IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FILED
AUG 1 3 2003
LARRY COUMglk S G CLERK W. PROPES,

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH C A R O L I N A

AIKEN DIVISION
NICHOLAS HURSHMAN,MINOR CHILD, A BY HIS PARENTS AND NEXT FRIENDS, DENNIS AND REGINA HURSHMAN; DENNIS HURSHMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND NEXT FRIEND OF NICHOLAS HURSHMAN; REGINA HURSHMAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENT AND NEXTFRIEND OF NICHOLAS HURSHMAN; PLAINTIFFS,
-VS-

1 1
) ) ) ) ) )

1
) ) )

1
SAINT MARY HELPOF CHRISTIANS 1 CATHOLIC SCHOOL; 1 CATHOLIC DIOCESE CHARLESTON; ) OF MOSTREV.ROBERT BAKER, J. 1 INDIVIDUALLY IN HIS OFFFICIAL 1 AND CAPACITY BISHOP CHARLESTON; ) AS OF DR. MARGARET ADAMS, INDIVIDUALLY ) AND AS SUPERINTENDENT OF CATHOLIC ) SCHOOLS THE CATHOLIC FOR DIOCESE ) OF
CHARLESTON; ) JEAN COOK,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) VLCE PRINCIPAL AND TEACHER AT ) ST. MARY HELP CHRISTIANS OF CATHOLIC )

COMPLAINT (Breach of Contract, Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Negligent Misrepresentation, Harassment1 Hostile School Environment, Negligence, Retaliation, Conspiracy, Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981,as amended, Emotional DistressIOutrage)

SCHOOL; ) D. KEITHDARR,INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) PRINCIPAL ST.MARY HELP AT AT 1 CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; 1 JOAN LABONE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ) TEACHER ST.MARY HELP AT OF 1 CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; 1 MARIANNE MAYBERRY, INDIVIDUALLY ) AND AS TEACHER ST.MARY HELPOF ) AT

CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; COLLETTE MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TEACHER ST. MARY HELP OF AT CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; KIM RUSH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TEACHER ST. m Y HELPOF AT CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; GRETCHEN SCHAFFNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TEACHER ST. MARY HELPOF AT CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; ANNWARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TEACHER ST. MARY HELPOF AT CHRISTIANS CATHOLIC SCHOOL; DEFENDANTS.

The Plaintiffs, complaining of the Defendants, would respectfully show unto this Honorable Court that:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, as

amended, and 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1343(3). There is an actual controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants. This Court also has subjectmatterjurisdiction pursuantto 28 U.S.C. 1367 for claims arising under state Law. All of Plaintiffs' claims derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.
2.

Venue in this District is proper in that the events and omissions giving rise to the

claim herein arose in Aiken, South Carolina. The religious and educational parties conduct business in Aiken County and the individual parties reside in Aiken County, excepting where indicated otherwise below.

PARTIES 3.
Plaintiff Nicholas Hurshman (hereinafter "Nicholas"), a minor child, was born of a

mixed race marriage and is of mixed racial ethnicity and ancestry within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended. Nicholas lives with his parents in Aiken. A Catholic, Nicholas was a student at St. Mary Help of Christian Catholic School during the time of the events herein alleged.
4.

Plaintiff Dennis Hurshman is the father of Nicholas Hurshman. A Catholic, Mr.

Hurshman is Caucasian and within the class of persons protected by 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended.
5.

Plaintiff Regina Hurshman is the mother of Nicholas Hurshman. Mrs. Hurshman is

African-American and within the class of persons protected by 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended.
6.

Defendant Saint Mary Help of Christians Catholic School (hereinafter "St. Mary")

is a private parochial school for students in grades 5K-8. St Mary is in Aiken.

7.

Defendant Catholic Diocese of Charleston (hereinafter"the Diocese") is a non-profit

organization registered in the State of South Carolina. Upon information and belief, the Diocese holds policy, procedure, and supervisory authority over, and is the governing body for, Defendant St. Mary. The Diocese is headquartered in Charleston and, Plaintiffs believe, maintains an office in Aiken. 8. Defendant Most Rev. Robert J. Baker (hereinafter "Bishop Baker" or "Baker") is, and

was during all relevant times, the Bishop of Charleston. In that capacity, he held supervisory authority over all employees at the Diocese and St. Mary, and over all policies and procedures particular to each andlor both. Upon information and belief, Bishop Baker resides in Charleston County.
9.

