PARTIES - WSPA 7News · 2019-06-28 · Quest Leadership Academy Background . 17. The SCPCSD...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION Quest Leadership Academy, Al Gray, Robert N. Jenkins, Sr., William A. Bridges, Brenda Humbert, Karen Hames, Yolanda C. Ifill, Gwendolyn H. Whitner, and Kristin White Plaintiffs, vs. South Carolina Public Charter School District, Elliot Smalley, Superintendent. Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. _____________

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, Quest Leadership Academy (“Quest” or the “School”), Al Gray, Robert N.

Jenkins, Sr., William A. Bridges, Brenda Humbert, Karen Hames, Yolanda C. Ifill, Gwendolyn H.

Whiner, and Kristin White (collectively “Plaintiffs”), complaining of the above-named

Defendants, would respectfully show unto this Court:

PARTIES

1. Quest is a nonprofit corporation and a public charter school authorized by the

Defendant and is organized under the laws of the State of South Carolina. Quest is located in

Greenville, South Carolina and provides educational services to an at-risk student population that

is 95.8% African-American, 2.1% Multiracial, and 2.1% White, with 92.4% of its students living

in poverty.

2. Al Gray is the Chair of the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Quest. Mr. Gray is a

former educator and corporate executive with DuPont Company, from which he retired in 2000.

3:19-cv-01351-CMC

3:19-cv-01351-CMC Date Filed 05/08/19 Entry Number 1 of 17

2

Mr. Gray is the owner of Strategic Tire Solutions, LLC. Mr. Gray resides in Greenville County,

South Carolina.

3. Robert N. Jenkins, Sr. is a Quest Board member. Mr. Jenkins is a retired South

Carolina Family Court judge, lawyer, qualified mediator, teacher, and mentor. Mr. Jenkins resides

in Greenville, South Carolina.

4. William A. Bridges is a Quest Board member. Mr. Bridges retired as managing

trustee and Chief Investment Officer for the Graham Foundation, and retired as Senior Vice

President, Wealth Management and Trust, from Bank of America. Mr. Bridges resides in

Greenville, South Carolina.

5. Brenda Humbert is a Quest Board member. Ms. Humbert and is a retired educator

and was previously employed as a curriculum specialist with the South Carolina Department of

Education and was a Principal in Greenville County School District. Ms. Humbert resides in

Greenville, South Carolina.

6. Karen Hames is a Quest Board member. Ms. Hames is a retired science teacher

with a “highly qualified” rating to teach science in South Carolina. Ms. Hames spent a portion of

her career teaching at-risk students in Charleston County. Ms. Hames has a B.A. in Chemistry

and experience in the environmental and manufacturing industry. Ms. Hames teaches currently

part-time. Ms. Hames resides in Greenville, South Carolina.

7. Yolanda C. Ifill is a Quest Board member. Ms. Ifill and is currently employed as a

Management Consultant for Wells Fargo. Ms. Ifill resides in Greenville, South Carolina.

8. Gwendolyn H. Whitner is the Quest Board member. Ms. Whitner is a retired

educator of the Greenville County School District.

9. Kristin White is the Principal of Quest, has an Education Specialist degree, and

over 15 years of prior experience with traditional and public charter classrooms and administrative

offices. Ms. White resides in Greenville, South Carolina.


3

10. Defendant South Carolina Public Charter School District (“SCPCSD”) is a charter

school sponsor as defined by the South Carolina Charter Schools Act of 1996, as amended, (the

“Act”). The SCPCSD’s offices are located in Columbia, South Carolina.

11. Defendant Elliot Smalley is the Superintendent of the SCPCSD. On information

and belief, Defendant Smalley is a resident of Charleston County, South Carolina.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq. which prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race,

color, or national origin.

13. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

14. Venue is proper within the Columbia Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)

because the parties, witnesses, and operative events pleaded herein occurred in this District.

15. Plaintiffs invoke supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 so the District

Court can resolve the state law claims.

16. Declaratory and injunctive relief is sought as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq.

FACTS

Quest Leadership Academy Background

17. The SCPCSD approved Quest’s charter application in 2013, with the school

opening in the 2014-2015 school year. The School’s mission is to provide a solid, core based

educational program and develop exceptional learners and leadership scholars who achieve their

highest potential.

