DOCUMENT 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
2/23/2017 10:18 AM
03-CV-2017-900286.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA
TIFFANY B. MCCORD, CLERK
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, ALABAMA

WARREN CRAIG POUNCEY, )

)
Plaintiff )
)
v. )
) CASE NO.:
MARY SCOTT HUNTER; )
PHILIP CLEVELAND; )
JULIANA TEIXEIRA DEAN; )
JAMES R. WARD, III; )
SUSAN TUDOR CROWTHER; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANT A, )
the person who drafted the anonymous letter that )
was delivered to the Members of the Alabama State )
Board of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS B, the person who )
accessed and printed out the emails that were )
attached to the anonymous letter delivered to the )
Members of the Alabama State Board )
of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS C, the person who )
sent or otherwise delivered the anonymous letter )
and emails to the Members of the Alabama State )
Board of Education; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS D, E and F, )
the persons, partnerships, firms, corporations, )
lobbyists, PACs or other entities who participated )
in the scheme or influenced those involved in the )
scheme to disparage Dr. Pounceys reputation so as to )
improperly influence the votes of the Members of )
the Alabama State Board of Education for )
Superintendent; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS G, H and I, )
the persons, who participated in the decision )
to send the anonymous letter to the Ethics )
Commission; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS J, K and L, )
the persons who leaked the Ethics Commission )
letter to the Press; )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS M, N and O, )
the persons who falsely accused Pouncey of being )
under investigation by the Ethics Commission; and )
FICTITIOUS DEFENDANTS P, Q and R )
 DOCUMENT 2

the other persons, firms, corporations or entities )

whose wrongful conduct caused harm to the Plaintiff. )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Dr. Warren Craig Pouncey is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of

the State of Alabama. Dr. Pouncey received his Bachelors of Science Degree in Elementary

Education from Troy State University in 1980; his Masters in Science Degree in Elementary

Education from Troy State University in 1985; his Administration Certification from Troy State

University 1987; his Educational Specialist Degree in Education Leadership from Auburn

University/Montgomery in 1993; and Doctor in Education Degree in Education Leadership from

Samford University 2010. From July 2003 through June 2014, Dr. Pouncey worked for the

Alabama State Department of Education (ALSDE) in various capacities including Director of

Administration and Finance; Assistant State Superintendent, Administrative and Financial

Services; Deputy State Superintendent of Education, Administrative and Financial Services; and

Chief of Staff. Dr. Pouncey currently serves as Superintendent of Jefferson County Schools and

has done so since July 2014.

2. Defendant Mary Scott Hunter is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of the

State of Alabama. At all material times, she served as a Member of the Alabama State Board of

Education (the Board). Defendant Hunter is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being

sued personally and in her individual capacity only.

3. Defendant Philip Cleveland is of legal age and is a citizen and resident of the State

of Alabama. At all material times, he served as the Interim State Superintendent of Education.
 DOCUMENT 2

Defendant Cleveland is not being sued in his official capacity. He is being sued personally and in

his individual capacity only.

4. Defendant Julianna Teixeira Dean is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama.

At all material times, she served as General Counsel for the Alabama State Department of

Education (ALSDE). Defendant Dean is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being sued

personally and in her individual capacity only.

5. Defendant James R. Ward, III, is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama. At

all material times, he served as Associate General Counsel for the Alabama State Department of

Education (ALSDE). Defendant Ward is not being sued in his official capacity. He is being sued

personally and in his individual capacity only.

6. Defendant Susan Tudor Crowther, is a citizen and resident of the State of Alabama.

At all material times, she served as Associate General Counsel for the Alabama State Department

of Education (ALSDE). Defendant Crowther is not being sued in her official capacity. She is being

sued personally and in his individual capacity only.

7. Fictitious Defendant A, is the person who drafted the anonymous letter that was

delivered to the members of the Alabama State Board of Education.

8. Fictitious Defendant B, is the person who accessed and printed out the emails

that were attached to the anonymous letter delivered to the members of the Alabama State Board

of Education.

9. Fictitious Defendant C, is the person who sent or otherwise delivered the

anonymous letter and emails to the members of the Alabama State Board of Education.