Defendant Dr. Margaret Adams (hereinafter "Dr. Adams" or "Adams") is, and was

during all relevant times, the Superintendentof Catholic Schools in South Carolina. In that capacity, she held supervisory authority over all policies and procedures at St. Mary. Upon information and belief, Dr. Adam resides in Richland County. 10 Defendant Jean Cook (hereinafter "Cook") is, and was during all relevant times, the

vice principal and a teacher at St. Mary. In her capacity as vice principal, upon information and belief, Cook held ancillary supervisory authority over all other employees at St. Mary and over school policy and procedure.
11.

Defendant D. Keith D m (hereinafter "Darr") is, and was during all relevant times,

the principal at St. Mary. In that capacity, Dan held supervisory authority over all other employees at St. Mary and over all school policy and procedure.
12.

Defendant Joan LaBone (hereinafter "LaSonen) is, and was during all relevant times,

a teacher at St. Mary.

13.

Defendant Marianne Maybeny (hereinafter "Maybeny") is, and was during all

relevant times, a teacher at St. Mary.

14.

Defendant Colette Miller (hereinafter "Miller") is, and was during all relevant times,

a teacher at St. Mary.

15.

Defendant Kim Rush (hereinafter "Rush") is, and was during all relevant times, a

teacher at St. Mary.

16.

Defendant Gretchen Schaffner (hereinafter "Schafmer") is, and was during all

relevant times, a teacher at St. Mary. Upon information and belief, Ms. Schaffner resides in Richland County.
17.

Defendant Ann Ward (hereinafter "Ward") is, and was during all relevant times, a

teacher at St. Mary. 18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that for the pertinent period

Defendants Baker, Adams, Cook, D m , LaBone, Maybeny, Miller, Rush, Schaffner and Ward were agents, employees, representativesand/or servants of Defendant St. M q andor DefendantDiocese, and, unless otherwise indicated, acted within the course and scope of their employment. Plaintiffs are further informed, believe, and allege that each Defendant consented to, ratified and/or authorized the acts alleged herein as to all other Defendants. 19. The conduct of the individual Defendants is so alleged in their respective individual

capacities to the extent the said conduct was outside the scope of that conduct reasonably necessary for the effectuation of their respective job duties. To the extent that their conduct was within that scope, claims are alleged against them in their official capacities.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
20. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegationcontained

in Paragraphs 1 through 19, as if fully set forth herein. 21. Beginning with kindergarten in 1995, Dennis and Regina Hurshman entered into

annual contracts with St. Mary for the education of their son Nicholas. Pursuant to the terms of the

contract, they agreed to pay annual tuition and other fees to the school in consideration for an education with religious underpinnings for Nicholas. The Hurshmans believed that a St. Mary education would fortify their multi-racial child spiritually as well as intellectually for any problems he might encounter as a result of his ethnicity and ancestry. The Hurshmans intended for Nicholas to graduate from St. Mary. 22. For Nicholas' seventh grade year (2001-2002), the Hurshmans paid tuition fees of

Two Thousand Six Hundred Eighty-three Dollars ($2,683.00) and additional fees of Three Hundred Seventy-two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($372.50). Upon information and belief, their contract was the same contract entered into by all St Mary parents. The contract provided that Plaintiffs would enjoy the same benefits, privileges, terms and conditions enjoyed by all other St. Mary parents and children. 23. contract. 24. Nicholas' performance and behavior at St. Mary were exemplary. He maintained The Hurshrnans at all times fully performed their duties and obligations under the

excellent grades and was an honor roll student. He never had to be disciplined for untoward behavior. He went on school trips and participated in numerous extracurricularactivities, including the All-star basketball team. Nicholas held deep friendships with the majority of his classmates. They, as well as the faculty and staff, thought highly of him. 25. On August 27,2001, at the start of his seventh grade year, Nicholas was a student in

Defendant Cook's social studies class. Cook asked him how he would classify himself racially. Nicholas was the only non-Caucasian in class; no other child had his ethnic or ancestral background. When Nicholas said he classified himself as "Other," Cook told him that he was wrong. She said he was "Negroid" and that he must identify himself as "Negroid." The teacher asked no other student for their racial classification and she offered no explanation for singling out Nicholas. 26. Cook's statements embarrassed and hurniliatedNicholas. They had anegative effect

on the entire class. Students later apologized to Nicholas for the teacher's behavior. Upon information and belief, many of them told their parents that Cook called Nicholas a "nigger" or that what she said was tantamount to calling him a "nigger."

27.

