federal defamation case out of florida

8/13/2019 Federal defamation case out of Florida

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/federal-defamation-case-out-of-florida 1/30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

KAREN S. PEDDIE, KEVIN CASE NO.

JACK PEDDIE, KYLER PEDDIE,

KAMILLE PEDDIE MANN,

MANDIE FOWLER, JASON

FOWLER, DANA S. BURNS,

And STEPHANIE HOFHEINZ,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARDand GLORIA GAY JOHNSON UZZELL,

individually,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, KAREN S. PEDDIE, KEVIN JACK PEDDIE, KYLER PEDDIE,

MANDIE FOWLER, JASON FOWLER, DANA S. BURNS, STEPANIE HOFHEINZ

and KAMILLE PEDDIE MANN sue Defendants, LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL

BOARD and GLORIA GAY JOHNSON UZZELL, individually, and allege:

JURISDICTION

1. This is an action involving the violation of Plaintiffs’ federal civil rights.

This action also contains state claims pursuant to this Court’s concurrent and pendant

jurisdiction. The aggregate amount of damages claimed by Plaintiffs against Defendants

is in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), the jurisdictional amount

required for venue in this Court.

Case 4:13-cv-00649-RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 12/02/13 of 30



2

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that

this is a civil action arising under the Constitution of the United States.

3. Jurisdiction of the Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3) in

that this action seeks to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, of rights secured

to the Plaintiffs by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the

United States of America.

PARTIES

4. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, KAREN S. PEDDIE, has been a

resident of Liberty County, Florida, and was employed with the Defendant Liberty

County School Board (hereinafter “LCSB”). The incidents alleged herein occurred in

Liberty County, Florida. Plaintiff Karen Peddie is thus sui juris.

5. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, JACK KEVIN PEDDIE, has been

a resident of Liberty County, Florida. The incidents alleged herein occurred in Liberty

County. Plaintiff Jack Kevin Peddie is thus sui juris.

6. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, KYLER PEDDIE, has been a



Liberty County. Plaintiff Kyler Peddie is thus sui juris.

7. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, KAMILLE PEDDIE MANN, has

been a resident of Liberty County, Florida, and was employed with the Defendant Liberty


Liberty County. Plaintiff Kamille Peddie Mann is thus sui juris.




3

8. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, MANDIE FOWLER, has been a



Liberty County. Plaintiff Mandie Fowler is thus sui juris.

9. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, JASON FOWLER, has been a



Liberty County. Plaintiff Jason Fowler is thus sui juris.

10. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, DANA S. BURNS, has been a



Liberty County. Plaintiff Dana Burns is thus sui juris.

11. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, STEPHANIE HOFHEINZ, has

been a resident of Liberty County, Florida, and was employed with the Defendant Liberty


Liberty County. Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz is thus sui juris.

12. Defendant, LIBERTY COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD (“LCSB”), was, at

all times pertinent to this action, Plaintiffs’ employer. This Defendant is located within

the jurisdictional boundaries of this Court and was conducting business therein. This

Defendant’s offices are located in Liberty County, Florida.

13. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff, GLORIA GAY JOHNSON

UZZELL (“Uzzell”), was the Superintendent of Schools for LCSB. She is sued in her




4

individual capacity as all actions taken by her occurred in Liberty County, Florida. She is

thus sui juris.

GENERAL FACTS

14. In May 2012 Defendant Gloria Gay Johnson Uzzell began her campaign

to become the Superintendent of Liberty County Schools. The manner in which she ran

her campaign was a foreshadowing of the manner in which she would perform in the

office of the Superintendent.

15. During her campaign, Defendant Uzzell launched vicious personal attacks

on Plaintiffs as discussed more fully below largely because they supported her opponent

in the Superintendent’s race.

16. On July 6, 2012, Uzell uploaded a post on her Facebook page encouraging

her followers to make public records requests for one or more of the Plaintiffs’ emails.

She said that school board emails contained, in part, lies, evidence of improper bids,

conflict of interest, failure to report teacher misconduct and evidence of employees

engaging in illegal activities.

17. In or around October 2012, Uzzell took office as the Superintendent of

Schools in Liberty County, Florida. Once in office, Uzzell engaged in political retaliation

against Plaintiffs as a result of them not supporting her during the election and in attempt

to cover up her own misconduct. Immediately after taking office, Uzzell initiated

measures to exact her revenge as discussed more fully below.

