Grounsell Complaint

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

IN THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE CASE NO. 2018-CP-23-_______
Keith P. Grounsell,
Plaintiff,
v. SUMMONS
City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice

Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett, Elizabeth
Kelly Fann, and Stephanie Kelly,
Defendants.
TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy
of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the
subscriber at the address shown below within thirty (30) days (thirty five (35) days if served by
United States Mail) after service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service, and if you fail to
answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in
the Complaint.
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC
BY: s/J. Paul Porter

J. Paul Porter (#100723)
1418 Laurel Street, Ste. A
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533
paul@cbphlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF M. BROOKS DERRICK, LLC
BY: s/M. Brooks Derrick

M. Brooks Derrick (#76330)
224 Northeast Main Street
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681
Phone 864-757-0757
brooks@derricklawoffice.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
May 31, 2018

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
IN THE THIRTEENTH CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF GREENVILLE CASE NO. 2018-CP-23-_______
Keith P. Grounsell,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v. (Jury Trial Demanded)
City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice

Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett, Elizabeth
Kelly Fann, and Stephanie Kelly,
Defendants.
EMPLOYMENT & DEFAMATION CASE
Plaintiff complaining of the Defendants respectfully alleges as follows.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff Keith Grounsell is a citizen of Greenville County, South Carolina.
2. Defendant City of Simpsonville is a municipality located in Greenville County, South
Carolina.
3. Defendant Janice Curtis is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, she served as
Mayor of the Defendant City, and is an owner of a now defunct publication The Simpsonville
Banner.
4. Defendant George Curtis is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was
previously a member of the Defendant City’s Council, and was an owner of The Simpsonville
Banner.
5. Defendant Perry Eichor is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was previously
mayor of the Defendant City, and was an owner of The Simpsonville Banner.
Page 1 of 15
6. Defendant Pamela Garrett is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was an
owner of The Simpsonville Banner, and ran blogs via Facebook directed to residents of the
Defendant City at the times relevant hereto.
7. Defendant Elizabeth Kelly Fann is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was
an owner of The Simpsonville Banner, and ran a blog for The Simpsonville Banner via
Facebook directed to residents of the Defendant City at times relevant hereto.
8. Defendant Stephanie Amy Kelly is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, she
worked for The Simpsonville Banner at times relevant hereto, and she is currently a member
of the Defendant City’s Council.
9. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Greenville County.
10. This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction which involves claims of wrongful
discharge, defamation, negligence/gross negligence, tortious interference with contract,
and conspiracy.
FACTUAL OCCURRENCES
11. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
12. Plaintiff was hired on September 18, 2012 as the Defendant City’s Chief of Police.
13. Plaintiff, prior to accepting employment with the Defendant City, had a
commendable career in local, state, federal, and international law enforcement.
14. Plaintiff, in that prior career, never received any substantial formal employee
discipline or negative performance evaluations.
15. Plaintiff, due to personal politics, was terminated from his post for non-work-
related reasons on December 28, 2012. Specifically, Plaintiff was terminated after he
investigated and compiled an investigatory file on a rouge Assistant Chief who was involved
Page 2 of 15
in various inappropriate behaviors that resulted in the waste, fraud, and abuse of public
monies.
16. Plaintiff was discouraged from investigating the subject Assistant Chief by the then
serving Mayor, Defendant Eichor, and City Administrator. Defendant Eichor specifically
told him “it’s in your best interest to overlook this boy.”
17. Plaintiff, justifiably believing fair and equal supervision of all department employees
was part of his mandate to faithfully serve as chief, persisted in his investigation and was
next wrongfully terminated on December 28, 2012.1
18. Defendant Eichor then held a press conference on February 4, 2013 at his office
where he implied that the Plaintiff and one of the Defendant City’s Councilwomen were
the subject of a criminal investigation. This false implication was republished by several
local media outlets.
19. One of the Defendant City’s Council Members publicly apologized for Plaintiff’s
termination at a June 2013 council meeting. That Councilman stated that there was no
cause for Plaintiff’s termination and indicated to Plaintiff, privately, that he voted for the
termination based on undue political pressure.
1
Notably, as tensions preceding Plaintiff’s termination were escalating, the majority of the Defendant
City’s Police Officers generated a joint letter to Council in support of Plaintiff, attended council
meetings in solidarity, and threatened to resign en masse. Defendant Eichor directed Plaintiff to
discipline (and even terminate some of) those police officers, and Plaintiff refused as the same was a
blatant First Amendment violation. Defendant Eichor later mislead public media to believe that
morale was low in its Police Department because the Defendant City hired Plaintiff instead of an
insider.
Also of note, Plaintiff requested but was denied a hearing prior to that termination in violation of S.C.