18. Quest is located in the Belle Meade community in Greenville, South Carolina which

had an average per capita income lower than 97.6% of the neighborhoods in the United States and


4

is among the 15% lowest income communities in the country as set forth in Quest’s charter. Prior

to Quest opening, two traditional public elementary schools, Sirrine Elementary and East Gantt

Elementary, that were in the immediate geographical area of Quest closed which resulted in

students within the Belle Meade community either attending the school that is the closest

geographically or being bused up to ten (10) or more miles outside of their community.

19. Quest’s student population is 95.8% African-American, 2.1% Multiracial, and

2.1% White, with 92.4% of its students living in poverty.

20. Quest was founded to serve the at-risk, predominately African-American

community, and Quest has implemented a holistic approach to address the needs of the entire

family. Unique features of Quest include a smaller student to teacher ratio with learning

communities within the school focused on task driven leadership activities; an extended school

day; a flexible schedule including evening and weekend hours that will permit parents to

participate in meetings and conferences; a commitment to technology tools that connect the school

to home and prepares students to compete globally; a parental support component that provides

education on parenting skills and empowerment; a wellness component inclusive of the entire

family that teaches healthy lifestyle behaviors with a health education and promotion program that

focuses on preventative measures including screenings, physical activity and nutrition; and an

initiative to supplement the material needs of students.

21. In short, Quest provides this high-poverty, at-risk, predominately African-

American student population with trusted and qualified personnel resources, a well-rounded

curriculum, and a caring and responsive code of conduct to combat the “school to prison pipeline”

as set forth in Quest’s charter.

Evaluation Process

22. Under the Act, a sponsor is required to annually evaluate whether a charter school

(1) committed a material violation of the condition, standards, performance expectations, or


5

procedures provided for in the charter application or charter school contract, (2) failed to meet the

academic performance standards and expectations as defined in the charter application or charter

school contract, (3) failed to maintain its books and records according to generally accepted

accounting principles (“GAAP”) or failed to create an appropriate system of internal control, or

(4) violated any provision of law from which the charter school was not specifically exempted.

S.C. Code Ann. § 59-40-110. The annual evaluation results must be used in making a

determination for nonrenewal or revocation. S.C. Code Ann. § 59-40-110.

23. In July 2015, Defendant Smalley was hired by the SCPCSD Board of Trustees as

the Superintendent of the SCPCSD. Previously, Defendant Smalley served as Deputy of Strategic

Planning and Communications for the Charleston County School District and as Chief of Staff for

Tennessee’s Achievement School District.

24. Under Defendant Smalley’s leadership, the SCPCSD’s staff unilaterally developed

and implemented annual evaluation documents, including the Core Performance System (“CPS”)

and the School Performance Framework (“SPF”).

25. On February 27, 2017, the SCPCSD assigned Quest the status of Breach under the

SPF in connection with deficiencies in the areas of special education, finance, governance, and

academics. After receiving that information, the Quest Board took numerous corrective actions

before and during the 2017-2018 school year to respond to the concerns noted by the SCPCSD,

including but not limited to recruiting new Quest Board members with diverse skills and

experiences, hiring a new school leader, retaining a well-known consultant to advise the Board

and the School’s new school leader, hiring qualified new school employees to provide special

education services, and retaining a well-respected charter school CPA firm to serve as a fiscal

management services provider. A detailed description of the corrective actions taken by Quest

was provided to the SCPCSD in a letter from Quest dated March 27, 2019. The changes

implemented by Quest have tremendously improved the School’s governance, operations, and


6

educational services.

26. In December 2018, the SCPCSD sent Quest a preliminary copy of the School’s SPF

profile report which is a summary of the SCPCSD’s annual evaluation of the School’s performance

during the 2017-2018 school year. The SPF stated that Quest meet all standards for governance

and compliance, and 5 out of 6 standards for finance. The SPF further stated that collectively

students who enrolled at the school and were eligible to participate in testing achieved level three

academic growth, as measured by the Education Value-Added Achievement System (“EVAAS”),

which is utilized by the South Carolina Department of Education. EVAAS is a growth measure

that assesses how students grow academically, regardless of their test scores or academic

achievement level at the time of enrollment at Quest. Student academic growth data for the 2017-

2018 school year available on the South Carolina State Department of Education’s website shows

that Quest outperformed the nearby traditional public school with a similar student population.

Upon information and belief, Quest’s Level 3 EVAAS score is also equal to or greater than the

majority of the schools that the South Carolina Public Charter School District sponsors, most of

which do not serve a significantly at-risk, predominantly African-American student population.

