Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Keith P. Grounsell,
Plaintiff,
v. SUMMONS
Defendants.
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy
of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the
subscriber at the address shown below within thirty (30) days (thirty five (35) days if served by
United States Mail) after service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service, and if you fail to
answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in
the Complaint.
Keith P. Grounsell,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendants.
Carolina.
3. Defendant Janice Curtis is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, she served as
Mayor of the Defendant City, and is an owner of a now defunct publication The Simpsonville
Banner.
previously a member of the Defendant City’s Council, and was an owner of The Simpsonville
Banner.
5. Defendant Perry Eichor is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was previously
mayor of the Defendant City, and was an owner of The Simpsonville Banner.
Page 1 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
6. Defendant Pamela Garrett is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was an
owner of The Simpsonville Banner, and ran blogs via Facebook directed to residents of the
7. Defendant Elizabeth Kelly Fann is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, was
an owner of The Simpsonville Banner, and ran a blog for The Simpsonville Banner via
8. Defendant Stephanie Amy Kelly is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, she
worked for The Simpsonville Banner at times relevant hereto, and she is currently a member
10. This Court exercises subject matter jurisdiction which involves claims of wrongful
and conspiracy.
FACTUAL OCCURRENCES
12. Plaintiff was hired on September 18, 2012 as the Defendant City’s Chief of Police.
13. Plaintiff, prior to accepting employment with the Defendant City, had a
14. Plaintiff, in that prior career, never received any substantial formal employee
15. Plaintiff, due to personal politics, was terminated from his post for non-work-
related reasons on December 28, 2012. Specifically, Plaintiff was terminated after he
investigated and compiled an investigatory file on a rouge Assistant Chief who was involved
Page 2 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
in various inappropriate behaviors that resulted in the waste, fraud, and abuse of public
monies.
16. Plaintiff was discouraged from investigating the subject Assistant Chief by the then
serving Mayor, Defendant Eichor, and City Administrator. Defendant Eichor specifically
17. Plaintiff, justifiably believing fair and equal supervision of all department employees
was part of his mandate to faithfully serve as chief, persisted in his investigation and was
18. Defendant Eichor then held a press conference on February 4, 2013 at his office
where he implied that the Plaintiff and one of the Defendant City’s Councilwomen were
the subject of a criminal investigation. This false implication was republished by several
19. One of the Defendant City’s Council Members publicly apologized for Plaintiff’s
termination at a June 2013 council meeting. That Councilman stated that there was no
cause for Plaintiff’s termination and indicated to Plaintiff, privately, that he voted for the
1
Notably, as tensions preceding Plaintiff’s termination were escalating, the majority of the Defendant
City’s Police Officers generated a joint letter to Council in support of Plaintiff, attended council
meetings in solidarity, and threatened to resign en masse. Defendant Eichor directed Plaintiff to
discipline (and even terminate some of) those police officers, and Plaintiff refused as the same was a
blatant First Amendment violation. Defendant Eichor later mislead public media to believe that
morale was low in its Police Department because the Defendant City hired Plaintiff instead of an
insider.
Also of note, Plaintiff requested but was denied a hearing prior to that termination in violation of S.C.
Code Ann. § 8-27-30, and Defendant Eichor made defamatory publications to media in the midst of
Plaintiff’s termination that falsely impugned him with professional unfitness.
Page 3 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
20. Next, however, at the July 23, 2013 council meeting, another Council Member
publicly stated in open session that the Plaintiff had denied an employee a grievance. This
statement was false, undermined Plaintiff’s professional reputation, and Plaintiff was
flyers that indicated that Plaintiff, and Council Members who supported Plaintiff, were
boycotting local businesses. Plaintiff also received an anonymous letter discouraging him
22. Next at the Defendant City’s Council Meeting on January 14, 2014, a newly-elected
council voted to terminate the employment of the Defendant City’s Administrator who
had been heavily involved in many of the events and occurrences leading to Plaintiff’s initial
termination.
23. Nevertheless, after that meeting, Defendant Eichor maintained publicly, to various
press outlets, a false accusation that Plaintiff was terminated for lying about his
24. The Defendant City next rescinded that termination on February 25, 2014 by a
majority vote of the Defendant City’s Council and restored Plaintiff as Police Chief.
25. The elected majority of Defendant’s City Council supported Plaintiff and did not
inappropriately interfere with his work as Police Chief from February 2014 through
December 2015.
26. Nevertheless, undue interference with Plaintiff’s job from Defendant Eichor and
Page 4 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
27. On April 22, 2014, Defendant Eichor was charged with misconduct, obstruction of
justice, and threatening a court official and was subsequently removed from office by
28. The charges related to pressure Defendant Eichor exerted to prevent the
29. The banner protested Plaintiff’s receipt of backpay when he was reinstated.
However, Plaintiff kept himself as removed as possible from the ordinance violation at
issue given the content of the banner, and Plaintiff did not engage in any inappropriate
conduct.