18. On July 17, 2013, Defendant Uzzell was arrested on charges of grand

theft, official misconduct and failure to disclose information in a public records request.




5

An investigation revealed that Uzzell opened a Visa credit card account in the name of

Liberty County School Board without its approval or knowledge and made numerous

personal purchases on the Visa card including clothing, lodging, lingerie, gas, beauty

supplies, shoes, meals and alcohol. Governor Rick Scott suspended her from her public

office by Executive Order Number 13-195. The damage to Plaintiff’s reputation and

professional careers, however, had already been done.

FACTS – KAREN PEDDIE

19. Plaintiff, Karen Peddie, began her employment with the Defendant LCSB

in or around January 1995 as a teacher. In or around 2005, she was promoted to the

position of Director of Administration. Her main job duties as Director of Administration

were to manage personnel and oversee various departments within the Defendant LCSB.

20. Defendant Uzzell made numerous public false allegations regarding

Plaintiff Karen Peddie and other district level staff and their alleged indiscretions. The

administration was fiscally conservative and built a strong financial base. Instead of

applauding the administration for doing a good job, Uzell implied that the administration

hoarded funds that should have gone to teachers and staff.

21. Part of Plaintiff Karen Peddie’s duties entailed overseeing the Food

Services Department. Uzzell accused Plaintiff Karen Peddie publically of using District

labor to cater her daughter’s wedding which was false. Uzzell also accused Plaintiff

Karen Peddie of not sending teachers to an important training which was also untrue.

22. On May 31, 2013, Uzzell posted a status update and referred to Plaintiff,

along with the other Plaintiffs involved in this claim as “freebirds” in reference to a




6

picture that had been taken of Plaintiffs at a social gathering the night before. Uzzell

went on to use the Plaintiff’s initials and accuse them of putting nails in her driveway,

sending anonymous threatening letters and accused Plaintiff Jack Kevin Peddie of using

his work email to stalk her and other School Board students and staff.

23. Uzzell sought revenge for a political flyer that Plaintiffs Karen Peddie and

Kevin Peddie contributed funds to distribute and for her support of Uzzell’s opponent.

Karen Peddie was constructively discharged as no reasonable person would have

remained employed in that work environment.

FACTS – JACK “KEVIN” PEDDIE

24. Plaintiff Jack “Kevin” Peddie, wife of Karen Peddie and father of Kyler

Peddie, was not an employee of Defendant LCSB but he was a supporter of the former

Superintendent, Dr. Sue Summers.

25. Uzell went on Facebook and claimed that Plaintiff Kevin Peddie stalked

her at a high school baseball game. Plaintiff Kevin Peddie was at the game but he never

spoke to Uzzell nor did he approach her. He didn’t make one move in Uzzell’s direction.

Plaintiff Kevin Peddie watched the game and conversed with friends.

26. Uzzell accused Plaintiff of using his Tallahassee Community College

(“TCC”) email account to stalk her and students/staff of Liberty County. Nothing was

further from the truth but such an accusation coming from the Superintendent of a School

District was humiliating and embarrassing to Plaintiff. Uzzell knew that.




7

FACTS – KYLER PEDDIE

27. Plaintiff, Kyler Peddie, son of Karen and Jack Peddie, began his

employment with Defendant LCSB in or around November 2010 as a Teacher.

28. On Friday January 11, 2013, Derringer Edwards, an aide at Liberty

County High School came into Plaintiff’s classroom and said that he was needed in

Principal Aaron Day’s office. Plaintiff Kyler Peddie met with Day and Assistant

Principal Craig Shuler and was told to report to WR Tolar School on Monday January 14,

2013, as he was being transferred. Plaintiff Kyler Peddie asked what would happen to his

engineering class and he was told that the students would be absorbed into other classes.

He also asked what he would be teaching at Tolar. Day and Shuler told Plaintiff they

didn’t know.

29. Plaintiff Kyler Peddie reported to Tolar and met with Principal Link

Barber to ask what he would be teaching. Barber said that he was uncertain at that time.

Plaintiff asked Barber why he was being transferred and Barber told him that he really

didn’t know.

30. The collective bargaining agreement, to which Plaintiff Kyler Peddie is a

covered party, requires that teachers be given prior notice before being transferred.

Plaintiff filed a grievance, along with his aunt, Plaintiff Kamille Peddie Mann, who was

also inexplicably transferred.