Code Ann. § 8-27-30, and Defendant Eichor made defamatory publications to media in the midst of
Plaintiff’s termination that falsely impugned him with professional unfitness.
Page 3 of 15
20. Next, however, at the July 23, 2013 council meeting, another Council Member
publicly stated in open session that the Plaintiff had denied an employee a grievance. This
statement was false, undermined Plaintiff’s professional reputation, and Plaintiff was
denied an opportunity to respond.
21. On August 13, 2013, a group of politically-connected individuals began distributing
flyers that indicated that Plaintiff, and Council Members who supported Plaintiff, were
boycotting local businesses. Plaintiff also received an anonymous letter discouraging him
from further opposition to his December 2012 termination.
22. Next at the Defendant City’s Council Meeting on January 14, 2014, a newly-elected
council voted to terminate the employment of the Defendant City’s Administrator who
had been heavily involved in many of the events and occurrences leading to Plaintiff’s initial
termination.
23. Nevertheless, after that meeting, Defendant Eichor maintained publicly, to various
press outlets, a false accusation that Plaintiff was terminated for lying about his
qualifications to serve as a law enforcement officer.
24. The Defendant City next rescinded that termination on February 25, 2014 by a
majority vote of the Defendant City’s Council and restored Plaintiff as Police Chief.
Defendant Eichor voted against rescinding Plaintiff’s termination.
25. The elected majority of Defendant’s City Council supported Plaintiff and did not
inappropriately interfere with his work as Police Chief from February 2014 through
December 2015.
26. Nevertheless, undue interference with Plaintiff’s job from Defendant Eichor and
others continued often through using social media.
Page 4 of 15
27. On April 22, 2014, Defendant Eichor was charged with misconduct, obstruction of
justice, and threatening a court official and was subsequently removed from office by
Governor Nikki Haley.
28. The charges related to pressure Defendant Eichor exerted to prevent the
prosecution of a citizen related to an improperly placed banner (which covered reflective
barricades for pedestrians and motorists).
29. The banner protested Plaintiff’s receipt of backpay when he was reinstated.
However, Plaintiff kept himself as removed as possible from the ordinance violation at
issue given the content of the banner, and Plaintiff did not engage in any inappropriate
conduct.
30. Defendant Eichor was ultimately convicted of two of those charges on June 9, 2015.
31. While on bond awaiting trial, Defendant Eichor and others, including Defendants
Garrett, Kelly, Fann, and George and Janice Curtis, formed The Simpsonville Banner to
publicly attack Plaintiff. The Simpsonville Banner was first published in May 2014. Throughout
its publication, The Simpsonville Banner decried that backpay was paid to Plaintiff when he
was reinstated as Police Chief, criticized officials of the Defendant City’s Council who
supported Plaintiff, and went so far as to compare Plaintiff to a mob boss and Adolf Hitler.
32. A new council was elected in November 2015 and then sworn in on January 2016,
which included Defendant Janice Curtis as Mayor and other Council Members who were
supported by Defendants Eichor, Garrett, Fann, Kelly, and George Curtis who opposed
the Plaintiff for political, non-professional reasons.
33. Upon taking office, Defendant Janice Curtis and her supporters made harmful
statements about Plaintiff to media outlets and simultaneously threatened him, through the
Page 5 of 15
Defendant City’s Administrator, with discipline should he make comments to the media in
response.
34. Defendant Curtis interfered with the performance of Plaintiff’s job including
protesting a successful joint-agency prostitution sting that Plaintiff helped run (because she
felt it unfairly made it appear that sex crimes occurred within Simpsonville City limits,
which they did) and when she refused to sign a check to pay for a national accreditation for
the Police Department.
35. Around this same time, Plaintiff was provided with credible evidence of violations
of State Ethics Law and possible criminal violations by various Council Members who were
newly elected in November 2015 and sworn in January 2016. Plaintiff timely and
appropriately referred the information he received to appropriate authorities.
36. On or before March 14, 2016, Defendant Curtis directed the Defendant City’s
Administrator to reprimand the Plaintiff. The City Administrator informed Plaintiff that he
believed they were both being unfairly targeted for termination and urged the Plaintiff to
respond in writing any reprimand he ultimately received.
37. Next on March 22, 2016, one of the Council Members who was elected with
Defendant Janice Curtis confessed to Plaintiff that Defendant Janice Curtis was personally
motivated to remove Plaintiff and that he did not understand why. Plaintiff also informed
that Council Member of the ethics violations and potential criminal violations he had
referred to appropriate authorities.
38. That same day, Defendant Janice Curtis further interfered with Plaintiff’s work by
revealing the identity of an undercover patrol vehicle that was actively being used in
multiple felony investigations.
Page 6 of 15
39. Plaintiff was then suspended, without a vote of the Defendant City’s Council, on
April 1, 2016.
40. That same day, the Defendant City’s Administrator indicated to Plaintiff that he was
suspended, in part, based on a report he had made to the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division, when he was not the Defendant City’s police chief, about various individuals
connected to (and including the) Individual Defendants George and Janice Curtis, Garrett,
Fann, Kelly, and Eichor.
41. Plaintiff requested an open hearing regarding his suspension.
42. That request was denied on April 4, 2018 following an executive session when the
Defendant City’s Council voted to affirm the prior levied suspension.