10. Fictitious Defendants D, E and F are the persons, partnerships, firms,

corporations, lobbyists, PACs or other entities who participated in the scheme or influenced those
 DOCUMENT 2

involved in the scheme to disparage Dr. Pounceys reputation so as to improperly influence the

votes of the members of the Alabama State Board of Education for Superintendent.

11. Fictitious Defendants G, H and I are the persons, firms, corporations or other

entities who participated in the decision to send the anonymous letter to the Ethics Commission.

12. Fictitious Defendants J, K and L are the persons who leaked the Ethics

Commission letter to the Press.

13. Fictitious Defendants M, N and O are the persons who falsely accused Dr.

Pouncey of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.

14. Fictitious Defendants P, Q and R are the other persons, firms, corporations

or other entities whose wrongful conduct caused harm to Dr. Pouncey.

15. The Fictitious Defendants are not known to Dr. Pouncey at this time or if their

identities are known to him at this time, their identities as proper party defendants are not known

to him. Their true and correct names will be substituted by amendments when the necessary

information is ascertained.

STATEMENTS REGARDING LACK OF IMMUNITY

16. All claims in this lawsuit are made against the Defendants and Fictitious

Defendants personally and individually. Their wrongful acts and omissions were willful,

malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and/or beyond their authority.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

17. On March 14, 2016, the Board held a Special Meeting to discuss the Process for

selection of an Interim Superintendent to replace then State School Superintendent Tommy Bice
 DOCUMENT 2

who was retiring effective March 31, 2016. The Board also voted 5-4 that the Interim State

Superintendent would not be eligible to serve as State Superintendent.

18. On April 14, 2016, the Board named Defendant Cleveland as the Interim State

Superintendent. The Board also set out the following timeline for the selection of the State

Superintendent:

April 18, 2016 Alabama State Department of Education Releases Notice

of Interest Packet to the Public.

June 6, 2016 Deadline for Candidates to Submit Completed Notice of

Interest Packet to the Attention of Juliana Dean at
packet@alsde.edu.

June 9, 2016 Packets Provided to the State Board of Education Members

by Close of Business.

July 2016 Candidate Interviews; dates to be determined at

www.alsde.edu

July 12, 2016 Statutory Alabama State Board of Education Meeting (Ala.
Code, Section 163-7); discussion of candidates and
possible selection of State Superintendent of Education,
with potential start date of August 1, 2016.

19. On May 18, 2016, Dr. Pouncey submitted his application for State Superintendent

of Education.

20. Michael Sentance also submitted an application for State Superintendent of

Education.

21. On June 27, 2016, Mr. Sentance withdrew his name from consideration.

22. Defendant Hunter expressed to Defendant Dean that she was disappointed that Mr.

Sentance had withdrawn his name and that Defendant Dean should call Mr. Sentance. Defendant

Dean then called Mr. Sentance and falsely told him that the Board of Education members wanted

him to reconsider when in fact, only Defendant Hunter had expressed a desire for Sentance to
 DOCUMENT 2

reconsider.

23. Mr. Sentance agreed to resubmit his name in spite of the fact that the deadline to

submits ones name had passed. Without consultation or approval by the Board, Defendant Dean

placed Mr. Sentances name back on the list of candidates for Superintendent.

24. At the Board Meeting on July 12, 2016, the members held an in-depth discussions

regarding the number of candidates to be interviewed for the Superintendents position. The Board

voted to limit the number of candidates to the top 5 candidates unless there was a tie. Every

member of the Board except Defendant Hunter and Governor Bentley listed Dr. Pouncey as one

of their preferences. Dr. Pouncey received the most recommendations, a total of 7. Mr. Sentance

was tied for 5th with 3 votes. Only one candidate received fewer recommendations than Mr.

Sentance.

25. At the July 12, 2016, meeting, some of the members of the Board were given an

anonymous letter that alleged Dr. Pouncey plagiarized his doctoral dissertation and misused state

resources to do so. The accusations related to events that occurred more than 6 years earlier.

Most of the members did not pay attention to the letter because it was anonymous.

26. On July 14, 2016, Defendant Hunter met Defendant Cleveland in a parking deck

and gave him her copy of the anonymous letter.

27. Defendant Cleveland delivered the anonymous letter to Defendant Dean and

stated in substance, you are not going to let someone else beat you to the Ethics Commission,

are you?