Nicholas told his parents about the incident and they immediately contacted the

principal, Defendant Dm, to request a meeting with him and Cook. At the meeting, attended by Dennis Hurshman, Dan admitted that Cook should not have been used the term "Negroid.". He assured Mr. Hurshman that the teacher would apologize to Nicholas when the class next met. During this meeting, Cook stated that St. Mary ''wasn't for everyone." 28. Cook apologized to Nicholas in class. However, the teacher qualified her apology

with the admonition that she was ashamed of the students for telling their parents about her comments. 29. During this time, the Hurshmans learned that the previous school year Cook told her

sixth grade class, which included Nicholas, that she voted for a Ku Klux Klansman in the last presidential election. The Hurshmans also learned that another teacher at St. Mary had previously instructed their multi-racial son to check "B1ack"as his race on national test forms.
30.

The Hurshrnans met with the late Monsignor Evatt to discuss Cook's pronouncement

that she supported an avowed Klansman for president and her slur that "St. Mary isn't for everyone." The Hurshmans made clear to the monsignor that their multi-racial child's ethnic identification was a personal matter appropriately determined by the Hurshman family, not the school. Evatt promised to investigate the matter.
3 1.

Dennis Hurshman also met with Defendant D m and Defendant Adams. Deirdre

Mays, then Diocese Director of Communications, and Kathleen Memtt, Diocese Director of Ethnic Ministries, were also present. The meeting was purportedly part of a fact-finding trip, at the behest of Bishop Baker, to learn about the Cook incident. Again, the Hurshmans made clear to all present that their multi-racial child's ethnic identification was a personal matter appropriately determined

by the Hurshman family, not the school. Ultimately, nothing came of the meeting. 32. On or about the same day, one or more defendants issued to the news media a press

release on St. Mary stationery that contained misleading information about the "Negroid" incident. 33. For the rest of the year, Nicholas was the object of a series of discriminatory acts and

a pattern of harassment perpetuated and condoned by the defendants. The teachers and administration treated Nicholas differently than they treated his classmates and differently from the way they treated him in previous years at St. Mary. 34. The Hurshmans sought remedial action throughout the year. Throughout, Nicholas'

teachers subjected him to a campaign of public humiliation to punish him and his parents for complaining. The unwelcome discriminatory conduct and harassment had the purpose and/or effect of substantially interfering with Nicholas' education and/or creating an intimidating, hostile and offensive educational environment. 35. In September 2001, Cook began giving Nicholas poor grades without justification or

good cause. She applied to Nicholas a different grading standard than she applied to his classmates. Cook offered no explanation for the deviation. The Hurshmans contacted Cook about the matter and informed school officials of the deviation, but no remedial action was taken. 36. In or about November 2001 another teacher, Defendant Ward, improperly graded a

paper of Nick's, then punished h i for purportedly failing to correct the paper. Ward sent Nicholas to detention. In his eight years at St. Mary, Nicholas had never even received a demerit, much less been punished with detention. No other child in Ward's class was sent to detention for failing to correct an improperly graded paper. Nicholas' punishment was unwarranted. 37. At about the same time, Defendant Maybeny required Nicholas to redo an

assignment. She outlined the form it was to be in and set a due date. Nicholas completed the assignment according to Maybeny's instructions and timely turned in the assignment.

Nevertheless, Maybeny, refused to give him credit for it. The teacher accepted and gave the other children credit for properly completed assignments turned in by their due dates. Nicholas was the only student in the class subjected to this type of discrimination.
38.

The discrimination and harassment continued after the holidays. On a wet and

freezing day in February of 2002, Nicholas and his classmates were outside walking to Mass (which was in a different building) when Defendant Rush yelled at Nicholas to remove his jacket and take it back to his locker. Rush did not yell at any of the other children or order them to take off their jackets in inclement weather and return them to their lockers. Nicholas had never been subjected to such treatment by Rush or any other faculty or staff member at St. Mary. As a direct result of obeying Rush, Nicholas suffered a throat infection that required medication and made him miss days at school.

39.

The Hurshmans immediately notified Defendants Dan and Adams (and the late

Monsignor Evatt) of the jacket incident and, again, of the continuing discriminationand harassment of Nicholas at school. Defendants still failed to take appropriate steps to stop the unwelcome conduct. 40.

