EDITOR’S NOTE: The following is the complete text of the lawsuit against the school district by Andy Jones.

THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF

SOUTH CAROLINA SPARTANBURG DIVISION

William Andrew Jones,

COMPLAINT

Jury Trial Demanded

Plaintiff,

vs.

Cherokee County

School District,

and Kim J. Bagwell,

Jenny Stroupe, Robin Duncan-Harper, Carlotta Redish, Billy Blackwell,

Amanda Knowles and Lindley Auton, in their official and individual

capacities,

Defendants.

The plaintiff, complaining of the defendants herein, would respectfully allege as follows:

1. The plaintiff is a citizen and resident of Spartanburg County, South Carolina residing at 110 Karen Court, Boiling Springs, South Carolina 29316 and is a 61-year-old white male.

2. The defendant Cherokee County School District (“District”) is a political subdivision in the State of South Carolina having offices and educational institutions and facilities in Cherokee County, South Carolina and its principal offices are located in Gaffney, South Carolina.

3. The defendant Kim J. Bagwell (“Bagwell”) is, upon information and belief, a citizen and resident of Cherokee County, South Carolina and at all times mentioned herein was serving as interim superintendent of the District and was the plaintiff’s supervisor; the defendant Jenny Stroupe (“Stroupe”) is a citizen and resident of Cherokee County, South Carolina and were employees of the District and at all times mentioned herein was employed by the District; the defendant Carlotta Redish (“Redish”) is a citizen and resident of Cherokee County, South Carolina and at all times mentioned herein was employed by the District; the defendant Billy Blackwell (“Blackwell”) is a citizen and resident of Cherokee County, South Carolina and at all times mentioned herein was the Chairman of the School Board of the District; the defendant Amanda Knowles (“Knowles”) and the defendant Lindley Auton (“Auton”) as well as the defendant Robin Duncan- Harper are citizens and residents of Cherokee County, South Carolina and at all times mentioned herein were members of the School Board of the District.

4. This action arises under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983 and 1985, as well as the common law of the State of South Carolina.

5. Jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(4) which gives the District Court original jurisdiction over any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person to recover damages under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.

6. Venue lies within the Spartanburg Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1381(b) because the District’s principal offices are located in this judicial district and most of the events giving rise to this action occurred in the Spartanburg Division.

7. Prior to March of 2010, the plaintiff served as assistant superintendent of the District. The plaintiff has been an active and productive leader of the District and has performed excellent service within the same for many years in varithrough ous capacities and has received praise and recognition on many occasions,

8. For the last several years, the plaintiff has served closely with Dr. Bill James, a former superintendent of the District, who was forced to retire in March of 2010 by the defendants Blackwell, Knowles, Auton and others. Such attempts were ongoing and unsuccessful until elections in 2009 changed the balance of power on the school board.

9. Thereafter, the defendants Blackwell, Knowles and Auton arranged to have the defendant Bagwell named interim superintendent, a position for which she is lesser experienced than several others. There began a campaign and agenda to remove the plaintiff as well as others who had been a part of the District’s leadership under James by making false and unsubstantiated charges, threats and harassment all aimed at forcing the plaintiff and others to leave the District.

10. The plan and agenda came together in March of 2010 when the defendant Stroupe, a teacher in the District’s special education department, met with the defendant Bagwell and asserted false and unsupported charges that she had been “sexually harassed” by the plaintiff; the former superintendent, Dr. James, and a co-worker, Tracy Schultz, who taught machine shop in the District and who was a friend and associate of both James and the plaintiff.

11. When it became obvious that the charges lacked merit, the defendant Bagwell brought the plaintiff back from administrative leave with 100% from the school board but reassigned him to a teaching contract causing a great loss of pay and placing him in a position where she knew his health would be adversely affected. She then replaced him by preselecting the defendant Redish, a black female, formerly Personnel Director for the District whom plaintiff had supervised and obviously had less experience and was lesser qualified than the plaintiff who had performed his duties at a high level over the last several years.

12. The above charges, actions and assignments were made in coordination with the defendant Blackwell, Knowles, Auton, Duncan-Harper, Redish and Stroupe with a plan and design to deprive the plaintiff of his rights, to injure him and to cause him special damages. The defendants used their positions of authority within the District to accomplish their personal and evil purposes.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS

(Violation of Civil

Rights - 42 U.S.C.

Sections 1983 and 1985)

13. The plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 12 aforesaid.

14- The actions taken by the defendants in their official capacities violated the plaintiff’s rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and protected by 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. Further, the defendants conspired in their official capacities to bring about the plaintiff’s removal from the District which further violate 42 U.S.C. Section 1985.

15. The defendants’ actions as set forth herein were done maliciously to punish and as retaliation for his association and friendship with former Superintendent James and to remove him from his position within the District.

16. Additionally, the plaintiff’s civil rights under Section 1983 were violated by the defendant Bagwell and the defendant Redish in supporting Redish, the only black in the upper levels of management of the District into the plaintiff’s position, using Redish’s race to support her promotion even though she was far less qualified than the plaintiff for the position.

17. The violation of the plaintiff’s civil rights by the District is a part of a custom and practice as shown by the ruthless agenda to remove administrators who were friendly and supporters of the former superintendent who were loyal and effective employees of the District and who were threatened, punished and falsely charged for improper purposes which clearly violated their civil rights.

18. As a direct and proximate result of the violation of the plaintiff’s rights under the cited code section and the First Amendment, the plaintiff has lost his position with the District, may be forced to retire, has sustained physical injuries, loss of health, embarrassment, humiliation and emotional distress, as well as reputational loss. He is further entitled to an award of punitive damages against the individual defendants for their intentional and malicious actions.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS AND AS A PENDENT STATE CLAIM (Defamation)

19. The plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 18 aforesaid.

20. The defendant Bagwell, with full knowledge of the other defendants herein, placed the plaintiff on suspension when the defendant Stroupe falsely charged him and two other individuals with sexual harassment. Bagwell and the other defendants herein knew the charges were contrived and that the defendant Stroupe was unreliable with a record of false and deceitful conduct.

21. The defendants made, published and circulated reports of the plaintiff’s suspension and the details of the same for the purpose of damaging the plaintiff and to remove him from the District for wicked and malevolent reasons.

22. Such reports were made with reckless disregard for the truth and with conscious knowledge of their falsity and the plaintiff was defamed by action as well as words by his supervisor and subsequent loss of his assistant superintendent’s position by the defendant Bagwell with the assistance and cooperation of the other defendants who aided, abetted, published and republished the same throughout the community.

23. Such words and actions constitute defamation per se charging the plaintiff with potentially criminal conduct and charging him with unfitness to perform his professional responsibilities.

24. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants’ defamaition, the plaintiff has sustained a loss of earnings, reputational loss and embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish as well as physical and health damages. The plaintiff is also entitled to an award of punitive damages from the individual defendants herein.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendant District in the sum of $1,000,000 actual damages and against the individual defendants in their official and individual capacities in the sum of $1,000,000 actual damages and $3,000,000 punitive damages, and for the costs of this action.

CROMER & MABRY

BY: s/J. Lewis Cromer ____ J. Lewis Cromer (#362) Benjamin M. Mabry (#3250) Janet E. Rhodes (#10521) 1522 Lady Street Post Office Box 11675 Columbia, South Carolina 29211 Phone 803-799-9530 Fax 803-799-9533 Attorneys for Plaintiff June 4, 2010