31. Realizing that his position with the Defendant was in serious jeopardy,

Plaintiff sought and obtained employment elsewhere and he was constructively

terminated from the Defendant School Board.




8

FACTS – KAMILLE PEDDIE MANN

32. Plaintiff Kamille Peddie Mann began her employment with Defendant

LCSB in the 2006-2007 school year as a teacher.

33. On Friday January 11, 2013, Plaintiff Kamille Mann was interrupted in

the middle of one of her classes by Derringer Edwards, who told her she was needed in

the office. Plaintiff met with Principal Aaron Day and Assistant Principal Craig Shuler.

At that meeting, Plaintiff was told that on Monday January 14, 2013, she would begin

working at WR Tolar Middle School as a middle school science teacher. Plaintiff Mann

asked why she was being transferred and Day said that he could only assume that she was

needed there. Plaintiff Mann’s classes were disrupted the rest of the day as she cleared

her classroom.

34. Plaintiff later met with Tolar Principal, Link Barber. He told Plaintiff that

he didn’t know why she was transferred. As discussed above, her nephew, Plaintiff

Kyler Peddie, was also inexplicably transferred as well.

35. The collective bargaining agreement under which Plaintiff was covered,

required 7 day written notice of a transfer and then only with School Board approval.

Consequently, Plaintiff Mann along with her nephew, Plaintiff Kyler Peddie, filed a

grievance. The only thing that came of the grievance was a letter stating that it served as

the required written notice.

36. After the grievance was filed, Defendant Uzzell met with Plaintiff Kamille

Mann and stated that she wanted Plaintiff in a leadership position for the Science

department. Uzzell stated that she wanted Plaintiff to travel to investigate other school’s




9

science curriculum. After this, Uzzell didn’t speak to Plaintiff Mann again. She was

never sent to visit other schools or participate in any leadership activities. Plaintiff Mann

is certified to teach Biology. She was replaced by a teacher with no experience in

Biology and no certification in Biology. Plaintiff’s transfer not only disrupted her

Biology students but it disrupted the middle school students as well.

37. On Sunday July 28, 2013, on a public online forum, Topix.com, a post

was made stating, “Jason Fowler, Sue Summers and Kyle Peddie covered up a 2009

investigation of Kammy Mann and another teacher drinking while supervising students

on a senior trip. The emails are public record and have been forwarded to the appropriate

people.” This post was false.

FACTS – MANDIE FOWLER

38. Plaintiff, Mandie Fowler, wife of Plaintiff Jason Fowler, began her

employment with Defendant LCSB in or around December 2000 as a Teacher.

39. As discussed in Paragraph 47 below, Uzzell falsely stated Plaintiff Mandie

Fowler’s husband made well over $75,000 per year and that once the new budget was

passed he would be making $100,000.

40. In October 2012, Uzzell emailed Plaintiff Mandie Fowler and told her that

Dr. Larry Hutchinson, the 21st Century Community Learning Center (“CCLC”) External

Evaluator, had resigned his position. Dr. Hutchinson had submitted a public records

request during the election regarding her work history. Uzzell then told Plaintiff Mandie

Fowler that she was not to talk to Dr. Hutchinson anymore, that he had “accosted her”

and that he had been removed by the police from her office.




10

41. In January 2013, Plaintiff Mandie Fowler received word that Uzzell

promised Plaintiff’s 21st CCLC Project Manager position to one of her political

supporters. In light of this information, Plaintiff resigned from the position to save

herself from being fired. She was thus constructively terminated from her position.

42. Also in January 2013, Uzzell had her secretary, Mary Eubanks, call all

School Board members and tell them that there was a major grant report that had been

due in July 2012 that Plaintiff did not complete and she needed to hire Josh Summers

effective immediately to complete the report. Josh Summers had no experience in this

area but he was a political supporter. Concerned about her professional reputation,

Plaintiff Mandie Fowler called each School Board member and informed them that there

were no incomplete reports. Once the Board members began to question Uzzell about the

alleged incomplete reports, she told the Board members that her secretary made the story

up or misunderstood her intentions.

43. During the week of May 27, 2013, Plaintiff’s husband, Plaintiff Jason

Fowler submitted several Public Records requests at the School Board office. On May

28, 2013, Plaintiff Mandie Fowler’s principal, Jeff Sewell, informed Plaintiff Mandie

Fowler that she was being transferred because she had spoken out against Uzzell.