In March, Defendant Shaffner twice admonished Nicholas in front of his classmates

without justification or good cause. On one occasion, Shaffner accused Nicholas of coming to school improperly dressed; on another occasion, Schaffner rebuked and humiliated the child when his shoelace became untied. The Hurshmans always took particular pains to ensure that Nicholas strictly complied with St. Mary's dress code. He was at all times properly dressed for school and

he had never faced an accusation like Shaffner's. Moreover, none of Nicholas' classmates were rebuked or humiliated by Shaffner when their shoelace became untied. Shaffner's rebuke was the culmination of two days of unjustified verbal abuse of Nicholas. 41. Also during this period, Defendant LaBone, without good cause, ordered Nicholas

to dig through wet trash to retrieve an old quiz. Once he did, LaBone refused to touch it herself, and ordered that it be thrown away. The teacher forced no other child in the class to rummage through unsanitary, wet trash for any reason. 42. On another occasion, Defendant LaBone affixed a "smiley face" next to a failing

grade on a paper of Nicholas'. None of his classmates were subjected to this type of ridicule. Nor had Nicholas ever been subjected to ridicule such as this.
43.

These events prompted Dennis and Regina Hurshman to yet again notify the school

authorities that their child was being singled out and harassed. Again, to no avail. The defendants' abuse of Nicholas continued relentlessly and unabated. 44. At the end of the year, Defendant Miller gave Nicholas an "F" in religion. This was

the first failing grade Nicholas received in his eight years at St. Mary. Months before, in February 2003, the Hurshmans wrote Miller and asked to see their son's graded assignments. Miller ignored the letter, even though it was St. Mary's policy to send graded assignmentshome for parental review. Parents acknowledged receipt of their child's graded assignments by signing and returning them to the appropriate teacher. Miller failed to comply with school policy.
45.

Even after the Hurshmans had removed Nicholas from St. Mary, the defendants

continued to discriminate against them. In 2003, St. Mary parish hosted the All-star basketball
game. It was open to parishioners and, thus, Nicholas was fully qualified to play. He had, in fact,

played the two previous years. This year, St. Mary faculty and staff, without cause or justification, caused Nicholas to be barred from playing in the All-star basketball game.

46.

The negative atmosphere engendered by the defendants, both at the school and by the

Diocese, and their failure to quickly and finally resolve the issues, seeped into the Aiken community. The plaintiffs continue to suffer palpable and pervasive ill-will. Within hours of anight basketball game at St. Mary's, which the Hurshmans attended so that Nicholas could support his exclassmates, they awoke on a Sunday morning to find "KKK spray-painted in 2-foot tall letters on the garage door. The Hurshmans' fear and apprehension were and remain so great that they have been forced to employ extraordinary measures to protect themselves.
47.

Pursuant to the contract, Nicholas was entitled to a peaceful atmosphere at St. Mary

where he could study and learn academic subjects and about his religious faith free of discrimination and harassment.
48.

Further, the Hurshmans were entitled to performance by the Defendants in the same

manner in which the Defendants performed pursuant to like contracts with parents of students who were not of mixed race.
49.

As a consequence of the ongoing discrimination and harassment, and of the failure

of the Defendants to address and resolve the discrimination and harassment, the Hurshmans were forced to withdraw Nicholas from St. Mary and he was unable to complete his course of study there and graduate with his friends and classmates of eight years.

50.

As a consequence of the stress of the ongoing discrimination and harassment, and of

the failure of the Defendants to address and resolve the discrimination and harassment, Dennis and Regina Hurshman separated for a period of time.

5 1.

As a consequence of the stress of the ongoing discrimination and harassment, and of

the failure of the Defendants to address and resolve the discrimination and harassment, each of the Hurshmans was forced to seek professional counseling and Regina Hurshman lost her business.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Contract)

52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 5 1 as if fi~lly forth herein. set 53. Defendants breached the contract by failing to provide a peaceful atmosphere in

which Nicholas could study and learn his academic subjects and about his religious faith free of discrimination and harassment. 54. Defendants further breached the contract by failing to stop the discrimination and

harassment against Nicholas, upon receiving notice of same. 55.

56.

Defendants' actions were unjustifiable and in breach of material terms of the contract. As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans incurred actual and consequential

damages, and other pecuniary damages. 57. Further, the Hurshmans are entitled to reasonable attorney fees together with costs.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 57, as if fully set forth herein. 59. Defendants failed and refused to stop the ongoing harassment and discrimination

against Nicholas.
60.