28. Alabama Code 1975 36-25-4 expressly prohibited the Ethics Commission from

taking any investigatory action against Dr. Pouncey on an anonymous complaint. The law also

provides that any felony Ethics prosecution must be commenced within four years after the
 DOCUMENT 2

commission of the offense and any misdemeanor prosecution must be commenced within two

years after the commission of the offense. Thus, even if the allegations in the anonymous

complaint were true, the Ethics Commission was prohibited by law from investigating or

charging Dr. Pouncey with a crime.

29. On July 14, 2016, Defendant Hunter, without approval or consultation with the

other Board Members, called Tom Albritton, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission.

Defendant Hunter told him about the allegations, but did not tell Albritton that the complaint was

anonymous or that the accusations related to things that, even if true, occurred more than 6 years

before and that the statute of limitations had run.

30. On July 15, 2016, Hugh Evans, the General Counsel of the Ethics Commission, at

Albrittons direction, called Defendant Dean about the letter. At that time, Evans did not know

that the complaint against Pouncey was anonymous or that the statute of limitations had run even

if the accusations had any merit.

31. Defendant Dean then hand-delivered a copy of the anonymous complaint. Based

upon his conversations with Albritton and Defendant Dean, Evans concluded that there was

urgency on the part of the Department of Education in getting a response from the Ethics

Commission. Therefore, later on July 15, 2016, Evans wrote Defendant Dean to acknowledge

receipt of the complaint. Evans did not even suggest that an investigation would be done.

32. On July 20, 2016, Defendant Ward contacted Samford University and falsely

accused Dr. Pouncey of plagiarizing his dissertation.

33. On July 22, 2017, Defendant Ward sent a Memorandum to Defendant Dean in

reference to Recommendations concerning the allegations about Dr. Craig Pouncey. (Exhibit

A) Among other things, the Memorandum set out four options for Defendant Cleveland
 DOCUMENT 2

regarding the anonymous letter and Wards recommendations, all of which were designed to hurt

Dr. Pouncey.

34. Defendants Hunter, Cleveland, Dean, Ward and Crowther had numerous

discussions and emails where they discussed various options to disparage Dr. Pouncey and to

make the false accusations against him public. The Defendants never consulted with the other

members of the Board and did not have Board approval for their wrongful conduct.

35. On August 2, 2016, Dr. Pouncey sent a letter to Defendant Dean to respond to the

anonymous complaint. (Exhibit B) and included letters from Dr. Pounceys primary dissertation

typist, his proofer and an adjunct professor at Samford who was a member of Dr. Pounceys

Dissertation Committee, each refuting the false allegations in the anonymous complaint.

36. Dr. Pouncey also provided Defendant Dean with substantial documentation of his

research and personal notes on yellow pads he used to prepare his dissertation.

37. Dr. Pouncey produced clear evidence to the Defendants that all of the accusations

contained in the anonymous complaint were false.

38. Defendant Dean notified Defendant Hunter about Dr. Pounceys response and the

yellow pads.

39. On August 4, 2016, Defendant Hunter emailed Defendant Dean about the yellow

pads and stated that This has been a very troubling development. Ill be disappointed if the Ethics

Commission and Samford can't update the Board in advance of the vote on August 11.

40. Between August 4, 2016 and August 7, 2016, Defendant Hunter attended the

Business Council of Alabama (BCA) Conference at Point Clear, Alabama. Defendant Hunter told

many people, including state legislators, that Dr. Pouncey could not be considered for the

Superintendents position due to the ethics charges, which were not true.
 DOCUMENT 2

41. On August 8, 2016, Alabama Political Reporters Editor in Chief emailed

Defendant Hunter saying he had heard that someone had filed an ethics complaint against Dr.

Pouncey; that Defendant Hunter had told people at the BCA gathering at Point Clear she could

not vote for Dr. Pouncey given the ethics complaint; and he requested verification of this

information from Defendant Hunter.

42. On the next day, August 9, 2016, the Alabama Political Reporter ran a story and

included the July 15, 2016, letter from the Ethics Commission, a letter which should never have

been released.