Plaintiff Mandie Fowler was taken out of a position that she was certified in and placed

into a position in which she had no experience. The new position was slated for

absorption because only two children were in the classroom. Plaintiff Mandie Fowler

filed an informal grievance.




11

44. On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff Mandie Fowler received permission from the

school Dean, Seth Geiger, to move some of her things from her old school to her new

school. She then called the school secretary at Tolar, Tammy Pullen, to find out where to

put her things. She called the Hosford secretary, Tonia Cobb, and asked her to sign her

out. Plaintiff met with her new principal, Craig Shuler, about her new duties. Shuler

told Plaintiff that he asked Uzzell if he could place Plaintiff in a middle school position

since that is what her experience and certification is in. Uzzell asked Shuler while

pointing at the transfer document, “Can you read? She will be teaching ESE.”

45. On the morning of June 1, 2013, Mr. Sewell was instructed by Ms. Uzzell

to reprimand Plaintiff Mandie Fowler because she did not have permission to go to Tolar,

had not physically signed herself out and she had been harassing Tammy Pullam. Mr.

Sewell clarified that Plaintiff Mandie Fowler had permission from Mr. Geiger to go to

Tolar. Plaintiff still received a verbal reprimand for not personally signing herself out.

This was the first reprimand Plaintiff Mandie Fowler received in the twelve years she

worked for LCSB.

FACTS – JASON FOWLER

46. Plaintiff Jason Fowler began his employment with the Defendant as the

Technology Teacher on Special Assignment in August 2005.

47. As discussed in Paragraph 39 above, during the election, Uzzell falsely

stated on Facebook that Plaintiff Jason Fowler made well over $70,000 per year and that

under the new budget he would be making over $100,000. Plaintiff responded to the




12

untrue post after which his wife, Plaintiff Mandie Fowler, received a threatening

Facebook message.

48. On or around July 29, 2012, Plaintiff Jason Fowler received a phone call

from Ms. Uzzell’s brother, Jeff Johnson. Mr. Johnson made several overt and veiled

threats including that his sister would be firing Plaintiff the first chance she got once she

was elected.

49. After the election, around December 26 or 27, 2012, Dana Burns, another

Plaintiff who did not support Uzzell during the election, spoke with Plaintiff Jason

Fowler and said that she thought her email account had been compromised. Plaintiff

Jason Fowler was in Dothan at the time and could not determine whether her account had

been compromised from his mobile browser. The only thing he could determine was that

her password had indeed been changed. Thinking this was odd, Plaintiff Jason Fowler

reached out to the Superintendent to see if she knew of any changes to Plaintiff Dana

Burns account. Uzzell told Plaintiff Jason Fowler that since Plaintiff Dana Burns was

going to transfer from the Secretary to the Superintendent of Schools position to a School

Board position, she wanted her to have a new email address so she had Jack Glunt, the

Network Specialist for the District, change her password. This explanation did not make

sense because Plaintiff Jason Fowler was the one in charge of maintaining the email

system.

50. Uzzell did not indicate that Plaintiff Burns was in bad standing and should

not access the account if she requested to do so. Upon learning that her password had

been changed and a new email account had been created, Plaintiff Burns told Plaintiff




13

Jason Fowler that she had some emails she wanted to print. Plaintiff Jason Fowler agreed

to give her access to the account to print those emails as this had been allowed in times

past. Plaintiff Jason Fowler told Plaintiff Burns to tell him as soon as she printed the

email so that he could permanently close that email account.

51. At approximately 10:00 p.m. that same evening before Plaintiff Burns

could call Plaintiff Jason Fowler back, Plaintiff Jason Fowler received an email from Ms.

Uzzell indicating that Plaintiff had let Plaintiff Burns into her account against her

directive. Uzzell told Plaintiff Jason Fowler that he had one hour to file a written

response or a formal investigation would be initiated against him. As explained above,

however, no such directive had been issued.

52. Plaintiff Jason Fowler called Plaintiff Burns and asked him what

happened. At that time, Plaintiff Burns informed him that Uzzell had been logging into

her account and sending emails out to others under her name.

53. Plaintiff Jason Fowler found Uzzell’s actions highly inappropriate and

said as much in his written response that he was ordered to submit within an hour. This

did not sit well with Uzzell at all. Uzzell began to express her concern about email

security and asked Plaintiff Jason Fowler if he had access to email accounts, specifically

hers.

