sTATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) IN THE COURT OF COMMOM PLEAS

) FOR THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF BERKELEY )
)
Deon Jackson, )
)
PLAINTIFF, )
)
V. ) COMPLAINT
) (Jury Trial Requested)
Joe Baker (in his official and )
individual capacity), Berkeley County )
School District, Anthony Dixon (in his )
official and individual capacity), E. )
Brandon Gaskins (in his individual )
capacity), Jimmy Hinson (in his official )
and individual capacity), Kathy Littleton )
(in her ,official and individual capacity), )
Stafford "Mac" McQuillin (in his official )'
and individual capacity), Michael Ramsey )
(in his official and individual capacity), ) ..
), Sally Wofford (in her official and )
individual capacity), )
)
)
DEFENDANTS. )

Plaintiff Deon Jackson, by and through his undersigned attorneys, brings the Causes of

Action of Civil Conspiracy, Breach of Contract, Interference with a Contractual Relationship,

Violation of FOIA, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

and Gross Negligence against the above-named Defendants based on the allegations set forth

herein.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

I. This Court has proper jurisdiction of all parties and subject matter in this action, as this

action arises, inter alia, under the Common Laws of South Carolina.

Page 1 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 2- Venue is proper in Berkeley County, because the Causes of Action arose therein, the acts

and practices complained of occurred there, and it is where the Defendants are situated, do

business, and may be found.

PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Deon Jackson is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.
4. Defendant Joe Baker ("Baker") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.
5.
Defendant Berkeley County School District ("BCSD") is a South Carolina state entity.
6. Defendant Anthony Dixon ("Dixon") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.
7. Defendant Jimmy Hinson ("Hinson") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.

8. Defendant Kathy Littleton ("Littleton") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.

9. Defendant Stafford "Mac" McQuillin ("McQuillin") is a citizen of the State of South

Carolina.

10. Defendant Michael Ramsey ("Ramsey") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.

11. Defendant Sally Wofford ("Wofford") is a citizen of the State of South Carolina.

FACTS

12. Plaintiff entered into an Employment Agreement and was hired as the Superintendent for

Defendant BCSD on or about May 19, 2021. Plaintiffs employment, per the terms of the contract,

was for the original term of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2024. Then the term was extended for one

year to expire June 30, 2025.

13. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff had a proficient evaluation and performed his job to

the best of his ability.

14. All Defendant BCSD board members are subject to the policies. prescribed in or by

Defendant BCSD Policy BA Board Operation.

Page 2 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 J5. On November 8, 2022, Defendants McQuillin, Littleton, Wofford, and Ramsey were re-
elected to the Berkeley County School Board.
16. On November 8' 2022 , De,en
"- dants Baker and Hinson
. were elected to the Berkeley County
School Board as new board members.
17.
On or about November 11, 2022, the election results were certified in Berkeley County.
18. As the three new board members were elected, those seats became vacant until their

swearing in on Tuesday, November 15, 2022.

l9. As such, a quorum of the board was four (4) of the six (6) member board during this time

of transition: on or before November 11 to November 15, 2022.

20. Upon information and belief, the four (4) re-elected members of the board, Defendants

McQuillin, Littleton, Wofford and Ramsey, held private meetings in-person and via telephonic

means, which constituted an illegal board meeting comprised of a quorum to discuss and decide

upon the termination of Plaintiff. In addition, acting in concen with the sitting re-elected board

members, the two (2) non-sworn newly-elected members Defendants Baker and Hinson

participated in the illegally constituted meetings conspiring to terminate Plaintiff. These illegally

constituted meetings, in addition to conspiring against Plaintiff violated the rights of the public

and South Carolina Freedom of Infonnation Act.

21. Upon infonnation and belief, this meeting or meetings were held outside the presence of

the former chairman, David Barrow and other board members, Yvonne Bradley and Crystal

Wigfall, in violation of Policy BA Board Operations. Former Chainnan Barrow affirmed in

Page 3 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 statem ents to the media on December 7, 2022 that Detiendant chairman
· · · violated
McQu11lm · "school
district policy multiple times over the past several weeks."'

22. According to Defendant BCSD' p 1. .

s o icy BA Board Operations, the chairman presides over
all meetings of the Board Thi d . .
· s oes not mean that the chairman 1s empowered to singularly make
decisions regarding personn l 1- d
e ac 10ns an press releases on personnel matters to include Plaintiff's
termination to the general publ·1c wit
· hout a full board vote before 1ssumg
. . such.