30. Defendant Eichor was ultimately convicted of two of those charges on June 9, 2015.
31. While on bond awaiting trial, Defendant Eichor and others, including Defendants
Garrett, Kelly, Fann, and George and Janice Curtis, formed The Simpsonville Banner to
publicly attack Plaintiff. The Simpsonville Banner was first published in May 2014. Throughout
its publication, The Simpsonville Banner decried that backpay was paid to Plaintiff when he
was reinstated as Police Chief, criticized officials of the Defendant City’s Council who
supported Plaintiff, and went so far as to compare Plaintiff to a mob boss and Adolf Hitler.
32. A new council was elected in November 2015 and then sworn in on January 2016,
which included Defendant Janice Curtis as Mayor and other Council Members who were
supported by Defendants Eichor, Garrett, Fann, Kelly, and George Curtis who opposed
33. Upon taking office, Defendant Janice Curtis and her supporters made harmful
statements about Plaintiff to media outlets and simultaneously threatened him, through the
Page 5 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
Defendant City’s Administrator, with discipline should he make comments to the media in
response.
34. Defendant Curtis interfered with the performance of Plaintiff’s job including
protesting a successful joint-agency prostitution sting that Plaintiff helped run (because she
felt it unfairly made it appear that sex crimes occurred within Simpsonville City limits,
which they did) and when she refused to sign a check to pay for a national accreditation for
35. Around this same time, Plaintiff was provided with credible evidence of violations
of State Ethics Law and possible criminal violations by various Council Members who were
newly elected in November 2015 and sworn in January 2016. Plaintiff timely and
36. On or before March 14, 2016, Defendant Curtis directed the Defendant City’s
Administrator to reprimand the Plaintiff. The City Administrator informed Plaintiff that he
believed they were both being unfairly targeted for termination and urged the Plaintiff to
37. Next on March 22, 2016, one of the Council Members who was elected with
Defendant Janice Curtis confessed to Plaintiff that Defendant Janice Curtis was personally
motivated to remove Plaintiff and that he did not understand why. Plaintiff also informed
that Council Member of the ethics violations and potential criminal violations he had
38. That same day, Defendant Janice Curtis further interfered with Plaintiff’s work by
revealing the identity of an undercover patrol vehicle that was actively being used in
Page 6 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
39. Plaintiff was then suspended, without a vote of the Defendant City’s Council, on
April 1, 2016.
40. That same day, the Defendant City’s Administrator indicated to Plaintiff that he was
suspended, in part, based on a report he had made to the South Carolina Law Enforcement
Division, when he was not the Defendant City’s police chief, about various individuals
connected to (and including the) Individual Defendants George and Janice Curtis, Garrett,
42. That request was denied on April 4, 2018 following an executive session when the
43. At the same time as Plaintiff’s suspension, a press release was issued, and comments
were made to media outlets, upon information and belief, by the Individual Defendants
44. Such insinuations were false, known to be false, and made based on a refuted
45. Plaintiff was also criticized for a social media post where he, as police chief, clarified
that a report of an armed robbery that was circulating on social media was false.
46. After placing the Plaintiff on suspension, the Defendant City conducted an
investigation that was over-broad, undescriptive, and clearly implied to the Plaintiff that the
Defendant City was simply looking for a plausible reason to terminate him. The
investigation proceeded such that when Plaintiff disproved the initial grounds used for his
suspension the Defendant City searched, deep into the past, for new grounds after the fact.
47. On May 27, 2016, approximately one month after he returned from suspension,
Plaintiff made a formal report to the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division about
Page 7 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
various actions by Defendant Janice Curtis, upon information and belief with the support
of the Individual Defendants, based on a good faith belief that those actions might give
48. That same day, Defendant City’s Administrator confided in Plaintiff that he was
becoming stressed at work because Defendant Janice Curtis was constantly pressuring him
to reprimand Plaintiff. Plaintiff informed the City Administrator of his SLED complaint at
that time. During that meeting, Plaintiff also requested but was denied the authority to
Defendants.
49. Next on June 1, 2016, Defendant Janice Curtis called for an Emergency Meeting of
50. Prior to that meeting, the Defendant City’s Administrator and a Councilman came
to Plaintiff and informed him that Defendant Janice Curtis had the votes to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment and that he could either resign or be terminated. Plaintiff, having
already suffered a wrongful termination and suspension absent fair process by the
51. After Plaintiff resigned, Defendant Janice Curtis issued a statement placing the
blame for “drama” at the Defendant City on the Plaintiff and stating that it was best for
52. Plaintiff’s last day at work for the Defendant City, pursuant to his resignation, was
53. Plaintiff’s reputation has been harmed by the Defendant City’s constructive
discharge of him and comments by Defendant Janice Curtis thereafter including that false
accusations about Plaintiff are easily searchable online and Plaintiff encountered difficulties
Page 8 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
finding employment. After 5 months of unemployment and several failed attempts at re-
employment in the United States, Plaintiff was forced to accept employment overseas for
a Government Contractor. Plaintiff’s work overseas has caused Plaintiff’s Class 1 Law
Enforcement Certification to lapse making it more difficult for him to find re-employment
55. Plaintiff was constructively discharged by the Defendant City on June 1, 2016 on
pretextual grounds.
56. Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for reports he made to the South Carolina
Ethics Commission and/or the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division in violation of
clear mandates of public policy including the following sources of publicly policy mandates:
1. The South Carolina Ethics Law. S.C. Code Ann. § 8-13-10 et seq.
3. The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-10
et seq. specifically the provisions governing Plaintiff’s requests for and denial
57. Plaintiff was similarly terminated in violation of clear mandates of public policy
Page 9 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
2. City of Simpsonville Ordinance § 2-31 providing that each Council Member
including the Defendant Mayor have only one vote and rendering Defendant
3. The South Carolina Freedom of Information Act. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-10
and the Defendant City is liable for all damages resulting therefrom.
59. Those damages include: back pay, lost benefits, diminished earning capacity,
61. The Defendant City forced Plaintiff to resign during a period of defamatory
62. The Defendant City ratified prior defamatory remarks about the Plaintiff by doing
so and is responsible for defamatory remarks by Defendant Janice Curtis that Plaintiff’s
resignation was in the best interests of the City and that the Plaintiff was responsible for
63. The Defendant City defamed Plaintiff by word and act as set forth here with
Constitutional Malice in reckless disregard for the truth and knowledge of the falsity of the
64. The publications described herein were made publicly to media outlets and remain
Page 10 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
65. These publications have lessened Plaintiff’s esteem in his profession and have
caused him other damages which the Defendant City is liable for.
66. Those damages include: reputational harm, lost goodwill, diminished earning
68. The Defendant City owed Plaintiff a duty in public comment, discipline of Plaintiff,
and the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s employment arising from its duty to supervise
its employees and the foreseeability of harm to Plaintiff’s protected property interests in
69. The Defendant City breached that duty when it failed to appropriately supervise its
employees, allowed its officials to engage in defamatory commentary to the public about
70. The Defendant City failed to exercise even the slightest care and its negligence and
71. The Defendant City directly and proximately caused damages to the Plaintiff
72. Those damages are not for personal injury nor any injuries compensable under the
73. Plaintiff seeks damages for this action to include: reputational harm, lost goodwill,
and recoverable pecuniary losses which would not be compensable under the South
Page 11 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Against Defendants Janice Curtis, George Curtis, Perry Eichor, Pamela Garrett,
Elizabeth Kelly Fann, and Stephanie Kelly
Defamation
75. The here-named Defendants defamed Plaintiff’s by word and act overtly and via
their shared publication The Simpsonville Banner and various blogs via Facebook.
76. Such publications were made with Constitutional Malice involving publications
made with knowing falsity and reckless disregard for the truth.
77. Such publications have been widely disseminated through media outlets and the use
78. Such publications averred that Plaintiff was professionally unfit and corrupt and
79. The here-named Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for the defamation alleged which
caused damages that include: reputational harm, lost goodwill, diminished earning capacity,
80. The here-named Defendants intentionally defamed Plaintiff acting outside the
course and scope of their service to the Defendant City and the Plaintiff is entitled to
82. The here-named Defendants fully aware of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with
the Defendant City unjustifiably interfered with the same and brought about Plaintiff’s
termination.
Page 12 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
83. The here-named Defendants did so through overt actions, the use of The Simpsonville
84. Those actions were undertaken intentionally and outside of any scope of service
held by the above-named Defendants toward the Defendant City. With respect to
Defendant Janice Curtis specifically, her actions were outside the scope of her service as
Mayor to the Defendant City as she acted unilaterally in contravention of law and
ordinance.
85. The same constitutes a tortious interference with contract which has harmed the
86. This tortious interference with contract caused Plaintiff damages which include: lost
income, lost benefits, diminished earning capacity, shock, humiliation, reputational loss,
87. Plaintiff is further entitled to punitive damages for the intentional conduct of the
above-named Defendants.
89. The here-named Defendants conspired together and with others to harm Plaintiff,
tarnish his reputation, coerce him to resign from the Defendant City, and bring about his
The Simpsonville Banner and various informal media outlets and groups with the purpose and
Page 13 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
91. The here-named defendants did so for personal reasons disconnected from any
92. The same constitutes an unlawful conspiracy which has caused the Plaintiff special
damages.
93. Those damages include: loss of sleep, loss of companionship, severe stress and
anxiety, reduced earning capacity due to black listing, and the costs and fees of prosecuting
this action.
94. The here-named defendants’ conduct was intentional, and Plaintiff is entitled to
89. Plaintiff requests that a jury award him all damages available at law and requested
90. Plaintiff further requests that the individual Defendants be taxed punitive damages
91. Plaintiff requests that damages be awarded jointly and severally against the
Defendants.
92. Plaintiff requests that the Defendant City be held vicariously liable for its servants
94. Plaintiff last requests the costs and fees of this action and any equitable relief the
Page 14 of 15
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2018 May 31 2:02 PM - GREENVILLE - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2018CP2303106
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC
Page 15 of 15