54. In January 2013, Plaintiff Jason Fowler met with his direct supervisor,

Kathy Nobles and Jack Glunt. At this meeting, Plaintiff was informed that Glunt would

now be in charge of the email system and that he was to share his knowledge of the

system with Glunt. Plaintiff Jason Fowler was also asked to begin creating a document




14

of all his administrative rights in the systems along with the credentials to them. Within a

few weeks, his website webmaster rights were revoked as well. Plaintiff saw the

handwriting on the wall.

55. On or around February 13, 2013, Plaintiff Jason Fowler attended a

baseball game in Blountstown where he bumped into Plaintiff Dana Burns. He hugged

Plaintiff Burns and conversed with her for a while until they parted ways. The next day,

Uzzell informed Plaintiff Jason Fowler that she heard about him speaking to Dana and

had concerns. Plaintiff had been warned by Uzzell not to speak to any members of the

former administration or those who did not wish Uzzell well. Plaintiff Jason Fowler told

Uzzell that he had known many members of the former administration for years and

considered them friends. He went on to say that he would continue those friendships but

this did not mean he would speak negatively about her.

56. In the months of April and May, 2013, Uzzell made several outlandish

accusations about Plaintiff Jason Fowler. She accused Plaintiff of participating in a

political meeting with: Kyle Peddie, Jeff Sewell and Steve Hofheinz to discuss who

would run as her opponent in the 2016 election.

57. Plaintiff was accused of being in a vehicle with Steve Hofheinz and

Jeanette McGhee plotting against her. There is supposedly photographic evidence of this

conspiratorial meeting.

58. On May 9, 2013, Uzzell called Plaintiff Jason Fowler around 9:00 a.m.

and asked him if he had ever been in the Finance Office after hours. Plaintiff told her

that he had not but she kept asking the question. Plaintiff asked Uzzell why she was




17

67. Upon Uzzell taking office, Plaintiff Dana Burns’s days were long and

hard. Plaintiff was verbally accosted and cursed out on two separate occasions. On

December 14, 2012, Plaintiff Burns requested to be transferred to WR Tolar School as

the School Secretary. On December 20, 2012, she was actually placed into the position.

68. On December 21, 2012, Plaintiff Burns noticed that her phone was

displaying an error message when she tried to log into her LCSB email account. She was

not extremely concerned initially because she assumed that the network was down.

However, after two or three days, she was still getting an error message and she became

concerned that her account may have been hacked.

69. On Wednesday December 26, 2012, as discussed in Paragraphs 49 – 53

above, Plaintiff received a call from Plaintiff Jason Fowler asking what she would like

her new email to be. Plaintiff Burns explained to Plaintiff Jason Fowler that if possible,

she would like to access her old email account to retrieve some emails. Later that

afternoon, Plaintiff Jason Fowler gave Plaintiff Burns a new password and told her to

call him when she was done so he could shut the account down.

70. When Plaintiff Dana Burns logged into her account she realized that there

were emails going out from her account making false accusations about her not doing the

job she was expected to do. Plaintiff Dana Burns called Mary Eubanks, Uzzell’s

secretary and asked her if she knew anything about the situation. Eubanks just kept

saying, “I’m so sorry. I hate this. I’m sorry.”

71. It became clear to Plaintiff Dana Burns that Uzzell was accusing Plaintiff

of things that she had not done. On Thursday January 3, 2013, Plaintiff Dana Burns




18

returned to work and went to the District Office to retrieve her personal belongings from

the office. She requested and was granted an opportunity to speak with Uzzell. Plaintiff

Dana Burns asked Uzzell if she had done something to warrant her email being seized

and the accusations of her not doing her job. Uzzell replied, “I don’t know what’s going

on in your personal life but if you could not perform the job required of you then you

should have just told me.” Plaintiff Dana Burns asked Uzzell what she meant. Uzzell

said that she had not been given phone messages. When Plaintiff Dana Burns asked

Uzzell to give her an example of who had called and she had not gotten the message,

Uzzell said Josh Summers, one of her staunch supporters had called and she didn’t get a

message. Plaintiff Dana Burns explained to Uzzell that Josh called three times and each

time chose not to leave a message stating that he knew Uzzell was busy and that he

would just get up with her later.

72. Uzzell then said, “Okay, have you been to a party saying things like ‘that

is your Superintendent?’ ” Plaintiff Dana Burns said she had not been to any parties.

