Professional Documents
Culture Documents
District” or “Defendant”], in all capacities alleged, hereby answers the Complaint of Plaintiff
follows:
1. That this Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Plaintiff’s Complaint
2. That the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action or
any claim upon which relief may be granted against Defendant School District as a matter of law.
3. That each and every allegation of the Complaint not hereinafter admitted is
1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
1. That, upon information and belief, only so much of the allegations contained in
Plaintiff Rechel M. Anderson. Defendant denies all claims advanced under any
the Defendant. Strict proof is thereof demanded of all claims asserted in the
Complaint.
4. That only so much of the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and
elsewhere in the Complaint, is admitted as allege or imply that the Defendant School
subdivision of the State, is amenable to suit only in strict accordance with the South
Carolina Tort Claims Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10, et seq. (2016 Supp.) [“Tort
Claims Act”]. See also, §§ 15-78-20, -30(c), (d), (f), (h), and (i); 15-78-60; 15-78-
70; 15-78-100; 15-78-110; and 15-78-120 (2016 Supp.). The S.C. Tort Claims Act
and all of its immunities and defenses, including but not limited to, sovereign
preserved thereunder, serve as, and are herewith pled as, an affirmative defense and
bar to the within action brought by Plaintiff. In addition, only so much of the
Complaint, is admitted as allege or imply that Defendant School District and its
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
employees, agents, and representatives, at all times relevant concerning the Plaintiff
and the subject matters of the Plaintiff’s Complaint, were acting objectively in good
faith under the circumstances presented and with no intent to harm. By way of
further response, the Defendant School District denies any actionable conduct on its
part, or on the part of any of its agents, employees, or representatives; denies having
any contract concerning Plaintiff; denies having committed any actionable tort;
denies having committed any intentional or unintentional torts; and denies any
attempts to impose liability or seek damages or relief under any theory alleged in the
entered into between the South Carolina Department of Education, [“SCDE”], and
the School District on or about November 2, 2017, for the purpose of supporting
Brockington Elementary, Johnson Middle, and the School District has a whole; and,
the School District would crave reference to the MOA as containing the best
evidence of its specific terms, language, and provisions. Any remaining or contrary
admitted as allege or imply that on or about November 28, 2017, the School District
Board of Trustees held a meeting; and, Defendant School District would crave
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
reference to the minutes of the November 28, 2017, meeting of the School District
Board of Trustees as containing the best evidence of votes, if any, taken by the
Board of Trustees for the School District during that meeting which may pertain to
Employment Agreement was entered into between the Board of Trustees of the
School District and Dr. Rechel Anderson; and, Defendant School District would
2017, between the School District and Dr. Rechel Anderson as containing the best
evidence of its specific terms, language, and provisions. Any remaining or contrary
admitted as allege or imply that on or about January 23, 2018, the School District
Board of Trustees held a meeting; and, Defendant School District would crave
reference to the minutes of the January 23, 2018, meeting of the School District
Board of Trustees as containing the best evidence of votes, if any, taken by the
Board of Trustees for the School District during that meeting which may pertain to
10. That only so much of the allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of the Complaint is
the Professional Employment Agreement was entered into between the Board of
4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
Trustees of the School District and Dr. Rechel Anderson; and, Defendant School
Employment Agreement between the Board of Trustees of the School District and
Dr. Anderson as dated February 2, 2018, as containing the best evidence of its
specific terms, language, and provisions. Any remaining or contrary allegations are
denied.
and, thus, these are allegations which can neither be admitted nor denied or require
any response. To any extent any response may be required, these allegations are
12. That only so much of the allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of the Complaint is
with S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-1570 (Supp. 2016), a state of emergency in the School
District; and, as a result, the Board of Trustees for the School District was relieved
of its duties in the management of the School District in accordance with applicable
13. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint are denied. Strict
14. That only so much of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of the Complaint is
5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
the Board of Trustees and Dr. Rechel Anderson as dated December 22, 2017,
contains language and paragraphs regarding termination, including, but not limited
Paragraph 14 of the Complaint; however, there are other terms, provision, and
best evidence of its specific terms, language, and provisions. Any remaining or
15. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of the Complaint are denied. Strict
16. That the allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint are denied. Strict
17. That the allegations contained in Paragraphs 17 of the Complaint are denied. Strict
That the allegations contained in the Prayer for Relief contained in Complaint are
denied. The Defendant School District denies all allegations with respect to both
alleged liability and alleged damages or relief asserted in the Complaint and in the
Prayer for Relief in the Complaint. Strict proof is demanded of all allegations
against Defendant School District.
