Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.G., a minor,
by and through Ad.G. and S.G.,
her parents and next friends,
and Ad.G. and S.G., individually,
Plaintiffs,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Now comes the Plaintiffs, A.G., a minor, by and through Ad.G. and S.G., her
parents and next friends, and Ad.G. and S.G., individually, by counsel, JB Akers and
1. A.G. is a minor child who at all relevant times resided in Mercer County,
West Virginia. Her parents and next friends, Ad.G. and S.G., at all relevant times resided
in Mercer County, West Virginia. A.G., Ad.G. and S.G.’s identities are known by the
Defendants.
County BOE”) was a political subdivision doing business in Mercer County, West
Virginia. The Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.
Defendant Mercer County BOE. Defendant Mercer County BOE is therefore liable for
the individual Defendants’ misconduct described more fully herein, through respondeat
of and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal
and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal
of and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal
7. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in and about Mercer
8. The Plaintiffs’ claims, more fully described below, arise from certain West
Virginia statutory, common law and regulatory causes of action. The Court therefore has
9. The Plaintiffs’ claims, described more fully below, may include, but are
not limited to, those allowed by West Virginia Code § 29-12A-4(c)(2) and/or (4).
10. The Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Belcher, Hayes and Akers may
include, but are not limited to, those allowed by West Virginia Code § 29-12A-5(b)(2)
and/or (3).
11. At all relevant times Plaintiff A.G. was a five year old student at
2
Mercer County, West Virginia. Defendant Hayes was and is the principal of Cumberland
Heights and Defendant Belcher was A.G.’s teacher. Defendant Akers was and is the
12. Beginning early this school year a student in A.G.’s class began bullying
her. Among other things, that student threatened to “cut” A.G. and on at least one
occasion physically assaulted A.G. in the bathroom. A.G.’s father initially notified
school personnel. When she began working at Cumberland Heights in the fall of 2018
later placed A.G. at the lunch table between the bullying student and that student’s
cousin. On that occasion A.G. was afraid and tried to move from her seat. Defendant
Belcher reportedly slammed A.G. into the lunch table to force her back into her seat.
14. In early January 2019, A.G.’s father met with Defendant Belcher about the
bullying student’s acts of misconduct that were known to him at the time. A.G. hid
behind her father during that meeting. A.G.’s father noticed this and was concerned that
A.G. was afraid to report problems or concerns to Defendant Belcher. A.G.’s father
believed her behavior related to her fear of the bullying student. A.G. came home from
school that day very withdrawn. She cried the next morning before school.
A.G. by the backpack and pushed her. While doing so, Defendant Belcher pulled out
some of A.G.’s hair. That same day Defendant Belcher grabbed A.G. by the arms, shook
her and screamed in her face. Defendant Belcher then forced A.G. to sit on the classroom
3
rug beside the bullying student. A.G. cried and became nauseous. That night A.G. told
her father that Defendant Belcher pulled on her arm and screamed in her face. A.G. also
told her father that she asked several times to call home but she was disallowed. That
was the first notice A.G.’s parents had of Defendant Belcher’s individual acts of
16. The following school morning A.G. begged her father to not reveal the
incidents she reported to him regarding Defendant Belcher. Due in part to the awkward
position of having S.G. work in the same school system and believing the prior day’s
events were isolated, A.G.’s parents agreed with their daughter, which they now regret.
Upon picking A.G. up from school that day A.G.’s father noticed an unexplained red
mark on A.G.’s forehead. A.G. told her father that the bullying student had now also
threatened to “shoot” her. A.G.’s father immediately returned to the school and talked
with Defendant Belcher and Defendant Hayes. Defendant Hayes stated that A.G. simply
needed to know who to stay away from. Later that day, A.G.’s parents found a knot on
her head of unknown origin in the same location as the red mark.
17. Upon information and belief, Defendant’s Belcher’s prior abusive and
neglectful behavior was repeatedly reported by a teacher’s aide to Defendants Hayes and
Akers before it was ever known to A.G.’s parents. That behavior exceeds the limited
misconduct towards A.G. and other students. Defendants Hayes and Akers were
reportedly notified that A.G. was just one of several children whom Defendant Belcher
4
18. Despite the fact that Defendants Hayes and Akers are mandatory reporters
under W.Va. Code § 49-2-803, they did not comply with their legal reporting duties. In
fact, Defendants Hayes and Akers appear to have never been reported Defendant Belcher
to legal authorities.
