ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF SUMTER CASE NO. 2018-CP-43-_______

Vivian C. DuBose,

Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
v.

Sumter County School District, Dr. Debra W.

Hamm, John Koumas, Kellie Gainey, and Patty
Wilson.

Defendants.

TO THE DEFENDANT 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. Lewis Cromer

J. Lewis Cromer (# 1470)
Julius W. Babb, IV (#77216)
J. Paul Porter (#100723)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11675 (29211)
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533
Attorneys for Plaintiff

June 28, 2018

Columbia, South Carolina
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
IN THE THIRD CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF SUMTER CASE NO. 2018-CP-43-_______

Vivian C. DuBose,

Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v. (Jury Trial Demanded)

Sumter County School District, Dr. Debra W.

Hamm, John Koumas, Kellie Gainey, and Patty
Wilson.

Defendants.

EMPLOYMENT & DEFAMATION CASE

Plaintiff complaining of the Defendants respectfully alleges as follows.

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff Vivian C. DuBose (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a citizen of Sumter County,

South Carolina.

2. Defendant Sumter County School District is a public school district in Sumter

County, South Carolina.

3. Dr. Debra W. Hamm is a citizen and resident of Richland County and is the currently

appointed Interim Superintendent of the District.

4. Defendant John Koumas is a citizen and resident of Sumter County and was at all

times mentioned herein the Director of Support Services for the District.

5. Defendant Kellie Gainey is a citizen and resident of Sumter County and was at all

times mentioned herein the nurse for early head start programs at the District.

6. Defendant Patty Wilson is a citizen and resident of Sumter County.

7. The events giving rise to this action occurred in Sumter County.

Page 1 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
8. This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action:

defamation, tortious interference with contract, and civil conspiracy.

FACTUAL OCCURRENCES

9. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

10. Plaintiff was born and raised in Sumter County from a well-known Sumter family

and worked for more than three decades for the Sumter County School District in various

capacities. She worked under several different superintendents in recent years.

11. Plaintiff served in the position of Director of Early Childhood Education for several

years and was forced to resign from her position and retire on July 31, 2017. Over the

years, Plaintiff received many awards and commendations, and she consistently obtained

very good, if not outstanding, reviews from her supervisors.

12. Several years ago, a considerable amount of funds were allocated to various school

districts through a federal grant funded by the South Carolina Department of Education to

enhance and improve staff training and equipment and personal property to be used in

Early Childhood Education for the benefit of small children. Plaintiff and previous

superintendents of the District used the program and were able to obtain considerable

amounts of money for the benefit of District students thereby.

13. Since the grant lacked many specifics as far as training, property, and equipment,

Plaintiff, along with prior Superintendents and other staff, applied discretion in overseeing

and spending the funds. As a result, the program was extremely successful for the children

in Sumter County who benefited greatly from the funds.

14. Through the beginning of 2017, no complaints were made about the grant program

or the expenditure of funds. However, starting in late December 2016, Plaintiff observed

that two of her workers Defendant Gainey and Arlene McCloud were acting strange toward

Page 2 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
her and were engaging in vague and obscure discussions about the training for the program

and other aspects thereof.

15. In February 2017, an anonymous letter was written to the District’s School Board

members, presumably either authored by or with the knowledge of Defendants Gainey and

Wilson, who was formerly on the Defendant District’s Board and who has been vying to

return to the Board. That letter accused the Plaintiff and the Superintendent of fraud and

abuse and mismanagement of money and property in connection with the handling of the

funds and training being discussed. To this point, the Plaintiff, under the direction of

Superintendent Frank Baker, used the funds in a manner which she felt was totally

appropriate and in keeping with the needs of the grant.

16. Later, a second anonymous letter was circulated in May of 2017, again authored by

or with the knowledge of the Defendants Gainey and Wilson which again accused the

Plaintiff and the Superintendent of fraud and misuse of state money and property.

17. An audit was ordered and performed by the South Carolina Department of

Education and was given to the School Board. Plaintiff cooperated fully with the auditors

and when the report was published, it contained misinformation, lack of information, and

even a complete omission of the rebuttal which Plaintiff had filed after the original charges

were made denying all of the material allegations of misconduct and/or illegal activity on

her part.

18. Plaintiff has fully cooperated with law enforcement agencies in investigating the

allegations made and no charges have been made against her in that matter which is now a

year and a half old.

19. Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave on June 27, 2017 as a result of the false

charges made by the Defendants Gainey, Wilson, and others which were published and

Page 3 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
republished through various media accounts and throughout the community. At the request

of the District Superintendent, and under protest, she was forced to sign a resignation of

her position and to never return to the School District Offices after removing her personal

items.

20. The next day, the District Superintendent confronted Defendant Gainey who was

returning personal property to the District’s office which belonged to the District for which

the Plaintiff believes was intended to inculpate the Plaintiff and cover up any defalcations

done by Defendant Gainey and her accomplices in connection with the matter.

21. Plaintiff is unaware of the investigation which took place involving those instances.

22. Thereafter, Plaintiff sought to go to work for a non-profit organization working

with families with special needs.

23. Sometime in early 2018, one of her supervisors with that agency was told by the

Defendant Koumas that Defendant Debra Hamm, the Interim Superintendent of the

District, had advised him that the Plaintiff was not to be permitted to come onto District

property or to contact anyone with the District and that she had already “cost the district

enough money.” All such allegations are false and without any factual basis whatsoever.

24. Plaintiff has not been renewed for teaching positions with the University of South

Carolina she formerly served in, she has been unable to obtain other employment, and she

is in jeopardy of losing the position which she now holds, all as a result of the widespread

and continuing publicity relating to the events described herein.