Uzzell asked, “A social gathering?” Plaintiff again said no but she remembered making a

comment like that to Andy Bailey. Bailey had come into the office on a Monday

morning and asked where Uzzell was because he was “fixing to smoke her ass.” Plaintiff

Dana Burns said to Bailey, “Come on, Andy! That is your Superintendent. Take it easy

on her.” Plaintiff Dana Burns thought Bailey would understand that she was only joking

with him because he knew that she supported the former Superintendent and he supported

the current one, Uzzell.




19

73. At some point in the conversation, Uzzell told Plaintiff Dana Burns that

she knew Plaintiff had been speaking with Plaintiff Karen Peddie and Plaintiff Stephanie

Hofheinz. Plaintiff said that she had spoken with Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz briefly but

not about School Board business and she had not seen or spoken with Plaintiff Karen

Peddie in months. Uzzell told Plaintiff Dana Burns that she was not to speak with either

of them.

74. On January 10, 2013, Uzzell accused Plaintiff Dana Burns of falsifying

payroll documents for Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz. Of course, this accusation was

completely untrue. Due to the constant harassment and false accusation lodged against

Plaintiff Dana Burns by Uzzell, Plaintiff Dana Burns was constructively terminated on

January 22, 2013.

75. On April 4, 2013, Plaintiff Dana Burns received a phone call from Grant

Grantham, Liberty County High School Athletic Director regarding her son Keith who

was in the tenth grade and played baseball. Keith had been involved in a fight with a

young man who had been harassing him for weeks. He was given three days of Out of

School Suspension and was kicked off the baseball team. Though the other student had

been picking on Keith for weeks, no disciplinary action was taken against him. From that

point on, a vendetta was instigated against Plaintiff’s tenth grade son

FACTS – STEPHANIE HOFHEINZ

76. Plaintiff, Stephanie Hofheinz, began her employment with Defendant

LCSB in or around January 2003 as the Director of Finance.




20

77. Defendant Uzzell made Plaintiff’s professional life very difficult as she

refused to follow procedures with regard to obtaining prior approval for purchases which

were in place for budgetary control. Uzzell did not adhere to accounts payable

deadlines, instructed finance staff to issue manual travel checks for employees even

though published deadlines had not been adhered to.

78. As a result of Uzzell’s behavior, Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz became

physically ill from the stress. She visited her primary physician in November 2012 and

was advised to take time off from work. While Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz was on

leave, Uzzell approached her at a high school regional playoff game and told Plaintiff

Stephanie Hofheinz that she didn’t look sick to her. She told Plaintiff Stephanie

Hofheinz in front of several others that Plaintiff was wasting tax payer money.

79. Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz was also the subject of Uzzell’s Face book

remarks. Beginning in May 2012, Uzzell accused Plaintiff as well as the former

administration of misappropriating approximately $800,000 of district funds. This

allegation was false.

80. Uzzell also falsely accused Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz of accepting cash

donations from Peter Brown Construction during the construction of Hosford School.

Uzzell intimated that Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz pocketed a portion of the donations.

There was only one donation made from the construction company and the proceeds were

used to purchase food, drinks and decorations for the ground breaking ceremony held in

July 2008. The remaining cash was used for refreshments for various training and




21

meetings with multiple district participants. Receipts were maintained for all expenses

and the amount left over was placed in the vault for safe keeping.

81. Uzzell conducted meetings regarding large District expenditures without

Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz’s knowledge. She wasn’t invited to attend or give input.

82. Uzzell also falsely accused Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz of having

excessive absences but Plaintiff had over 500 hours of sick and annual leave.

83. Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz was constructively terminated in December

2012 due to the hostile work environment created by Defendant Uzzell. Uzzell, however,

continued to retaliate against Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz. Upon learning that Plaintiff

was employed with the Department of Education, Uzzell sent an email to Plaintiff’s

superiors requesting that she have no contact with Liberty County for any reason even

though part of her new job responsibilities is routing and audit findings and reviewing

budgets and required district reports for all 67 school districts in Florida. This implied

that Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz had committed wrongdoing during her employment

with the Liberty County School Board.

84. In March 2013, Plaintiff Stephanie Hofheinz applied for a job with the

Leon County School Board and two very good interviews. Upon information and belief,

Defendant Uzzell told Superintendent Jackie Pons that Liberty County had a “forensic

audit” going on. This false statement cost Plaintiff the job with Leon County.

COUNT I FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AGAINST LCSB

85. Paragraphs 1-84 are incorporated herein by reference. This Count is pled

in the alternative.