43. At the same time as Plaintiff’s suspension, a press release was issued, and comments
were made to media outlets, upon information and belief, by the Individual Defendants
stating that Plaintiff was suspended for racism.
44. Such insinuations were false, known to be false, and made based on a refuted
anonymous letter that surfaced a year prior.
45. Plaintiff was also criticized for a social media post where he, as police chief, clarified
that a report of an armed robbery that was circulating on social media was false.
46. After placing the Plaintiff on suspension, the Defendant City conducted an
investigation that was over-broad, undescriptive, and clearly implied to the Plaintiff that the
Defendant City was simply looking for a plausible reason to terminate him. The
investigation proceeded such that when Plaintiff disproved the initial grounds used for his
suspension the Defendant City searched, deep into the past, for new grounds after the fact.
47. On May 27, 2016, approximately one month after he returned from suspension,
Plaintiff made a formal report to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division about
Page 7 of 15
various actions by Defendant Janice Curtis, upon information and belief with the support
of the Individual Defendants, based on a good faith belief that those actions might give
rise to criminal liability.
48. That same day, Defendant City’s Administrator confided in Plaintiff that he was
becoming stressed at work because Defendant Janice Curtis was constantly pressuring him
to reprimand Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed the City Administrator of his SLED complaint at
that time. During that meeting, Plaintiff also requested but was denied the authority to
discipline an insubordinate employee who was well connected to the Individual
Defendants.
49. Next on June 1, 2016, Defendant Janice Curtis called for an Emergency Meeting of
Council to discuss a “Police Department Employee.”
50. Prior to that meeting, the Defendant City’s Administrator and a Councilman came
to Plaintiff and informed him that Defendant Janice Curtis had the votes to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment and that he could either resign or be terminated. Plaintiff, having
already suffered a wrongful termination and suspension absent fair process by the
Defendant City, had no choice but to resign, and he resigned.
51. After Plaintiff resigned, Defendant Janice Curtis issued a statement placing the
blame for “drama” at the Defendant City on the Plaintiff and stating that it was best for
the Defendant City that the Plaintiff resigned.
52. Plaintiff’s last day at work for the Defendant City, pursuant to his resignation, was
June 16, 2016.
53. Plaintiff’s reputation has been harmed by the Defendant City’s constructive
discharge of him and comments by Defendant Janice Curtis thereafter including that false
accusations about Plaintiff are easily searchable online and Plaintiff encountered difficulties
Page 8 of 15
finding employment. After 5 months of unemployment and several failed attempts at re-
employment in the United States, Plaintiff was forced to accept employment overseas for
a Government Contractor. Plaintiff’s work overseas has caused Plaintiff’s Class 1 Law
Enforcement Certification to lapse making it more difficult for him to find re-employment
locally in his chosen field.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Against the Defendant City
Wrongful Discharge
55. Plaintiff was constructively discharged by the Defendant City on June 1, 2016 on
pretextual grounds.
56. Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for reports he made to the South Carolina
Ethics Commission and/or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in violation of
clear mandates of public policy including the following sources of publicly policy mandates:
1. The South Carolina Ethics Law. S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-10 et seq.
2. South Carolina Code Ann. § 8-1-80 regarding Misconduct in Office; and
3. The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-10
et seq. specifically the provisions governing Plaintiff’s requests for and denial
of an open hearing regarding his initial termination and his suspension.
57. Plaintiff was similarly terminated in violation of clear mandates of public policy
including the following:
1. South Carolina Code Ann. § 5-7-160 providing that the powers of
municipalities are to be vested in a quorum of Council rendering the actions
to force Plaintiff’s termination by Defendant Janice Curtis and Plaintiff’s
suspension prior to a Council vote unlawful;
Page 9 of 15
2. City of Simpsonville Ordinance § 2-31 providing that each Council Member
including the Defendant Mayor have only one vote and rendering Defendant
Curtis’ undue influence unlawful; and
3. The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-10
et seq. specifically the provisions governing the format of public meetings.
58. Plaintiff’s termination in violation of clear mandates of public policy is actionable,
and the Defendant City is liable for all damages resulting therefrom.
59. Those damages include: back pay, lost benefits, diminished earning capacity,
emotional pain, and suffering.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Defamation
61. The Defendant City forced Plaintiff to resign during a period of defamatory
publications that Plaintiff was unfit for his job.
62. The Defendant City ratified prior defamatory remarks about the Plaintiff by doing
so and is responsible for defamatory remarks by Defendant Janice Curtis that Plaintiff’s
resignation was in the best interests of the City and that the Plaintiff was responsible for
“drama” at the Defendant City.
63. The Defendant City defamed Plaintiff by word and act as set forth here with
Constitutional Malice in reckless disregard for the truth and knowledge of the falsity of the
various accusations against Plaintiff’s professional fitness and character.
64. The publications described herein were made publicly to media outlets and remain
publicly accessible via the internet.
Page 10 of 15