43. On August 11, 2016, the Board selected Mr. Sentance to be the Superintendent.

44. As a result of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants as set out herein, Pouncey

suffered the following injuries and damages: he lost the superintendents position and the income

and benefits associated with this position; his ability to earn a living has been damaged because

of the publication of these false accusations which will follow him for the rest of his career; his

reputation has been irreparably damaged; he has suffered emotional distress, mental anguish,

worry, anxiety, humiliation and embarrassment; and he has otherwise been injured and damaged.

COUNT I
(CONSPIRACY)

45. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

46. The Defendants conspired, acted in concert and developed a scheme for the

unlawful purposes of falsely accusing Dr. Pouncey of, among other things, plagiarizing his

dissertation; committing ethics violations; committing crimes; and being under investigation by

the Ethics Commission.

47. The Defendants intentionally and maliciously conspired to disparage Dr. Pounceys

reputation; to place him in a false light to the public; to have him investigated and prosecuted for
 DOCUMENT 2

crimes he did not commit; to attempt to get Samford University to revoke Dr. Pounceys doctorate

degree; and committed other unlawful acts against Dr. Pouncey; all for the purpose of hurting Dr.

Pouncey and improperly influencing the votes of the members Board of Education for

Superintendent.

48. The Defendants were motivated by their own personal desires to prevent Dr.

Pouncey from becoming the Superintendent of Education.

49. The Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith, beyond

their authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public education

of the children of the State of Alabama.

50. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was damaged as set out in the Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against all Defendants in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT II
(MALICIOUS PROSECUTION)

51. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

52. The Code of Ethics for Public Officials, Employees, Etc., specifically Alabama

Code 1975 36-25-24(c), provides that no public employee shall file a complaint or otherwise

initiate action against a public official or other public employee without a good faith basis for

believing the complaint to be true and accurate.

53. The Defendants knew or should have known of the following requirements of law

set out in Alabama Code 1975 36-25-4, entitled State Ethics Commission -- Duties;

complaint; investigation; hearing; fees; finding of violation:

 DOCUMENT 2

A. That the Ethics Commission was prohibited by law from taking any

investigatory action Dr. Pouncey based on an anonymous complaint.

B. Investigatory action by the Ethics Commission from an identifiable

source, such as Defendants Hunter and Dean, shall not be initiated until

the true identity of the source has been ascertained and written verification

of such ascertainment is in the commission's files, neither of which was

done concerning Dr. Pouncey;

C. An Ethics Complaint can only be filed by a person who has or persons

who have credible and verifiable information supporting the allegations

contained in the complaint which none of the Defendants had related to

Dr. Pouncey;

D. A complainant may not file a complaint for another person or persons in

order to circumvent this anonymity prohibition;

E. Even if the accusations in the anonymous letter were true, the statute of

limitations had run and the Ethics Commission would have no jurisdiction

to consider the charges anyway; and

54. The Defendants knew that they did not have a good faith belief that that the

anonymous complaint made against Dr. Pouncey was true and accurate.

55. The Ethics complaint ended in favor of Dr. Pouncey.

56. The Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and

beyond her authority.

57. As a result of the Defendants actions in initiating an Ethic complaint, Dr. Pouncey

was harmed as set out above.

 DOCUMENT 2

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT III
(ABUSE OF PROCESS)

58. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

59. The Defendants had an ulterior purpose when they contacted the Ethics

Commission and delivered the anonymous letter to it.

60. The Defendants willfully used the Ethics Commission processes to achieve ends it

was not meant forto hurt Dr. Pouncey and to improperly influence the votes of the members of

the Board for Superintendent.

61. The Defendants were aware Dr. Pouncey had not committed any ethics violation

or crimes.

62. The Defendants knew that their abuse of the Ethics Commission processes would

harm Dr. Pouncey and they intended for their acts to harm Dr. Pouncey.

63. The Defendants abuse of the Ethics Commission processes was in violation of

Alabama Code 1975 36-25-24(c) which provides that no public employee shall file a complaint

or otherwise initiate action against a public official or other public employee without a good faith

basis for believing the complaint to be true and accurate.

64. The Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and

beyond their authority.

65. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Hunter in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT IV
 DOCUMENT 2

(INVASION OF PRIVACY)

66. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

67. The Defendants intentionally publicized false information about Dr. Pouncey

accusing him, among other things, of plagiarizing his dissertation; of committing ethics

violations and crimes; and of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.