Upon information and belief, the SCPCSD’s most-recent SPF annual evaluation of Quest, as set

forth above, was finalized in January 2019.

27. After receiving the preliminary SPF, Ms. White repeatedly emailed the SCPCSD

to receive clarity on some of the terminology in the SPF, but the SCPCSD did not provide any

substantive response.

28. The next correspondence Quest received regarding its performance from the

SCPCSD was on March 13, 2019, when the School received a Notice of Intent for Revocation

Review in which the SCPCSD requested information from Quest so the staff could perform an

“in-depth and longitudinal review to ensure overall viability and sustainability of the school.”

29. On March 27, 2019, Quest supplied the SCPCSD with the information requested


7

and invited the SCPCSD to have a meeting at Quest for an in-depth review of the School’s viability

and sustainability. Defendant Smalley and his staff refused to visit Quest for the review, which

Defendant Smalley held at the SCPCSD’s office in Columbia. Three Quest Board members and

the school leader left the School during the school day and traveled to Columbia to accommodate

Defendant Smalley’s schedule.

30. At the beginning of the meeting on April 23, 2019 in Columbia, Defendant Smalley

told Quest Board Members Al Gray, Robert Jenkins, William Bridges, and Principal Kristin White

that he intended to recommend the revocation of Quest’s charter. The Quest Board members and

school leader were shocked given that no “in-depth” review had been conducted by Defendant

Smalley. Defendant Smalley repeatedly commented about the lack of high-achieving students at

Quest based on the school’s proficiency scores. Under state law, Quest is open to all students who

wish to apply whether they are high-achieving or low-achieving students. Additionally, it is

Quest’s mission to serve its at-risk community, in which most students are behind grade-level

when they enroll at Quest. At the meeting on April 23, Quest again invited Defendant Smalley to

visit Quest to engage in additional discussions about the School, its significant progress from 2017

to 2019 as recognized in the SCPCSD’s most-recent annual evaluation SPF, and the School’s plans

to continue utilizing a holistic approach to serving the predominantly African-American students

in the community.

31. On May 2, 2019, Defendant Smalley made his first visit to Quest during 2018-2019

school year, after he had already decided to make the recommendation that Quest’s charter be

revoked. It appears from Defendant Smalley’s School Revocation Recommendation Report

(“Revocation Report”) dated May 3, 2019, that Defendant Smalley used his May 2, 2019 as a bad

faith mission to speak to a very small sample of students and paraphrase comments that he could

use in his report recommending revocation, as opposed to an opportunity to understand the

community that Quest serves and the vast resources and benefits that Quest provides to its at-risk


8

student population.

SCPCSD’s School Revocation Recommendation Report

32. On Friday, May 3, 2019 at 6:03 PM, Defendant Smalley sent Quest a copy of his

report stating that he recommending to the SCPCSD Board during the May 9, 2019 Board meeting

that Quest’s charter be revoked at the end of the 2018-2019 school year. The alleged reasons in

Defendant Smalley’s report for the revocation of Quest’s charter include academic performance,

fiscal challenges, and operational concerns.

Academic Performance

33. The focus of the Revocation Report appears to be on Quest’s academic proficiency

scores, which measure whether students are high-achieving or low-achieving. In the Revocation

Report, the SCPCSD included the proficiency scores of schools within a five mile radius of Quest,

including but not limited to Augusta Circle Elementary School (7.3% African-American, 3.1%

other, 15% poverty) and Sara Collins Elementary School (27.4% African-American, 13.6% other,

44.7% poverty), which serve completely different student populations and missions than Quest.

34. The traditional elementary school in the Greenville County School District that is

geographically closest to Quest and has somewhat comparable demographics is Thomas E. Kerns

Elementary (“Kerns”). In Quest’s amended charter application approved by the SCPCSD, the

School revised its academic goals to “meet or exceed the assessment results of the district’s

elementary school in Quest’s attendance zone, Thomas E. Kerns Elementary.”

35. Student academic growth data for the 2017-2018 school year, which is the most

recent academic growth data available on the South Carolina State Department of Education’s

website, shows that Quest significantly outperformed Kerns on student academic progress and

growth, regardless of whether students were high-achieving or low-achieving students. Quest has

no legal authority or desire to restrict enrollment of low-achieving students in the predominantly

at-risk, African-American community it serves. Rather, Quest seeks to serve those students who


9

are most in need and help them grow academically, as well as serve other needs and promote

stability in their lives.