65. These publications have lessened Plaintiff’s esteem in his profession and have
caused him other damages which the Defendant City is liable for.
66. Those damages include: reputational harm, lost goodwill, diminished earning
capacity, shock, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional pain and suffering.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligence/Gross Negligence
68. The Defendant City owed Plaintiff a duty in public comment, discipline of Plaintiff,
and the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment arising from its duty to supervise
its employees and the foreseeability of harm to Plaintiff’s protected property interests in
his reputation and continued employment.
69. The Defendant City breached that duty when it failed to appropriately supervise its
employees, allowed its officials to engage in defamatory commentary to the public about
Plaintiff, and unlawfully forced the Plaintiff to resign.
70. The Defendant City failed to exercise even the slightest care and its negligence and
gross negligence resulted in foreseeable harm to the Plaintiff.
71. The Defendant City directly and proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff
thereby for which it is liable.
72. Those damages are not for personal injury nor any injuries compensable under the
Worker’s Compensation Act.
73. Plaintiff seeks damages for this action to include: reputational harm, lost goodwill,
and recoverable pecuniary losses which would not be compensable under the South
Carolina Worker’s Compensation Act.
Page 11 of 15
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Against Defendants Janice Curtis, George Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett,
Elizabeth Kelly Fann, and Stephanie Kelly
Defamation
75. The here-named Defendants defamed Plaintiff’s by word and act overtly and via
their shared publication The Simpsonville Banner and various blogs via Facebook.
76. Such publications were made with Constitutional Malice involving publications
made with knowing falsity and reckless disregard for the truth.
77. Such publications have been widely disseminated through media outlets and the use
of The Simpsonville Banner and social media.
78. Such publications averred that Plaintiff was professionally unfit and corrupt and
have lessened Plaintiff’s esteem in his profession.
79. The here-named Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the defamation alleged which
caused damages that include: reputational harm, lost goodwill, diminished earning capacity,
shock, humiliation, embarrassment, and emotional pain and suffering.
80. The here-named Defendants intentionally defamed Plaintiff acting outside the
course and scope of their service to the Defendant City and the Plaintiff is entitled to
punitive damages as a result.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Defendants Janice Curtis, George Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett,
Tortious Interference with Contract
82. The here-named Defendants fully aware of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
the Defendant City unjustifiably interfered with the same and brought about Plaintiff’s
termination.
Page 12 of 15
83. The here-named Defendants did so through overt actions, the use of The Simpsonville
Banner, and the use of group Facebook pages.
84. Those actions were undertaken intentionally and outside of any scope of service
held by the above-named Defendants toward the Defendant City. With respect to
Defendant Janice Curtis specifically, her actions were outside the scope of her service as
Mayor to the Defendant City as she acted unilaterally in contravention of law and
ordinance.
85. The same constitutes a tortious interference with contract which has harmed the
Plaintiff and for which the here-named defendants are liable.
86. This tortious interference with contract caused Plaintiff damages which include: lost
income, lost benefits, diminished earning capacity, shock, humiliation, reputational loss,
and emotional pain and suffering.
87. Plaintiff is further entitled to punitive damages for the intentional conduct of the
above-named Defendants.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Defendants George Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett,
Civil Conspiracy
89. The here-named Defendants conspired together and with others to harm Plaintiff,
tarnish his reputation, coerce him to resign from the Defendant City, and bring about his
constructive discharge from the Defendant City.
90. The here-named Defendants acted in furtherance of their conspiracy by forming
The Simpsonville Banner and various informal media outlets and groups with the purpose and
design of undermining the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant City.
Page 13 of 15
91. The here-named defendants did so for personal reasons disconnected from any
legitimate service to the Defendant City.
92. The same constitutes an unlawful conspiracy which has caused the Plaintiff special
damages.
93. Those damages include: loss of sleep, loss of companionship, severe stress and
anxiety, reduced earning capacity due to black listing, and the costs and fees of prosecuting
this action.
94. The here-named defendants’ conduct was intentional, and Plaintiff is entitled to
punitive damages for the same.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
88. Plaintiff requests a jury trial on this claim.
89. Plaintiff requests that a jury award him all damages available at law and requested
above against the Defendants on the claims alleged against them.
90. Plaintiff further requests that the individual Defendants be taxed punitive damages
for their willful, wanton, and intentional conduct.
91. Plaintiff requests that damages be awarded jointly and severally against the
Defendants.
92. Plaintiff requests that the Defendant City be held vicariously liable for its servants
where legally appropriate.
93. Plaintiff requests pre-judgment interest on all claims.
94. Plaintiff last requests the costs and fees of this action and any equitable relief the
Court deems just and proper.
Page 14 of 15
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC
BY: s/J. Paul Porter