25. Plaintiff’s health has also suffered, and she is under medical care for many of the

problems related thereto.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Against the District
(DEFAMATION)

Page 4 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
26. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

27. The Defendant District, through its agents and employees, made comments and

took actions to directly state and insinuate that the Plaintiff was unfit for her job, that she

violated the criminal laws of the State of South Carolina and the policies of the School

Board, and that she deserved to be removed from her position therewith.

28. These comments, statements, verbal and in writing including the anonymous letters,

and actions by the Defendant District in forcing Plaintiff to resign on pretextual grounds,

commentary to the media, and commentary to Plaintiff’s subsequent employer were made

to unprivileged third-parties, including Plaintiff’s subsequent employer, and throughout

Sumter County were made more broadly by publicly accessible media. Such publications

were false, defamatory per se, and made with malice. Plaintiff can name some of the

recipients of the defamatory publications and will do so in response to appropriate

discovery requests. The Defendant is liable for the defamatory conduct and statements

described herein and above.

29. Such statements were knowingly false and were made with reckless disregard for the

truth. Such statements were malicious and have harmed Plaintiff’s reputation and lessened

her esteem in her profession.

30. Plaintiff, as a direct and proximate result of the defamation alleged herein, is entitled

to damages directly and proximately caused by the Defendant District.

31. Such damages include special harm including a decreased earning capacity, loss of

good will, reputational loss, and pain and suffering. Plaintiff is also entitled to reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to state law and prejudgment interest.

Page 5 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Against Defendants Hamm and Koumas
(DEFAMATION)

33. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

34. Defendant Koumas, purporting to speak with and on behalf of Defendant Hamm,

defamed the Plaintiff when he informed Plaintiff’s subsequent employer to the District that

Plaintiff would not be allowed to work on District property and that “she had already cost

the district enough money.”

35. The insinuations flowing from the above statements that Plaintiff was an unfit

worker and engaged in criminal conduct were false and made without justification.

36. The same has lessened Plaintiff’s reputation in her profession and is defamatory per

se.

37. The above statements were made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

38. Those statements have resulted in damages to the Plaintiff to include: reputational

loss, lost goodwill, diminished earning capacity, shock, humiliation, and pain and suffering.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Defendants Hamm and Koumas
(TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT)

39. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent herewith.

40. The Defendants Hamm and Koumas were aware of Plaintiff’s employment

relationship with her subsequent employer.

41. The Defendants Hamm and Koumas unjustifiably interfered with that contractual

relationship when they informed Plaintiff’s subsequent employer that Plaintiff could not

enter District property to perform her current work which involves advocating for children

with disabilities.

Page 6 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
42. Defendants Hamm and Koumas unjustifiably interfered with that contractual

relationship in violation of state law.

43. The Defendants Hamm and Koumas have procured the breach of that contractual

relationship insomuch as Plaintiff has lost out on hourly work on behalf of the Defendant

District’s students.

44. As such, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages resulting from Defendants

Hamm and Koumas, jointly and severally, for the interference alleged here to include:

diminished earning capacity, lost wages, lost benefits, embarrassment, shock, humiliation,

pain and suffering, reputational loss, and loss of good will.

45. To the extent Defendants Hamm and Koumas are proven to have engaged in

malicious conduct with respect to this claim, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive

damages as well.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Against Defendants Gainey and Wilson
(CIVIL CONSPIRACY)

46. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.

47. Defendants Gainey and Wilson and others combined to harm Plaintiff constituting

an unlawful civil conspiracy.

48. In furtherance of their conspiracy, Defendant Gainey took actions outside the

course and scope of her employment to make Plaintiff appear complicit in wrongs that she

did not commit. Defendant Wilson, outside the scope of any agency or employment by the

Defendant District, publicized anonymous letters to third-parties that disparaged and

defamed the Plaintiff.

49. The circumstances of their actions and shared objective of harming the Plaintiff

indicate an unlawful civil conspiracy.

Page 7 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
50. In addition to an intent to harm the Plaintiff, Defendant Gainey was motivated to

have Plaintiff removed from her District employment in retribution for disciplinary

counselings Plaintiff gave to Defendant Gainey, and Defendant Wilson was motivated in

furtherance of her own political prospects to tarnish Plaintiff and the Defendant District’s

then superintendents’ reputations and to cause their removal.

51. Defendants Gainey and Wilsons’ conduct has caused the Plaintiff special damages

including: that she has lost the opportunity to continue TERI employment, she has been

ostracized in her field of education based on the regional footprint of the Defendant

District and the limited availability of alternative opportunities in education, she has

suffered loss of sleep and companionship, and severe stress, anxiety, and related ailments.

52. Defendant Gainey and Wilsons’s conduct was intentional, and Plaintiff is entitled

to punitive damages for the same.

PRAYER FOR RELEIF

53. Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants, where sought, in an

amount to be determined reasonable by a jury not to exceed Five Million Dollars

($5,000,000.00).

54. Plaintiff requests an award of punitive damages to be assessed by a jury in an amount

deemed appropriate against the Individual Defendants where sought.

55. Plaintiff also prays for the costs, attorney fees, and expenses of this action.

56. Plaintiff asks that where claims are alleged jointly against parties, that any award of

damages be awarded jointly and severally.

57. Plaintiff seeks pre-judgment interests on all damages.

58. Plaintiff last seeks whatever other equitable relief justice requires.

Page 8 of 9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Jun 28 12:01 PM - SUMTER - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP4301193
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC

BY: s/J. Lewis Cromer

J. Lewis Cromer (# 1470)
Julius W. Babb, IV (#77216)
J. Paul Porter (#100723)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11675 (29211)
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533
Attorneys for Plaintiff

June 28, 2018

Columbia, South Carolina

Page 9 of 9