Defendants' failure and refusal to stop the harassment and discrimination was

intentional and in bad faith. In so doing, Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by acting in a manner designed to force the Hurshmans to withdraw Nicholas kom St Mary. 61. As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans were forced to withdraw Nicholas

from St. Mary, and they suffered and will continue to suffer damages. 62. By reason of the foregoing breach, the Hurshmans are entitled to a judgment of

compensatory, special, and consequential damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Misrepresentation)

63.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 62, as if fully set forth herein

64.

Defendants had a pecuniary interest in representing to the Hurshmans that St. Mary

would provide a peaceful atmosphere and quality education to Nicholas. The Hurshmansjustifiably relied on Defendants' representations in enrolling Nicholas. Defendants had a duty to be truthful to the Hurshmans and to convey truthful information to them. 65. Defendants knew or should have known that some of its agents, servants and

employees supported organizations that are hostile toward certain races, would be insensitive to noncaucasian students and would humiliate and embarrass them in the classroom setting. Defendants breached their duty to the Plaintiffs by failing to exercise due care in its representations. 66. Defendants' representations to the Hurshmans were grossly negligent, intentional,

wilful, wanton, malicious, reckless and in conscious disregard of the Hurshmans' rights. 67. As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans suffered and continue to suffer

mental pain and anguish, severe emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and fear.

68.

By reason of the acts and omissions of Defendants as set forth above, the Hurshmans

are entitled to an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial, along with punitive damages in an appropriate amount, and for attorneys' fees and costs.

FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, as Amended, Harassment/Hostile School Environment)
69. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 68, as if fully set forth herein.

70.

Defendants' conduct was based on Nicholas' ethnicity and heritage, and was

unwelcome.
7 1.

Upon information and belief, Defendants had policies and procedures for the purpose

of ensuring that all students were treated fairly and equitably, and that no student would be discriminated against or harassed on the basis of ethnicity and heritage.

72.

The harassment Nicholas suffered was sufficiently severe and pervasive and

objectively offensive that it altered the privileges, terms, and condition of his school environment, effectively depriving him of the benefits and privileges of an education in a peaceful environment.

73.

Defendants had actual knowledge and notice of the discrimination and harassment

against Nicholas by their agents, servantsandor employees and knew or should have known that the discrimination and harassment was not abated. Defendants failed and refused to adequately respond to, redress, and end the harassment and racially hostile environment. The acts and omissions of the individuals are imputable to Defendants Diocese and St. M r . ay
74.

Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the discrimination and harassment

Nicholas suffered and a conscious disregard of his right to be free of discrimination and harassment

based upon his ethnicity and heritage. Further, Defendants deprived Nicholas of an educational opportunity equal to that of white students at St. Mary.

75.

As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans suffered and continue to suffer

mental pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation.
76.

Accordingly, the Hurshmans areentitled to compensatory and punitive damages, and

attorneys' fees and costs

FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence)

77.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 76, as if fully set forth herein.

78.

Defendants had a duty to properly and adequately train their agents, servants and/or

employees on the use and/or misuse of all matters of discrimination and matters that could be construed as discriminatory, including the use of racial overtones, stereotypes, and derogatory statements. Defendants had complete control over their agents, servants and employees. Defendants knew or should have known of the necessity and opportunities to exercise that control and had a duty to control their agents, servants and employees.
79.

Defendants failed at every opportunity to exercise control of their agents, servants

and/or employees.
80.

Defendants had a duty to ensure that Nicholas was treated the same as all other

students at St. Mary. Defendants breached their duty and were wanton, willful and reckless in some one or all of the aforesaid particulars and the following particulars:
A.

Failing to timely and adequately address the Hurshrnans' legitimate concerns about discrimination and harassment suffered by Nicholas;

B.
C.

Failing to adequately instruct its faculty and staff on the use of ethnically sensitive materials: Failing to adequately monitor faculty and staff when discriminatory incidents and harassment were reported by the Hurshmans; Failing to instruct their agents, servants andlor employees to respect the Hurshmans' right to determine the ethnic classification of Nicholas; Failing to ensure that policies against discrimination and harassment were implemented and followed at St. Mary; Failing to ensure harassment didnot occur in retaliation for reporting incidents of discrimination; Failing to exercise the degree of care and caution that reasonable and prudent organizations and schools would have exercised under the circumstances then and there prevailing, which failure was the direct and proximate cause of the damages and injuries suffered by the Hurshmans.

D.

E.

F.

G.

8 1.

