Judge mulls fate of lawsuit filed by former school district employee
By TIM GULLA Ledger Staff Writer tim@gaffneyledger.com

The Cherokee County School District and a former maintenance worker will have to wait to hear whether the worker's lawsuit against the district is completely invalid or worthy of having a Cherokee County jury take a look at it and hear evidence.

The district wants a lawsuit filed by Fred Knowles tossed before the case gets to trial, arguing that Knowles doesn't have any case at all in the wake of his 2006 firing.

Circuit Court Judge Mark Hayes heard roughly two and a half hours of legal arguments on Monday, but did not issue any rulings. The judge indicated he would let both sides know if he wanted to hear additional arguments.

If the judge allows Knowles' lawsuit to continue, as sought by Knowles' lawyer, it could come up for trial in April.

Knowles, who is the husband of school trustee Amanda Knowles, was initially suspended and subsequently fired in October 2006 following a verbal altercation with his supervisor in the district's maintenance department.

The verbal altercation followed an August 2006 incident in which Knowles audiotaped a meeting of the maintenance staff, during which the staff discussed negative publicity about the department that had appeared in the newspaper.

Knowles later sued the district for wrongful termination, contending violation of public policy, denial of due process and breach of contract.

The district's attorney, Andrea White, argued Monday the district had no contract with Knowles, who was a nonclassified employee of the district and as such was considered at-will.

White further argued there was no evidence Knowles was fired for exercising free speech or political rights, as there was no evidence he had provided information on matters of public concern to reporters who were writing stories about the district, or was exercising his own political rights as all he did was support his wife's bid for a school board seat.

And while the district had no obligation to do so, White argued the district afforded Knowles many due process considerations in notifying him of decisions both verbally and in writing, and in giving Knowles a hearing during which he could question witnesses and present his own case.

"He clearly was given sufficient due process," she told the court.

Knowles' lawyer, Andrew Arnold, argued there was evidence Knowles firing could be linked to politics and that some officials believed Knowles was the source of information for negative newspaper articles.

"There was a hunt for who was going to the newspaper," he argued.

Moreover, Arnold argued the district did have a contract with employees such as Knowles. In 1997, a district official decided to put out a blanket memo to employees such as Knowles, informing them their employment would simply be continued year to year. Prior to that, employees were given annual renewal letters.

Due to this alleged change in status, Arnold argued Knowles' employee rights were violated when the termination hearing was decided by Superintendent Dr. Bill James. "We argue (Knowles) was entitled to an impartial decisionmaker," Arnold told the court. DISTRICT CONTENDS ...

... There was no evidence Knowles was fired for exercising free speech or political rights, as there was no evidence he had provided information on matters of public concern to reporters who were writing stories about the district, or was exercising his own political rights as all he did was support his wife's bid for a school board seat. KNOWLES CONTENDS ...

... There was evidence Knowles' firing could be linked to politics and that some officials believed Knowles was the source of information for negative newspaper articles, and that the district did have a contract with employees such as Knowles.