22

86. Defendants LCSB operated to violate Plaintiffs’ rights under the First

Amendment, brought through 42 U.S.C. §1983. These violations were of the type and

character as to which any reasonable person would be aware. Plaintiffs’ right to freedom

of political expression, association, participation and belief were violated. Public

employees like Plaintiffs have the right to engage in First Amendment activities without

the fear of reprisal.

87. Defendants LCSB retaliated against Plaintiffs for their First Amendment

activity as allege herein by taking adverse actions against them including but not limited

to their constructive terminations, removals from positions, defamation and horrific

allegations of wrongdoing.

88. Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their right to freedom of

association/speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States.

89. Defendants are persons under the laws applicable to this action.

Defendants are liable, both jointly and severally with each other for their conduct,

individually and in concert, to violate the civil rights of Plaintiffs under the First

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

90. Defendant Uzzell, in her official capacity, and the JCSB, misused their

power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because they were

clothed with the authority of state law. The violation of Plaintiffs’ rights, as described

above, occurred under color of state law and is actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983.




24

intangible damages. These damages have occurred in the past, and are permanent and

continuing.

97. Plaintiffs are entitled to reinstatement and other remuneration attendant

therewith including without limitation attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT II

FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION AGAINST UZZELL

98. Paragraphs 1-84 are incorporated herein by reference. This Count is pled

in the alternative.

99. Defendant Uzzell, in her individual capacity, operated to violate Plaintiffs’

rights under the First Amendment, brought through 42 U.S.C. §1983. These violations

were of the type and character as to which any reasonable person would be aware.

Plaintiffs’ right to freedom of political expression, association, participation and belief

were violated. Public employees like Plaintiffs have the right to engage in First

Amendment activities without the fear of reprisal.

100. Plaintiffs, as set forth in part above, engaged in constitutionally protected

activity by engaging in political activity by supporting the candidate of their choice and

publicly express their views. Plaintiffs conducted their activity and right to associate

politically in the general public outside of their workplace.

101. After engaging in protected activity, as related in part above, Plaintiffs

were the victims of retaliatory actions set forth in part above. Defendant Brumfield

infringed on Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected interests under the First Amendment by

harassing them, demoting them and firing them in retaliation for their protected activity.

Defendant’s actions in harassing Plaintiffs of their duties is the type of retaliatory




25

conduct that would deter persons of ordinary sensibilities from exercising their First

Amendment rights. Plaintiffs’ protected activity was a substantial or motivating factor in

the adverse actions taken.

102. The conduct of Defendant Uzzell was in callous and willful disregard of

Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights thereby authorizing an award of punitive damages against

her in her individual capacity.

103. Defendant Uzzell is a person under the laws applicable to this action.

Defendants are liable, both jointly and severally with each other for their conduct,

individually and in concert, to violate the civil rights of Plaintiffs under the First

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

104. Defendant Uzzell, in her individual capacity, personally participated in

adverse actions against Plaintiffs in violation of their First Amendment rights to associate

and engage in the political process and free speech.

105. Defendant Uzzell was the main participant in and/or made the decision to

take action against Plaintiffs after they engaged in protected First Amendment activity.

At all times pertinent hereto, Uzzell was acting under color of state law when she made

the decision to and/or participated in the adverse employment actions against Plaintiffs.

Defendant’s actions against Plaintiffs is the type of retaliatory conduct that would deter

persons of ordinary sensibilities from exercising their First Amendment rights. This

Defendant acted with malice against Plaintiffs and/or in reckless disregard of their clearly

established rights under the First Amendment.




26

106. As a direct and proximate cause of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs

suffered adverse employment actions in that they were constructively terminated. They

suffered lost wages, benefits and other tangible damages. They have also sustained

emotional pain and suffering damages, loss of the capacity for the enjoyment of life and

other intangible damages. These losses have occurred in the past, at present and are

certain to occur into the future. Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against Uzzell

and to attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §1988.

COUNT III

DEFAMATION AGAINST UZELL

107. Paragraphs 1-84 are re-alleged and are incorporated herein by reference.

108. This is an action against Defendant Uzzdell for defamation. This Count is

pled in the alternative. For the purposes of this count alone Defendant Uzzell acted

outside of the course and scope of her employment with Defendant LCSB.

109. Defendant published, caused to be published, or allowed to be published

false statements about the Plaintiff to third parties as set forth in part above.