23
· On Sunday, November 13, 2022 at 9:58 a.m. as Plaintiff attended virtual church services
'
Pl . ·rr .
amti received a shocking and disturbing phone call from Defendant McQuillin at 9:58 a.m.

Defendant McQuillin informed Plaintiff that the Berkeley County School Board members were

prepared to terminate his employment at the Tuesday, November 15, 2022, board meeting citing

that six (6) votes (which affirms the allegations of Paragraph 23), Board Members Barrow,

Bradley, and Wigfall were unaware of the phone call to Plaintiff or any decision to terminate

Plaintiff. This is affirmed by the November 15th board meeting terminating Plaintiff made on

video, with excited utterances by board members Barrow and Bradley exclamating their shock of

the named Defendants actions.

24. Upon information and belief, Defendant McQuillin stated to the Plaintiff that there were

six (6) board members who were willing to vote for his tennination and if they voted for Plaintiffs

termination, the termination would be without cause and without an offer of a severance

agreement. Defendant McQuillin's statement to Plaintiff confinned that the six (6) are the named

Defendants in their official and private roles who fostered and carried out the conspiracy against

Plaintiff on November 15, 2022.

1 Michael Higdon, Berkely Co. board member claims new chair violated district policy, Live 5 WCSC (Dec. 7, 2022),
https://www.live5news.com/2022/12/07/berkeley-co-board-member-claims-new-chairman-violated-district-
policy/.

Page 4 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 I
25,
Upon information and belief
•
oef1endant McQuillin stated to Plaintiff that the termination
was not performance based.

26. Upon infonnation and b 1• f O f1

e ie , e endant McQuillin suggested that Plaintiff resign from his
post and stated that, if Plaintiff h .
c ose not to resign, he would be terminated on Tuesday November
15, 2022 which could lead to ye fl' • .
' ars o 1t1gat1on, would be embarrassing for Plaintiff, and make it

difficult for Plaintiff to obtain future employment. Defendant McQuillin on this point is correct.

Plaintiff, while attending virtual church services, upon receiving this communication was shocked,

dismayed, and immediately began crying excessively to the extent that Plaintiff had to be

comforted and consoled by his wife who was also shocked and dismayed. Upon receiving such

information Plaintiff suffered anxiety fearing the loss of support for his family to include his wife

and minor children, and was embarrassed to the extent that he later locked himself in the bedroom

for the remainder of the day, limited his communication with his children, and orily interacted with

his consoling spouse. Plaintiff suffered a loss of sleep, suffered anxiety, loss of sleep, loss of

appetite, apprehension about his future to support his family, which continues to present.

27. Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant McQuillin also stated to Plaintiff that if his

termination led to litigation and there were any funds awarded by the Court, Defendant BCSD

would appeal.

28. Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant McQuillin stated to Plaintiff that Defendant

Gaskins, who on November 13, 2022 was not the contracted attorney of Defendant BCSD,

would be handling any communication that day with Plaintiff and litigation of the matter.

Defendant McQuillin stated that Plaintiffs attorney should talk to Defendant Gaskins. Defendant

Gaskins had previously severed any relationship with Defendant BCSD as of July 9, 2021,

following a legal interpretation dispute with in-house counsel Tiffany Richardson regarding the

Page 5 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 I

se of personnel information on anO th

re/ea er BCSD school and county employee. Likewise,
November 15, 2022 in-house counsel T"ffi
1
.
any Richardson was also terminated by the named
Defendants, and Defendant Gaskins .
was re-hired as external counsel for the Defendant Board
members, over the objection O fb d
s oar members Barrow, Bradley and Wigfall.
29. Defendant McQuilli d . .
n a mitted, on video, to speaking with yet-to-be hired Defendant
Gaskins about the plans t0 t . . .
ermmate Plamhff at the November 15, 2022 board meeting.
3
o. The Defendants violated S.C. Code § 59-19-315 which states that the term of office of

every elected trustee of a school district must commence one week following the certification of
the election.

3 I. On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 the re-elected and newly elected board members were

sworn in at the start of the board meeting.

32. Once sworn into his official capacity, Defendant McQuillin made a Motion to enter into

Executive Session but failed to state the specific purpose of the executive session as stated in the

Freedom of Information Act.