36. Upon information and belief, Quest’s Level 3 EVAAS academic growth score is

also equal to or greater than the majority of schools that the SCPCSD sponsors, most of which do

not serve predominantly at-risk, African-American student populations.

Financial Performance

37. In the Revocation Report, the SCPCSD attempts to cast doubt on Quest’s fiscal

competency by inserting that Quest had findings in audits from 2016 and 2017.

38. However, as of January 2019, the SCPCSD found in its annual evaluation of Quest

that Quest met all but one of the financial performance factors in the SCPCSD most recent annual

evaluation, as demonstrated on the scale below summarizing Quest’s overall financial

performance:

39. Specifically, the SCPCSD found that the School “ha[s] the ability to cover its

current liabilities with its current assets,” “ha[s] adequate cash on hand to pay expenses,” [is] able

to meet debt obligations or covenants,” and that “a reasonable proportion of the school’s assets

[are] financed through debt.” On information and belief, Quest’s financial performance over the

past two years far exceeds the SCPCSD’s financial performance under Defendant Smalley’s

leadership.

40. The factor that Quest did not meet in the SPF was “[i]s the school living within its

available resources?”

41. Notably, Quest has yet to receive Title I funding this year, a federal program which

gives funds to schools in need based on free and reduced lunch percentages.


10

42. Upon information and belief, the reason that Title I funding is delayed is that the

South Carolina Department of Education has significant concerns with the SCPCSD’s financial

practices under Defendant Smalley’s leadership.

43. Upon information and belief, the SCPCSD had four (4) audit findings for the fiscal

year ended June 30, 2017 and two (2) material weaknesses and one significant deficiency for the

fiscal year ended June 30, 2018.

44. Upon information and belief, the South Carolina Department of Education has

placed the SCPCSD in fiscal caution or watch and has or may consider taking over the SCPCSD

due to concerns with the District’s own financial performance under Defendant Smalley’s

leadership.

45. The fact that Quest, a school with 92.4% of its students living in poverty, has yet to

receive Title I funds for the 2018-2019 school year, with three (3) weeks left until the end of the

school year, is disgraceful and fault appears to lie squarely with the SCPCSD and its poor financial

practices under Defendant Smalley’s leadership.

Operational Performance

46. As referenced previously, the only time that Defendant Smalley has entered Quest’s

school facility during the 2018-2019 school year was on May 2, 2019, the day before he published

his Revocation Recommendation, and after he informed three members of the Quest Board and its

school leader on April 23, 2019 that he planned to recommend revocation of Quest’s charter.

47. As of January 2019, the SCPCSD found that Quest met all of the operational and

compliance performance factors in the SCPCSD’s most recent annual evaluation, as demonstrated

on the scale below summarizing Quest’s overall operational performance:


11

48. Specifically, the SCPCSD found in its most-recent SPF that “the school’s

admissions and enrollment practices [are] fair and equitable, as required by law,” “the school [is]

ensuring the rights of students with disabilities,” “the school ensure[s] that English Language

Learners are identified and provided appropriate services,” “the school’s discipline policies and

practices protect the rights of students,” “the school ha[s] safe and secure facilities,” “the school

ha[s] policies and programs that establish a safe and secure school environment,” “the school

ensure[s] teachers and school leaders have required licensure,” “the school hold[s] management

accountable,” “the school [is] complying with charter school governance requirements,” “the

school [is] meeting financial reporting and compliance requirements,” and “the school [is]

complying with required federal and state reporting.”

49. Additionally, the AdvancED 2018-2019 South Carolina Elementary School

Student Engagement Survey for Accountability, which measures Quest students’ behavioral,

cognitive, and emotional engagement in school, found that 97.5% of Quest’s students exhibited

behavioral engagement, 97.5% of Quest students exhibited cognitive engagement, and 87.5% of

Quest students exhibited emotional engagement. These statistics directly statements made by

Defendant Smalley in his report recommending revocation.

50. The other related “operational concerns” listed in the Revocation Recommendation

appear to be insignificant issues that have been resolved or that Defendant Smalley has included

to falsely make it appear that Quest’s administration is disinterested (i.e. [t]he school attended only

1/3 of available monthly webinar trainings for Title I, II, and III).