110. Defendant in making these statements acted with negligence and/or malice

and intent in harming Plaintiffs’ reputation in the community, injuring them in their trade

or profession and deterring others from associating with them and are actionable on their

face. Defendant was negligent in publishing the false statements, and/or published the

statements with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard despite

awareness of their probable falsity.

111. As a result of the falsity of the statements made by Defendant set forth

above and the publication thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered damages which include,




27

without limitation, special and general damages. Defendant engaged in slander per se

which is actionable on its face and general damages are presumed. Alternatively,

Defendant engaged in slander per quod and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a

consequence thereof. The communications made by Defendant imputed to the Plaintiffs’

conduct, characteristics, and a condition incompatible with the exercise of their lawful

business, trade, profession and office.

112. Defendant did not publish these false statements in good faith.

113. These statements which have been made by this Defendant regarding the

Plaintiffs attribute conduct and characteristics to the Plaintiffs which in effect branded

them as incompetent and/or dishonest, which is incompatible with their functioning as a

member of their community and occupation. Few good, decent or honorable people want

to have business relationships with a person bearing the qualities attributed to them by

Defendant serving them in a personal or professional capacity.

114. As a result of the defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered extreme

humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss

of consortium, lost capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of business and profits, loss of

reputation, good standing in the community and other tangible and intangible damages.

These damages have occurred in the past, present and are reasonably expected to

continue into the future. Plaintiffs demand punitive damages and injunctive relief.

COUNT IV

DEFAMATION AGAINST LCSB

115. Paragraphs 1-84 are re-alleged and are incorporated herein by reference.




28

116. This is an action against Defendant Uzzell for defamation. This Count is

pled in the alternative. For the purposes of this count alone Defendant Uzzell acted

inside the course and scope of her employment with Defendant LCSB.

117. Defendant published, caused to be published, or allowed to be published

false statements about the Plaintiffs to third parties as set forth in part above.

118. Defendant in making these statements acted with negligence and/or malice

and intent in harming Plaintiffs’ reputation in the community, injuring them in their trade

or profession and deterring others from associating with them and are actionable on their

face. Defendant was negligent in publishing the false statements, and/or published the

statements with knowledge that they were false or with reckless disregard despite

awareness of their probable falsity.

119. As a result of the falsity of the statements made by Defendant set forth

above and the publication thereof, Plaintiffs have suffered damages which include,

without limitation, special and general damages. Defendant engaged in slander per se

which is actionable on its face and general damages are presumed. Alternatively,

Defendant engaged in slander per quod and Plaintiffs are entitled to damages as a

consequence thereof. The communications made by Defendant imputed to the Plaintiffs’

conduct, characteristics, and a condition incompatible with the exercise of their lawful

business, trade, profession and office.

120. Defendant did not publish these false statements in good faith.




29

121. These statements which have been made by this Defendant regarding the

Plaintiffs attribute conduct and characteristics to the Plaintiffs which in effect brands

them as incompetent and/or dishonest, which is incompatible with their functioning as a

member of their community and occupation. Few good, decent or honorable people want

to have business relationships with a person bearing the qualities attributed to them by

Defendant serving them in a personal or professional capacity.

122. As a result of the defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered extreme

humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss

of consortium, lost capacity for enjoyment of life, loss of business and profits, loss of

reputation, good standing in the community and other tangible and intangible damages.

These damages have occurred in the past, present and are reasonably expected to

continue into the future.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

(a) that process issue and this Court take jurisdiction over this case;

(b) that this Court grant equitable relief against Defendants under the

applicable counts set forth above, mandating Defendants’

obedience to the laws enumerated herein and providing other

equitable relief to Plaintiffs including temporary and permanent

reinstatement to their former positions within Defendants;




(c) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiffs awarding

damages to Plaintiffs from these Defendants for Defendants’

violations of law enumerated herein and punitive damages against

Brumfield;

(d) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiffs permanently

enjoining Defendants from future violations of the laws

enumerated herein;

(e) enter judgment against Defendants and for Plaintiffs awarding

Plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs; and

(f) grant such other and further relief as being just and proper under

the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues herein which are so triable.

Dated this 2nd day of December, 2013.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Marie A. MattoxMarie A. Mattox [FBN 0739685]MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.310 East Bradford RoadTallahassee, FL 32303(850) 383-4800 (telephone)

(850) 383-4801 (facsimile)ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS


federal defamation case out of florida

Documents