33. Defendant Littleton made a Motion to terminate the employment of Tiffany Richardson,

the in-house counsel for Defendant BCSD, and retain the services of Defendant Gaskins.

Defendant Wofford seconded the motion.

34. Next, Defendant McQuillin moved to terminate the employment of Plaintiff as

Superintendent of Defendant BCSD. Defendant Hinson seconded the Motion. When asked to give

an explanation for the termination of Plaintiff, Defendant McQuillin refused to give an answer. ·

35. Defendant McQuillin continued to take the vote on the Motion to have Plaintiff removed.

Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton, Hinson and Wofford approved the Motion. The

three remaining board members voted against the Motion and, in fact, Board Member Crystal

Page 6 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 st
Wigfall, in disgu , exits fhe board meeting along with Plaintiff and a substantial number of

members of the audience and were jointly disgusted and outraged.

36. Defendant Hinson then m dt h ·

ove o ave Defendant Dixon named the new Superintendent
for Berkeley County Schoo] D' tr· t D ti . . .
is ic • e endant McQmllm, 11legally as Chairman, seconded the
· Ramsey, B aker, L1tt]eton,
Motion. Defendants McQuiJJ m, · ·
Hmson and Wofford approved the
Motion. The three remaining board members voted against the Motion.
37. On November 23, 2022 Defendant McQuiJJin released an improperly/illegally posted

Berkeley County Schoo] District statement regarding the termination of Plaintiff Deon Jackson.

This statement was released without approval of the entire board, in violation of Defendant

BCSD's Board Policy BA which reads, in part, that the Board must, "Act only when a quorum is

present at a legal meeting of the board. Because aU powers of the Board of Trustees lie in its action

as a group, individual board members exercise authority over district affairs only when voting to

take action or when delegated the authority by the board." Board member Barrow admits that

Defendant McQuillin released the public statement without the knowledge and consent of the full

board. To quote Barrow's revelation "Was there a meeting I was not aware of?" Defendant

McQuillin's public statement is fraught with misleading, unverified, and false statements with the

express purpose of publicly disparaging and humiliating Plaintiff and with the express purpose to

attempt to cloak the conspired and il1ega1 termination of Dr. Deon Jackson, who is the legitimate,

certified Superintendent of Berkeley County School District.

38. In this November 23 rd statement, Defendant McQuillin admits to informing the Plaintiff,

days prior to the November 15 th board meeting that there would be a motion to terminate his

employment.

Page 7 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 I

I 39
·
Defendant McQuillin admitted in hi N

Dixon prior to the November 15 2022 b

Berkeley County School District.

'
s ovember 23 rd statement that he spoke to Defendant
.
oard meeting about becoming the Superintendent of

40. Defendant McQuillin and named D ti

e endants were grossly negligent in not researching
South Carolina law/statutes and South C 1.
aro ma Department of Education regulations in their haste
to conspire and carry out the· · · t d · ·
Ir miss10n_o estroy Plaintiff as Superintendent of Defendant BCSD.
41.
As of November 15, 2022, at the time of his hiring, Defendant Dixon did not hold the

required certification to be named Superintendent of Defendant BCSD. Defendant Dixon is not on

-,,
record as having the required Superintendent certification, per his records at the South Carolina

Department of Education as of December 7, 2022. "According to the state board of education

regulation on appointment of a superintendent, ' Administrators serving as area or district

superintendents for the first time after June 30, 1968, shall hold a superintendent' s certification."'2

42. The November 23 rd statement also alleged that the Defendants lacked trust and confidence

in the Plaintiff to lead the district. On November 15, 2022, there is no record or meetings whereby

the newly elected board members had the occasion to meet with Superintendent Jackson, nor

review the fact that Superintendent Jackson's annual performance evaluation, which had just been

completed by the board which was proficient. Plaintiffs evaluation was based on the McRel

evaluation which is an instrument comprised of four components which are: Purposeful

Community, Managing Change, Focus of Leadership, and Management. All nine board members

submitted the summary evaluation worksheets which found Superintendent Jackson proficient.

The termination of Plaintiff after a proficient evaluation is substantiated by a media interview

2 Anna Myers, Questions concerning Berkeley Co. Schools Superintendent's certification, Live 5 WCSC ~Dec. 7,
202 2), http s://www. Iive5 news.com/2 022/12/07/ sc-ed ucat ion-d epa rtm e nt-b e rkeIey-co-sch oo 1s-supen nten dent-
not-certifi ed/.

