. Defendants published these false and defamatory statements with implied, actual, andfor constitutional malice as de?ned by the law of South Carolina. Because of the publication of the false, malicious, and defamatory statements, Plaintiff has suffered injury to her good name and reputation and has endured and will continue to endure embarrassment and humiliation. The publication of these 46. statements have served and still serve to injure her in her occupation and to compromise her future work. As a direct and proximate result, Plainti? has been damaged as set forth ?Jlly hereunder, thereby entitling her to general damages andfor special damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court and the citizens of Union County empaneled and empowered to hear such cause. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays forjudgment against Defendants for actual and Special damages including, but expressly not limited to loss of income, loss of interest, loss of time from work, travel expenses, other incidental expenses, loss of opportunity, injury to occupation and general damages including but not limited to injury to reputation, mental suffering and emotional distress plus attorney?s fees and punitive damages, all in an amount to be determined by the Court and the citizens of Union County empaneled and empowered to hear such cause. Plaintiff further requests the cost of this action and any other relief the Court deems fair and just under the circumstances. Greenville, South Carolina March 18, 2016 I ?Jack? M. Read Iv, Esq. THE READ LAW FIRM, LLC 101 W. Park Ave. Greenville, SC 29601 (864) 501?51 10 (864) 603-3 340 Jes ica Salvini, Esq. A VINT BENNETT, LLC 1 . Park Ave. Gre ville, SC 29601 Telephone: (864) 232-5800 Facsimile: (864) 232-5888 10 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF UNION CA. No. 2016-CP-44- 50/07/ Leigh Anne Arthur, Plaintiff, VERIFICATION vs, :2 Union COunty Schools and David L. EubanksIndividually and as Representative of Union Coonty Schools. Eff. in {m El; Defendant. is.) (to PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME, Leigh Anne Arthur1 who being duly sworn, states that she is the plaintiff herein and, as such, by her signature below, certifies that she has read the foregoing Complaint and that it is true to the best of her knowledge. SWORN to before me this day of March, 2016 1" I :u I ..-J LANTZ K. STOLTEFUS Nonng 9ubiie, South Carolina - My Commission Expires March 04. 2024 assess ass Gait!