51. Upon information and belief, Defendant Smalley has made the recommendation to

revoke Quest’s charter for discriminatory and bad-faith personal reasons.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Violations of Title VI by the Defendants)

52. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 51 above as if stated verbatim herein.

53. Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.


12

provides that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national

origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

54. Defendants have received and continue to receive federal financial assistance for

their charter school sponsorship programs and activities.

55. Defendants have discriminated against Quest and engaged in a pattern or practice

of conduct that is unjustified and has a discriminatory impact because of a protected status covered

by Title VI.

56. Specifically, schools in South Carolina, such as Quest, that serve extremely high

percentages of at-risk, impoverished, African-American students are more likely to have lower

raw test scores, especially in first few years of operations and if the school’s student population is

transient, than schools that serve stable, affluent student populations of other races because of a

lack of adequate resources, unstable family situations, and a history of segregation and oppression

that has been detrimental to people of color, including the vast majority of Quest’s student

population.

57. By recommending the revocation of Quest’s charter solely or overwhelmingly

because of Quest’s academic proficiency scores, the SCPCSD and Defendant Smalley have

intentionally discriminated against Quest and the high-poverty, predominately African-American

students that attend the School.

58. As described herein, when at-risk, African-American students enroll at Quest, data

from the South Carolina State Department of Education shows that their academic growth

significantly exceeds that of students who attend Kerns, the traditional public school that is

geographically closest to Quest and serves a somewhat similar student population.

59. If Quest’s charter is revoked, most of its students will likely either attend Kerns,

where academic growth has been slower, or will be bused to schools up to ten (10) miles or more


13

away that will lack the unique characteristics of Quest, which focus on the needs of at-risk students,

and these very same students will be more likely to be pushed out of the classroom and into the

juvenile or criminal system.

60. Further, the flimsiness of the justifications stated by Defendant Smalley for

revocation are evidence of intentional discrimination by Defendants. Defendant Smalley’s

“academic performance” argument is discriminatory because the SCPCSD’s one-size-fits-all

academic model and the proficiency statements concerning Quest do not adequately account for

demographic differences between schools or the academic growth of Quest’s students, most of

whom are low-achieving students when they enroll at Quest. Further, the SCPCSD intentionally

compares Quest’s academic proficiency data to schools that serve affluent, white student

populations, which is inconsistent with Quest’s amended charter with the SCPCSD. Defendant

Smalley’s fiscal management is discriminatory because the only financial “concern” in the

SCPCSD’s most recent annual evaluation is a result of the SCPSCD’s own mismanagement of its

financial practices, which has caused Quest to be deprived of Title I funding intended to serve its

at-risk, impoverished, African-American student population. Any operational arguments by

Defendant are completely inconsistent with the SCPCSD’s most recent annual SPF evaluation of

Quest, pretextual, and discriminatory.

61. On information and belief, Defendant Smalley has not recommended revocation of

any other charter school in the SCPCSD that on its most recent annual evaluation by the SCPCSD

scored outstanding in the areas of governance, compliance, and finances, and has a Level 3

EVAAS student academic growth score.

62. Because the reasons stated by Defendant Smalley completely fail to justify Quest’s

closure, Defendant Smalley’s reasons demonstrate pretext for discrimination against Plaintiffs.

63. The discriminatory pattern or practice of conduct and intentional discrimination by

Defendants and its agents violate Title VI and its implementing regulations.


14

64. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory actions, Plaintiffs

have and will suffer irreparable harm and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages in an amount to be

determined at trial, costs and attorney’s fees, and other appropriate legal and equitable relief.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Defamation and Defamation Per Se Against Defendant Smalley)

65. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 64 above as if stated herein verbatim.

66. Defendant Smalley made and published written statements, specifically in the

Recommendation Report, a public document, that Plaintiffs ignored and/or failed to adequately

perform their duties as school leaders and board members as demonstrated by the following:

a. Stating that “the school struggles with developing and implementing

necessary processes and procedures for complying with state and federal

reporting requirements.”

b. Stating that “the organizational health of the school has been longitudinally

unstable.”

c. Stating that “the school is unable to proactively analyze their own strategies

and adjust their own behavior in order to meet the needs of students.”

d. Stating that a “disconnect between beliefs and outcomes, paired with a

delayed approach to addressing rigor, raises significant concerns about the

school’s overall ability to effectively improve student learning at the rate

and with the level of urgency, that Quest students need and deserve.”

e. Stating that “the current operational health of the school is not conducive to

long-term viability or sustainability.”

f. Recommending revocation of Quest’s charter.