Page 8 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 conducted on YouTube at 8:28 pm
· · November 15, 2022, the same evening
· of Supenntendent
·

Jackson's tragic and illegal termination. 3 Defendant Michael Ramsey, in this YouTube video,

stated that Plaintiff had performed his job proficiently. In fact. Plaintiff Deon Jackson rated

exceptional in some areas of leadership above the previous Superintendent, Dr. Ingram, who had

been Defendant BCSD' s Superintendent for many years and did not receive a rating ofexceptional.

43. Defendants, in their official and individual capacities, conspired with evil intent and with

total disregard of the law. When four (4) of the re-elected board members, who should have known

better, acted in violation of district board policy, carried out a planned, conspired mission to

destroy a certified, competent, caring Superintendent of schools for Berkeley County.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

First Count Civil Conspiracy Against Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton,
Hinson, Wofford

44. Each and every assertion set forth herein above is repeated as fully incorporated.

45. The Plaintiff has been targeted by deliberate design of Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey,

Baker, Littleton, Hinson and Wofford in a conspiracy to ensure the termination of Plaintiffs

employment and deprivation of his contractual rights to due process with willful disregard to his

contractual rights.

46. Upon information and belief, Defendant McQuillin stated to the Plaintiff that there were

six (6) board members that were willing to vote fo~ termination and, if they voted for his

termination, there would not be an offer of a severance.

47. Defendant McQuillin admitted in a statement he released on November 23, 2022 that he

spoke to Defendant Dixon prior to the November 15, 2022 board meeting about becoming the

Superintendent of Berkeley County School District.

3
Quintin Washington, EXCLUSIVE - Michael Ramsey Interview - Quintin's Close-Ups, Nov. 7, 2022),
https:ljwww.youtube.com/watch?v=Of7uGCp0DLQ.

Page 9 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 48 The defendants exceeded the sco e of th •
· P e1r employment by abusing their capacity as board
members to cause injury to the Plaintiff.

49. Defendant McQuillin enli t d th .

se e assistance of Defendants Ramsey, Baker, Littleton,
Hinson, Wofford, Dixon and G k · ·
as ms m manufacturing pretextual justification to terminate
Plaintiff's employment.

50. The acts of the Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton, Hinson and Wofford were

designed to cause injury to the employment relationship that existed between Plaintiff and The

District for the purpose of terminating Plaintiff's employment as Superintendent and causing harm

to the Plaintiffs reputation in the community.

51 . The natural consequence of the Defendants' combined actions caused special damages for

pecuniary losses, embarrassment, humiliation, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and further non-pecuniary losses.

52. Accordingly, due to the acts of the defendants, Plaintiff Jackson is entitled to injunctive

relief and civil damages from the Defendants.

53. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and/or civil damages, renumeration for

lost wages and benefits, reinstatement of benefits, and front pay.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Second Count Civil Conspiracy Against Def endants McQuillin and Gaskins

54. Each and every assertion set forth herein above is repeated as fully incorporated.

55. The Plaintiff has been targeted by deliberate design of Defendants McQuillin and Gaskins

in a conspiracy to ensure the termination of Plaintiffs employment and deprivation of his

contractual rights to due process with willful disregard to his contractual rights.

56. Upon information and belief, Defendant McQuillin discussed the potential termination of

Plaintiff with Defendant Gaskins.

Page 10 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 57. Defendant McQuillin infonned Plam
· fflfth
I at 1"f he was to resign
· before being terminated at
th
the November 15 board meeting, then Pl am
· t"f:f · ·
1 would need to speak with Defendant Gaskins

about his resignation.

58. At the time of Defendant McQuillin's conversation(s) with Defendant Gaskins, Defendant

Gaskins was a non-District employee and was not the district's contracted attorney at the time.

59. The natural consequence of the Defendants' combined actions caused special damages for

pecuniary losses, embarrassment, humiliation, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and further non-pecuniary losses.

60. Accordingly, due to the acts of the defendants, Plaintiff Jackson is entitled to injunctive

relief and civil damages from the Defendants.

61. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and/or civil damages, renumeration for

lost wages and benefits, reinstatement of benefits, and front pay.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Third Count Civil Conspiracy Against Defendants McQuillin and Dixon

62. Each and every assertion set forth herein above is repeated as fully incorporated.

63. The Plaintiff has been targeted by deliberate design of Defendants McQuillin and Dixon in

a conspiracy to ensure the termination of Plaintiffs employment and deprivation of his contractual

rights to due process with willful disregard to his contractual rights.

64. Defendant McQuillin admits to speaking with Defendant Dixon on November 13, 2022 to

discuss whether he would become Superintendent of Defendant BCSD once the Plaintiff was

terminated.

65. The natural consequence of the Defendants' combined actions caused special damages for

pecuniary losses, embarrassment, humiliation, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of

enjoyment of life, and further non-pecuniary losses.

Page 11 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 66. Accordingly, due to the acts of the d fi . .
e endants, Plaintiff Jackson is entitled to injunctive
relief and civil damages from the Defendants.

67. Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled t0 . . .

Injunctive relief and/or civil damages, renumeration for
I lost wages and benefits reinstatement of b fi
' ene its, and front pay.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach ofContract
68. Plaintiff reiterates each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set

forth verbatim herein.

69• July 1, 2021 , Plaintiff entered into a valid contract with The District.

70. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff performed his job with due diligence, yet Defendants

BCSD, McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton, Hinson, and Wofford acted in bad faith and breached

the contract with Plaintiff.

71. Plaintiff's Employment was for the original term of July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2024. Then

the term was subsequently extended for one year to expire June 30, 2025 following a positive

evaluation.

72. According to the Employment Agreement between Defendant BCSD and the Plaintiff,

Defendant BCSD had the right to terminate the Plaintiff with or without cause.

73. Defendants violated the terms and conditions "Of Plaintiffs employment contract by: (a)

failing to provide cause for Plaintiff's termination, (b) failing to establish 2/3 vote for Plaintiffs

termination, (c) failing to provide Plaintiff with notice of termination and proper grounds, ( d)

failing to provide with opportunity for a hearing and (e) in violation of other provisions of

BCSD's Employment Agreement with Plaintiff.

Page 12 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 74. Defendants' conduct was d · b d l". •
one m a 1aith and breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealings that is implied in the employment contract.

75. The Defendants violated S.C. Code § 59-19-3 I 5 which states that the term of office of

every elected trustee of a school district must commence one week following the certification of

the election.

76. Plaintiff relied on Defendants' reassurance that Defendants would act pursuant to

Defendants' policies and procedures with respect to conduct in the workplace, anti-discrimination,

investigation of reported violations, harassment, and other workplace polices.

77. As a result of Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff has suffered actual, compensatory,

physical, mental, emotional and consequential damages stemming from the breach and other such

damages as are allowable by law.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Interference with a Contractual Relationship as to Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker,
Littleton, Hinson, Wofford, Dixon, and Gaskins

78. Plaintiff reiterates each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set

forth verbatim herein.

79. Plaintiff and Defendant BCSD entered into a binding and valid contract whereby

Defendant offered Plaintiff employment in accordance to the tenns and policies of Defendant

BCSD. Plaintiff accepted the offer of employment by signing the Employment Agreement and

agreed to fulfill the duties of his position in exchange for valuable consideration, his salary.

Plaintiffs Employment contract was to begin on July 1, 2021 and end on June 30, 2024;

nonetheless, as a result of Plaintiff's proficient perfonnance, his Employment Agreement was

extended to June 30, 2025.

Page 13 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 80. Upon infonnation and belief h . .
, t e plamhff perfonned his duties as Superintendent of
Berkeley County Schools with d d"l• . . . .
ue 1 1gence and without mc1dent throughout his employment with
the defendant.

81.
Defend ants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton, Hinson, Wofford, Dixon, and Gaskins

had knowledge of Plaintiff's employment and the legally binding contract of employment between

Plaintiff and Defendant BCSD.

82. Defendants acted to intentionally interfere with the contract between Plaintiff Deon

Jackson and Defendant BCSD.

83. Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker, Littleton, Hinson, and Wofford acted intentionally,

outside of their official capacities and in violation of the policies and procedures of Defendant

BCSD and Defendant BCSD Board, to interfere with and procure Plaintiff's termination, to end

the contractual relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant BCSD when they:

a. Held secret meetings without the knowledge or consent of BCSD Board to conspire

to illegally terminate Plaintiff;

b. Moved and voted to pretextually terminate Plaintiff in a public Board Meeting,

thereby immediately interfering with Plaintiff's Employment Agreement with BCSD,

causing a breach of Plaintiff's Employment Agreement, and acting beyond the capacity of

their Board positions, in violation of the BCSD and BCSD Board policies and the South

Carolina FOIA to terminate Plaintiff;

c. Consulted third parties, Defendant Gaskins and Defendant Dixon, to participate in

and act in furtherance of their interference of Plaintiffs contract with BCSD;

Page 14 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 I

d. . Acted in violation of BCSD and BCS D Board policies

. . and procedures to consprre,
.

act, vote, publish, and move to tenninate the contractual agreement of Plaintiff with BCSD

witbout the approval of the full Board; and

e. Orchestrated and allowed Defendants Dixon and Gaskins to participate in the

breach and interference of Plaintiff's contract with BCSD and benefit from the interference

of Plaintiff's contract as non-employees of Defendant BCSD.

84. Defendants acted intentionally, with knowledge, and in absence of justification.

85. As a result of the acts of Defendants, the tenns of Plaintiff's contract and agreement with

Defendant BCSD was severed intentionally, illegally, and pretextually.

86. As a result of the tortious acts of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered actual, compensatory,

punitive, physical, mental, emotional and consequential damages stemming from the breach and

other such damages as are allowable by law.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Invasion ofPrivacy/ Violation ofFiduciary Duty as to Defendants McQuillin and Gaskins

87. Plaintiff reiterates each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set

forth verbatim herein.

88. Defendant McQuiJJin exceeded his fiduciary duty by abusing his position as a board member

on November 13, 2022 when he called Plaintiff, who was in virtual church service, to threaten

tennination and to cause injury to Plaintiff. This injury was both foreseeable and preventable

as to Defendant McQuillin.

89. As to Defendants Gaskin and McQuillin, Plaintiffs privacy was violated by Defendant

McQuillin's wrongful intrusion and publishing of Plaintiffs private affairs to non-District

employee or District' s non-contracted attorney, Defendant Gaskins. Both Defendants Gaskin

Page 15 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 and McQuiUin's actions, in conce . . .
rt, were made to mtim1date, scare, and threaten Plaintiff with
tennination, without a le iti
g mate vote of the board on November 13, 2022, and cause Plaintiff

mental suffering, shame, humiliation, and offense to Plaintiff's sensibilities.

90. Defendant Gaskins had n0 th • . . .
au onty or nght to discuss or engage in personnel actions agamst
the Plaintiff.

91 • Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant McQuiJJin admitted publicly to speaking with

Defendant Gaskins about the plans to tenninate Plaintiff in his November 23 rd statement on

the Defendant BCSD website. In addition, Defendant McQuiJJin instructed Plaintiff to call

Gaskins to discuss whether he would resign or face tennination. Defendant Gaskins was not a

legal representative of Defendant BCSD board at that time and had resigned in any

legaVofficial capacity as a representative of Defendant BCSD on July 9, 2021 . The actions of

Defendant Gaskins and Defendant McQuillin were a direct invasion of Plaintiff's privacy and

personnel status, records, and infonnation. The actions as stated caused great anxiety and

mental suffering to Plaintiff.

92. Upon infonnation and belief, Defendant McQuillin admitted in his statement released on

November 23, 2022 that he spoke to Defendant Dixon prior to the November 15, 2022 board

meeting about becoming the Superintendent of Berkeley County School District.

93. That the disclosure to Defendant Gaskins was highly offensive and likely to cause serious

mental injury to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

94. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff is entitled to actual, compensatory, special, and punitive

damages as a result thereof, as Plaintiff has suffered damages in the fonn of actual,

compensatory, consequential, physical, mental, emotional, and other damage for such other

relief as may be allowed by law.

Page 16 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 r,,.. lS~VENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Y 10 ahon ofth p.
e reedom ofInformation Act
95. Plaintiff reiterates each d
an evezy alleg f • .
a JOn contamed m the preceding paragraphs as if set
forth verbatim herein.

96. According to s.c Code§ 30 4

· - -8O(A), an agenda for regularly scheduled or special meetings
must be posted on ab 11 t· b d . .
u e m oar m a publicly accessible place at the office or meeting place
th
of e public body and on a public website maintained by the body, if any, at least twenty-four

(2 4) hours prior to such meetings.