Defendants knew or should have known that failing to treat Nicholas the same as all

other students at St. M r would cause him and his family to suffer damages. As a result of the ay foregoing acts and omissions, the Hurshmans suffered and continue to suffer depression, mental anguish, emotional suffering and fear. 82. Defendants' actions were willful, wanton, reckless, malicious, and in conscious

disregard for the rights of the Hurshmans.

83.

As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans suffered and continueto suffer mental

pain and anguish, severe emotional trauma, embarrassment, and humiliation.

84.

Accordingly, the Hurshmans are entitled to an award of actual damages in an amount

to be determined at trial, along with punitive damages in an appropriate amount, and for attorneys' fees and the costs of this action.

FOR A SIXTH CAUSE O F ACTION (Civil Conspiracy)

85.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 84, as if hlly set forth herein.

86.

Defendants conspired and acted in concert to force the Hurshmans to withdraw

Nicholas from St. Mary.

87.

Defendants knew or should have known that their discrimination and harassment of

Nicholas would force the Hurshmans to withdraw Nicholas.

88.

Defendants' conspiratorial acts and omissions were intentional, willful, wanton,

reckless, malicious, and in conscious disregard for the Hurshmans' rights.

89 .

Accordingly, the Hurshmans are entitled to an award of actual damages in an amount

to be determined at trial, along with punitive damages in an appropriate amount, and for attorneys' fees and the costs of this action. FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, as Amended, Retaliation)
90.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 89, as if fully set forth herein.

91.

Dennis Hurshman and Regina Hurshman, a mixed race couple, opposed ethnic

classification by Defendants which they reasonably believed to be discriminatory.

92.

Nicholas was humiliated, embarrassed, and disturbed by the teachers' conduct,

including their statements regarding his ethnicity, and he reasonably believed it to be discriminatory. He reported the incidents to his parents. By so doing, Nicholas engaged in protected activity.
93.

The Hurshmans engaged in protected activity by reporting to Defendants acts of

discrimination based on their status as a mixed race couple and Nicholas' ethnicity and heritage. 94. Defendants retaliated by relentlessly harassing and discriminating against Nicholas.

Defendants' actions were intentional, malicious, and designed to injure the Hurshmans.
95.

As a direct and proximate result, the Hurshmans were forced to withdraw Nicholas

from St. Mary and they suffered severe mental pain and anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, frustration, suspicion and fear.
96.

Accordingly, the Hurshmans are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages in

amounts to be determined by the jury,along with punitive damages in an appropriate amount, and for attorneys' fees and the costs of this action.
FOR AN EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended) 98.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 97, as if fully set forth herein. 99. Defendants' acts and omissions violated the Hurshmans constitutional rights as set

forth in 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended.

100.

As adirect and proximate result, the Hurshmans suffered damages for which they seek

recovery from Defendants.

101.

Accordingly, the Hurshmans are entitled to an award of compensatorydamages for the

damages suffered and they are entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct by Defendants, and to punish Defendants for the acts and omissions as herein alleged.

FOR AN NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Emotional DistressIOutrage)

102. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained

in Paragraphs 1 through 101, as if fully set forth herein. 103. Defendants intentionally and maliciously inflicted severe emotional distress upon

Plaintiffs by failing to address Plaintiffs' legitimate concerns about events the occurring at St. Mary, and by harassing and punishing the minor child without good cause. 104. Defendants' conduct was so extreme, abusive and outrageousas to exceed all possible

bounds of decency and was atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. 105. Further, Defendantsknew that their acts and omissionswere certain to cause Plaintiffs

severe emotional distress. 106. Defendants' conduct did, in fact, cause Plaintiffs severe emotional distress, and the

conduct was such that no reasonable man could be expected to endure. 107. Solely by reason of the foregoing malicious and outrageous conduct of Defendants,

Plaintiffs were damaged. 108. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment of punitive damages against

Defendant as determined by an amount to be set by this court and jury.

PRAYER FOR JUDGMENT

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for an award of damages against the Defendants, jointly
and severally, in the amount of:
A.

Actual damages, consequential damages, special damages, all damages available

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, as amended, and punitive damages, all not to exceed six million dollars

B.
C.

Reasonable attorneys' fees; The costs of this action; and Other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and just. Respectfully submitted, LEEVY LAW

D.

Gloria Y. Leevy, ID No. 7 i 9 9 Kristine L. ES&, ID No. 7b76 191 1 Taylor Street Post Office Box 50623 Columbia, South Carolina 29250-0623 Tel: 803,933-0215 Fax: 803,933-0210 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Columbia, South Carolina August 13,2003