5. That Plaintiff’s claims are barred by provisions of the South Carolina Tort Claims
Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 15-78-10, et. seq. (2016 Supp.), which is herewith pled in its entirety,
including the doctrine of sovereign immunity as well as all of the immunities, limitations, and
defenses granted or preserved thereunder, and also including, but not limited to, §§15-78-20, 15-78-
6
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
30, 15-78-40, 15-78-60 [and all immunities applicable thereunder], 15-78-70, 15-78-100, 15-78-
110, 15-78-120, and 15-78-200, as well as other pertinent immunities and provisions of the Tort
Claims Act, all of which serve as and are pled as affirmative defenses and bars to the within action.
6. That Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims are barred by the doctrine of sovereign
immunity, which along with the South Carolina Tort Claims Act as hereinabove referenced, is pled
7. That at all times relevant to the allegations in the Complaint, Defendant School
District and its and their agents’ actions were privileged because they were exercising discretionary
authority, discretionary judgment, and discretionary functions in good faith and/or were carrying out
proper official duties and functions under applicable state laws and regulations with respect to the
Plaintiff; and, therefore, the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant School District are barred
because the Defendant School District is entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.
8. That the Defendant School District and its and their agents, employees, servants,
officials, and representatives, at all times relevant hereto, during the performance or non-
performance of any acts or omissions alleged in the Complaint did not perform any acts or fail to
perform any acts in bad faith, in any malicious manner, or with corrupt motives; and, therefore, the
9. That the Professional Employment Agreement and/or any contract on which the
Plaintiff bases her breach of contact cause of action and any claims alleged in the Complaint now
are void and unenforceable per the terms of the Professional Employment Agreement, and pursuant
7
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
to the provisions and applications of S.C. Code Ann. § 59-18-1570, all of which serves as and is
10. That Plaintiff has failed to exhaust all available grievance or other administrative and
available remedies; and, this serves as and is plead as a defense and bar to the within action as a
matter of law.
11. That, upon present information and belief, the Plaintiff has failed to properly
mitigate, or undertake reasonable measures to mitigate, her damages and claims which are advanced
in the Complaint; and, this serves and is plead as a defense and bar to the within action as a matter
of law.
12. That Plaintiff is not entitled to any award of attorney’s fees under S.C. Code Ann. §
15-77-300 in this action, as the Defendant School District is not a party that has acted “without
substantial justification” or has “pressed a claim” against Plaintiff, and there no “special
circumstances” justifying any potential award of attorney’s fees to Plaintiff, as a matter of law.
13. That Plaintiff is not entitled to any claimed or asserted damages, relief, attorney’s
fees or costs set forth in any of the enumerated “claims” or “causes of action” in the Complaint; in
the “Prayer for Relief” in the Complaint; or based on any matter advanced in the Complaint, as a
matter of law.
14. That the Defendant School District reserves, and specifically does not waive, any
and all additional defenses which may become evident through the discovery process or otherwise
8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 Oct 05 12:27 PM - FLORENCE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2102082
in this matter; and, in addition, Defendant reserves the right to amend this answer to include
additional defenses or withdraw others after the completion of discovery and at other times
WHEREFORE, having fully answered the Complaint, Defendant School District demands
that the Complaint and all claims asserted be dismissed with prejudice as to the Defendant in all
capacities; requests that the Defendant be awarded its costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees under
applicable statutory provisions, rules and case law, and under the S.C.R.Civ.P.; and requests that the
Court award such other and further relief as is deemed just and proper.
s/Eugene H. Matthews
Eugene H. Matthews [SC Bar #10193]