97. Upon information and belief, between November 11th and 15th , a quorum of the board met

without notice and outside the presence of the public, to commit the board to replacing the

incumbent superintendent and identifying a replacement.

98. Upon information and belief, the other board members were not notified, nor was the public.

99. There was an agenda posted for the November 15th board meeting, however, it did' not include

any reference to the termination of the Plaintiff or the hiring of a new Superintendent.

100. Defendants failed to state a specific purpose for the closed session of the November 15 th

board meeting as stated by S.C. Code§ 30-4-70(6)(b).

101. Defendant McQuillin's motion to enter into Executive Session during the November 15th

board meeting did not specifically state to those in attendance that the board was to discuss the

termination of the Plaintiff.

102. The certification of the election results happened on November 11 , 2022. The Defendants,

immediately and illegally commenced their duties when they terminated the Plaintiff on

November 15, 2022.

103. The Plaintiffis entitled to equitable relief as the court considers appropriate, and such other

and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Page 17 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defamation as to Defendant McQuillin
104. Plaintiff reiterates each d .
an every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set
forth verbatim herein.

1 nd
OS. Defe ant McQuillin published false statements of fact on November 23, 2022 on
Defendant BCSD' b · .
s we site which was then publicized in local newspapers. Defendant

McQuillin has, on num~rous occasions, slandered Plaintiff in his statements regarding

Plaintifrs character and credibility. His statements about Plaintiff's handling of administrative

matters and failure to report school matters to the board (2021-2022 prior board) are untrue,

malicious, and designed to pretextually cover the named Defendants' unjustified and illegal

termination of Plaintiff. Defendant Mc Quillin' s actions were not sanctioned according to board

policy, nor was he qualified to unilaterally issue such statements except for the express purpose

of destroying the reputation and professional competence of Dr. Deon Jackson, who is the

legitimately certified Superintendent of Berkeley County School District.

I 06. The false statements were circulated among the community, through the Defendants, and

placed on the Berkeley County School District website.

107. The false statements have caused the Plaintiff to suffer material hann to his reputation.

I 08. The Defendants acted recklessly and with actual malice when disseminating the false

written November 23· 2022 statement about the Plaintiff, along with subsequent slanderous

statements uttered to members of the public which place Dr. Jackson in a false light with the

purpose of harming Plaintiff.

109. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual, general, punitive, and special damages as a

resuit of emotional and physical injury, reputational harm, and mental suffering, as well as

Page 18 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 damages caused by em 1
p oyment setbacks arising fi h r.
rom t e ,alse statements' impact on
Plaintiff's employment record.

Accordingly, due to the act f h

s O t e Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief and
civil damages back wa .
1 interest, .
' ges Pus and payment for Jost wages. Plaintiff is further entitled
to actual ' punitive' and compensatory damages m
. the value and nature of his
. lost wages,

benefits and front pay, with interest applied thereupon, in addition to any liquidated damages,

reasonable attorney's fees and costs of bringing this action.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Intentional Infliction ofEmotional Distress as to Defendants McQuillin, Ramsey, Baker,
Littleton, Hinson, Wofford, and Gaskins

111 . Plaintiff reiterates each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if set

forth verbatim herein.

112. Defendant McQuillin, with the consent of the other named defendants, intentionally

contacted Plaintiff on November 13, 2022, as Plaintiff attended church, to inform the Plaintiff

of the plans for his termination. Defendant McQuillin's acts resulted in anxiety, stress,

humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish for Plaintiff.

113. Defendant McQuillin also stated to Plaintiff that if he decided not to resign before the

November I 5 th board meeting, his public termination would be embarrassing for Plaintiff and

make it difficult for Plaintiff to obtain future employment.

114. Defendants further escalated their infliction of emotional distress against Plaintiff by their

published intentional false allegations against Plaintiff in the public statement made on

November 23, 2022.

115. The said aIIegations have resulted in anxiety and stress for the Plaintiff, as the Defendants

have refused to communicate truthfully to the public regarding the Plaintiffs job performance.