68. The Defendants knew when they publicized the information it would place Dr.

Pouncey in a false light, or they acted with reckless disregard to whether Dr. Pouncey would be

placed in a false light;

69. These statements were highly offensive and the Defendants knew they were false

and knew the false light in which Dr. Pouncey was placed.

70. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge and

intent to hurt and discredit Dr. Pouncey.

71. The information placed Dr. Pouncey in a false light in the public eye and the false

light would be highly offensive to any reasonable person.

72. The Defendants conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and

beyond their authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public

education of the children of the State of Alabama.

73. The false light Dr. Pouncey was put in caused him harm as set out above.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendants in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT V
(DEFAMATION by HUNTER)

74. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.
 DOCUMENT 2

75. Defendant Hunter maliciously told and/or published numerous false and

defamatory statements accusing Pouncey of being under investigation by the Ethics Commission.

76. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge of their

falsity.

77. Defendant Hunters conduct was willful, malicious, fraudulent, in bad faith and

beyond her authority and was not based on the good of the Department, the Board or the public

education of the children of the State of Alabama.

78. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Hunter in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT VI
(DEFAMATION by WARD)

79. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

80. Defendant Ward made false statements and assisted the other Defendants in making

false statements about Dr. Pouncey including contacting Samford University and stating that Dr.

Pouncey had plagiarized his doctoral dissertation.

81. Defendant Wards sole purpose was a part of the unlawful scheme of the

Defendants to get someone outside the Department to investigate or accuse Dr. Pouncey of crimes

or misconduct prior to the vote by the Board for Superintendent.

82. The statements were made and published with malice and with knowledge of their

falsity or were negligently, wantonly or recklessly done and were done for the purpose of

improperly influencing the votes of the members of the Board for Superintendent.

83. As a result, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set out above.
 DOCUMENT 2

WHEREFORE, Pouncey demands judgment against Defendant Ward in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT VII
(OUTRAGE)

84. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all prior paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in

full.

85. The Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct was likely to cause

Dr. Pouncey emotional distress;

86. The Defendants conduct was extreme and outrageous.

87. The Defendants conduct was so extreme in degree that it goes beyond all bounds

of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society;

88. The Defendants conduct caused Dr. Pouncey to suffer emotional distress under

circumstances that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against all Defendants in a fair and

reasonable amount of compensatory and punitive damages plus interest and costs.

COUNT VIII
(NEGLIGENT, WANTON, RECKLESS and/or INTENTIONAL
MISCONDUCT)

89. Dr. Pouncey re-alleges all paragraphs of the Complaint as if set out here in full.

90. The Defendants negligently, wantonly, recklessly and/or intentionally conducted

an unlawful scheme to ruin Dr. Pounceys name.

91. The Defendants were motivated by their own personal desires to prevent Dr.

Pouncey from becoming the Superintendent of Education.

92. The Defendants conduct was in bad faith, beyond their authority and was not based
 DOCUMENT 2

on the good of the Department, the Board or the public education of the children of the State of

Alabama.

93. As a result of the wrongful conduct, Dr. Pouncey was injured and damaged as set

out above.

WHEREFORE, Dr. Pouncey demands judgment against Defendants in a fair and just

amount of compensatory and punitive damages to be determined by a jury, plus interest and costs.

S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn
Kenneth J. Mendelsohn (MEN 001)
Attorney for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

JEMISON & MENDELSOHN

1772 Platt Place
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
(334) 213-2323 (Telephone)
(334) 213-5663 (Facsimile)
Email: kenny@jmfirm.com

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY ON

ALL ISSUES IN THE COMPLAINT

S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn
OF COUNSEL

Defendants should be served by certified mail as follows:

MARY SCOTT HUNTER

Post Office Box 18572
Huntsville, AL 35804
 DOCUMENT 2

PHILIP CLEVELAND
50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

JULIANA TEIXEIRA DEAN

50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

JAMES R. WARD, III

50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

SUSAN TUDOR CROWTHER

50 North Ripley Street
P.O. Box 302101
Montgomery, Alabama 36104

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing pleading has been served
upon the Attorney General of the State of Alabama by United States Mail on this the 23rd
day of February, 2017.

S/ Kenneth J. Mendelsohn
OF COUNSEL