67. Defendant Smalley’s statements were completely inconsistent with the SCPCSD’s

own annual evaluation SPF issued in January 2019 and falsely communicate that Plaintiffs are

unfit for their roles as school leaders and board members.


15

68. Upon information and belief, Defendant Smalley has also made oral statements that

indicate Plaintiffs are unfit for their roles as school leaders and board members.

69. The direct statements, insinuations, and actions made or taken by Defendant

Smalley that Plaintiffs failed to perform their duties as school operators and board members and

were unfit for their careers, employment, and/or duties have been published in public documents

and to third parties and constitute defamation and defamation per se under South Carolina law.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ written statements, Plaintiffs’

professional and personal reputations have been damaged, and Plaintiffs have suffered emotional

distress, mental anguish, humiliation, reputational loss, embarrassment, and other consequential

harm.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract Against the Defendants)


72. Quest’s charter application serves as an agreement with the SCPCSD, and Quest

and SCPCSD entered into a charter school contact, as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 59-40-40(9).

73. The SCPCSD approved Quest’s charter application in 2013. Pursuant to S.C. Code

Ann. § 56-40-60(A), an approved charter application constitutes an agreement between a charter

school and sponsor.

74. In addition, the SCPCSD and the School entered into a charter school contract in.

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-40-40(9), the charter school contract outlines the roles, powers,

responsibilities, and performance expectations for each party to the contract.

75. The School has complied with and performed its obligations under the School’s

charter application and charter school contract in good faith.

76. The SCPCSD breached the School’s charter application and charter school

contract, including but not limited to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by failing

to support the School financially or otherwise or provide services consistent with its LEA and other


16

obligations.

77. The SCPCSD breached the School’s charter application and charter school contract

by recommending the revocation of the School’s charter without an adequate basis.

78. As a result of Defendants’ breaches of contract, Plaintiffs are entitled to damages

in an amount to be determined at trial, costs and attorney’s fees, and other appropriate legal and

equitable relief.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract with Fraudulent Intent Against the Defendants)


80. The SCPCSD breached the School’s charter application and charter school contract

by recommending the revocation of the School’s charter for fraudulent reasons.

81. Defendant Smalley’s motivation in recommending revocation of Quest’s charter

was discriminatory and an attempt to increase the overall proficiency scores of the SCPCSD’s

schools to bolster his own resume.

82. Defendant’s breach was accompanied by fraudulent acts and/or omission in the

following particulars:

a. Manipulating the pool of schools from which statistics are calculated so as

to make Defendant Smalley’s own personal legacy at SCPCSD appear more

favorable.

b. Failing to support the School and provide it with the resources necessary to

achieve the goals stated in its charter, including but not limited to Title I

funding.

c. Intentionally focusing solely or overwhelming on one factor (academic

proficiency scores) rather than the entirety of the School’s performance,

including student academic growth, governance, finances, and compliance.

83. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach accompanied by fraudulent


17

act, Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to recover actual and punitive damages in an

amount to be determined at trial, costs, and other legal and equitable relief.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:

A) Enjoins Defendants from closing the School or revoking the School’s charter until

the outcome of the pending litigation so that the School may continue its operations

to maintain the status quo, prevent irreparable harm to the School and its students,

and promote the public interest;

B) Enjoins Defendants from engaging in any of the discriminatory acts forming the

Title VI violations and order Defendants to take such remedial action as will

eliminate such discrimination;

C) Order such other declaratory and equitable relief as the Court deems proper in the

circumstances.

D) For a judgment against the Defendants in an appropriate amount of actual and

compensatory damages to be determined by a jury, as well as the costs of this

action, attorney’s fees, and other damages deemed appropriate by a jury.

Respectfully submitted,

TURNER & CAUDELL, LLC

By: s/Tyler R. Turner Tyler R. Turner, Federal I.D. No. 10847 [email protected] Mary Allison Caudell, Federal I.D. No. 11837 [email protected]

914 Richland Street, Suite A-101 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 (803) 828-9708

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

May 8, 2019


PARTIES - WSPA 7News · 2019-06-28 · Quest Leadership Academy Background . 17. The SCPCSD...

Documents

Transcript of PARTIES - WSPA 7News · 2019-06-28 · Quest Leadership Academy Background . 17. The SCPCSD...