J. Paul Porter (#100723)
1418 Laurel Street, Ste. A
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533
paul@cbphlaw.com
LAW OFFICE OF M. BROOKS DERRICK, LLC
BY: s/M. Brooks Derrick

M. Brooks Derrick (#76330)
224 Northeast Main Street
Simpsonville, South Carolina 29681
Phone 864-757-0757
brooks@derricklawoffice.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

May 31, 2018
Page 15 of 15

Grounsell Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Grounsell Complaint

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice

TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:

CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC

BY: s/J. Paul Porter

BY: s/M. Brooks Derrick

Attorneys for Plaintiff

May 31, 2018

City of Simpsonville, George Curtis, Janice

EMPLOYMENT & DEFAMATION CASE

Plaintiff complaining of the Defendants respectfully alleges as follows.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Keith Grounsell is a citizen of Greenville County, South Carolina.

2. Defendant City of Simpsonville is a municipality located in Greenville County, South

4. Defendant George Curtis is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was

Defendant City at the times relevant hereto.

Facebook directed to residents of the Defendant City at times relevant hereto.

of the Defendant City’s Council.

9. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Greenville County.

discharge, defamation, negligence/gross negligence, tortious interference with contract,

11. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

commendable career in local, state, federal, and international law enforcement.

discipline or negative performance evaluations.

told him “it’s in your best interest to overlook this boy.”

next wrongfully terminated on December 28, 2012.1

local media outlets.

termination based on undue political pressure.

denied an opportunity to respond.

21. On August 13, 2013, a group of politically-connected individuals began distributing

from further opposition to his December 2012 termination.

qualifications to serve as a law enforcement officer.

Defendant Eichor voted against rescinding Plaintiff’s termination.

others continued often through using social media.

Governor Nikki Haley.

prosecution of a citizen related to an improperly placed banner (which covered reflective

barricades for pedestrians and motorists).

the Plaintiff for political, non-professional reasons.

the Police Department.

appropriately referred the information he received to appropriate authorities.

respond in writing any reprimand he ultimately received.

referred to appropriate authorities.

multiple felony investigations.

Fann, Kelly, and Eichor.

41. Plaintiff requested an open hearing regarding his suspension.

Defendant City’s Council voted to affirm the prior levied suspension.

stating that Plaintiff was suspended for racism.

anonymous letter that surfaced a year prior.

rise to criminal liability.

discipline an insubordinate employee who was well connected to the Individual

Council to discuss a “Police Department Employee.”

Defendant City, had no choice but to resign, and he resigned.

the Defendant City that the Plaintiff resigned.

June 16, 2016.

locally in his chosen field.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

54. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

2. South Carolina Code Ann. § 8-1-80 regarding Misconduct in Office; and

of an open hearing regarding his initial termination and his suspension.

including the following:

1. South Carolina Code Ann. § 5-7-160 providing that the powers of

municipalities are to be vested in a quorum of Council rendering the actions

to force Plaintiff’s termination by Defendant Janice Curtis and Plaintiff’s

suspension prior to a Council vote unlawful;