Page 19 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 1J6. Accordingly, due to the
acts of the Defendant Pl . . .
. .1 d s, amtiff is entitled to injunctive relief and
c1v1 amages from the Defc d
en ants.
117. Plaintiff is further ent'tl d . .
ive reJ'1ef and/or civil damages, to include me d'icaI
I e to IIl'unct'
'J
expenses.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Gross Negligence
l 18. Plaintiff reiterat h h et
es eac and every allegation contained in the preceding paragrap s as s
forth verbatim herein.

119.
Defendant Board members hired Defendant Anthony Dixon based upon Defendants'

conspired attempts to cloak their own intentional acts of terminating Plaintiff, in an effort to

appease the general public. Defendant Dixon is a named co-conspirator with Defendant

McQuillin and other named Defendants who plotted the demise of Superintendent Deon

Jackson.

120. Defendant Board Members knew or should have known their obligation to research and

determine the Requirements for Superintendent certification as well as Defendant Dixon's lack

of qualifications prior to instaJling Defendant Dixon as Superintendent of the 4 th largest school

district in South Carolina. According to the December 7, 2022, public acknowledgement by

the South Carolina Department of Education, their files on Anthony Dixon show no such

certification.

121. A diligent and easily accessible search by Defendants would have disclosed such lack of

certification of Defendant Dixon before November 15, 2022. Defendant McQuillin publicly

acknowledges in his November 23, 2022 statement that he reached out to Defendant Dixon to

ask ifhe was interested in the position as Superintendent in which Defendant Dixon responded
in the affmnative.

Page 20 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 122. Defendants owed a d
uty to Plaintiff th .
' e pubhc
students of Defendant BCSD ' parents, administrators, staff and the
to ensure that the hi .
requirements up hi · nng of Defendant Dixon met certification
on s appointme t
n on November 15 2022
123. Defendant failed t . , .
o act with the ne
cessary reasonable care, failed to exercise slight care,
and were negligent, reckless . . .
' willful, and/or wanton on November 15, 2022 in deciding to
substitute Defendant D' .
IXon as Superintendent to replace fully-certified Superintendent Deon
Jackson.

124.
Defend ants should have anticipated harm to Plaintiff due to their grossly negligent and

hasty decision to terminate Plaintiff.

125• Plaintiff's termination has a sufficient nexus to Defendants' acts.

126. As a direct result of the aforementioned negligence of Defendant through its employees,

and/or agents, and Defendant' s reckless, willful, and wanton lack of reasonable care that

Plaintiff incurred damages proximately resulting from the breach of duty•

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

127. Plaintiff requests a jury trial.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

128. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court declares that the defendants'

actions complained of herein violated the rights guaranteed to Plaintiffs and issue its

judgement:

a. Declaring the actions complained of herein illegal.

b. Issuing an injunction enjoining the defendants, their agents, employees, successors,

attorneys and those acting in concert or participation with the defendants, and at their

direction from engaging in the unlawful practices set forth herein: Civil Conspiracy,

Page 21 of 23

Scanned with CamScanner

 Breach of Contract
' Interference with
Defamati I . a Contractual Relationship, Violation of FOIA,
on, nvas1on f p .
o nvacy, Inte f . .
N I' n wnal Infl1ction of Emotional Distress and Gross
eg igence and any oth .
er practices found to be in violation of the common laws of the
State of South Carol '
ma.
c. Awarding Plaintiff .
compensatory and punitive damages for each cause of action
contained herein ti PI . .
or amtiff's unlawful termination by the board on November IS,
2022, which th · h , un1 wful
e Jmy s ould find appropriate as a result of the defendants · a
actions with respect to Plamt1ff's
· • causes of actwn,
. mcludmg
. • mental angms
· h, pam
· and

suffering, harm to Plaintiff's economic opportunities, any back pay, front pay and

future earnings with cost-of-living adjustments, prejudgment interest, fringe benefits

and retirement benefits·

'
d. A warding Plaintiff his cost and expenses in this action, including reasonable attorney

fees, and other litigation expenses;

e. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and necessary to afford complete

relief to the plaintiff as this court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully Submitted,

s/Donald Gist
Donald Gist (13098)
Erica McCrea (103962)
GIST LAW FIRM, P.A.
4400 North Main Street (29230)
Post Office Box 30007
Columbia, South Carolina 29230
Tel. (803) 771-8007
Fax (803) 771-0063
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for PlaintiffDeon Jackson

November 12, 2022

Page 22 of23

Scanned with CamScanner