19. Article XII of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia requires a
thorough and efficient system of free schools. It is well-settled that the education of
20. W.Va. Code § 18-2C-1 declares that a safe and civil environment is an
educational necessity.
21. 126 C.S.R. 162-3.2 requires all West Virginia public school employees to
violence or any other code of conduct violation that impacts negatively on students.
22. 126 C.S.R. 162-4.2.2-3 requires all West Virginia public school personnel
are accepted and free from harassment, intimidation, bullying and violence.
23. 126 C.S.R. 162-4.2.5 requires all West Virginia public school personnel to
immediately intervene in any code of conduct violation that has a negative impact on
students.
superintendents such as Defendant Akers to make decisions that promote the long-term
5
25. W.Va. Code § 18-2C-3 prohibits harassment, intimidation or bullying of
students such as A.G. That statute furthermore requires notification of parents when any
26. The foregoing is not an exhaustive list of the Defendants’ individual and
collective legal duties and obligations. However, the law clearly provides protection for
students such as A.G. and her parents from the specific acts of misconduct described in
this Complaint.
27. The provisions of law described herein largely if not wholly involve
public safety statutes. Defendants’ violation of those statutes is, at a minimum, prima
28. A.G.’s parents removed her from Cumberland Heights after the
Defendants’ failure to protect A.G. and due to A.G.’s fear of Defendant Belcher. Soon
after, they were made aware of the full extent of Defendant Belcher’s abusive and
29. At all relevant times S.G. was employed by Defendant Mercer County
30. In the spring and fall of 2018, S.G. participated in the reporting and
investigation of a teacher in her own school who was allegedly abusive and neglectful
of the financial records at the school. S.G. had undergone similar audits in the spring of
2017 and the spring of 2018 that came back with positive reviews. However, her fall
2018 comprehensive audit for the first time contained several negative findings.
6
32. The release of the negative audit report occurred approximately two
months after one of S.G.’s former teachers was criminally charged, with her assistance,
and about one month after her husband first complained to Cumberland Heights
33. On or about January 11, 2019, S.G. was summoned to a meeting with
Defendant Akers regarding her fall 2018 audit results. During that meeting Defendant
Akers made several negative comments towards S.G. Among other things Defendant
Akers told S.G. that she may want to consider other employment options. This was the
first time that S.G. was told anything like this during her long-term employment with
Defendant MCBOE.
34. Upon information and belief, prior to that January 11, 2019 meeting,
Defendant Akers was put on repeated notice of Defendant Belcher’s abusive and
was one of the students who was reportedly subjected to Defendant Belcher’s abuse and
neglect and upon information and belief Defendant Akers knew this. Defendant Akers
also knew that one of S.G.’s former teachers had been criminally charged with S.G.’s
assistance. Some or all of the Defendants also knew that Ad.G. had previously
35. S.G.’s employment claims, as described more fully in this Complaint, fall
outside the limitations of W.Va. Code §29-12A-1 et seq. since some of the relief sought
seq.
7
Count I – Negligence/Civil Assault and Battery
37. At all relevant times the Defendants, jointly and severally, had a duty to
use reasonable care towards five year old A.G. and S.G. with regard to Defendant Akers
The Defendants breached their duty to use reasonable care. Five year old A.G. also
suffered from repeated civil assaults and batteries along with negligent failures to report
40. The Defendants’ actions, jointly and severally, were of such a nature as to
result in a negligent infliction of emotional distress upon five year old A.G. and her
41. As a result of the Defendants’ actions, both jointly and severally, Plaintiffs
suffered damages.
8
43. The Defendants’ actions, jointly and severally, are of such a serious nature
that they resulted in an intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs.
46. At all relevant times the Defendants, jointly and severally, acted willfully,
49. The Defendants’ actions, jointly and severally, violated five year old
A.G.’s constitutional right to an efficient education that was free of bullying, harassment,
9
52. At all relevant times Defendants Mercer County Board of Education and
Akers had a duty to comply with the law as S.G.’s employer/supervisor. Defendant
Mercer County BOE and Defendant Akers breached their duties by retaliating against
55. At all relevant times Defendants Hayes, Akers and Mercer County BOE
had a duty to supervise the relevant Defendants under their chain of command in this
matter. The Defendants failed to uphold their duty of supervision along with negligently
suffered damages.
58. At all relevant times five year old A.G. was a protected person pursuant to
W.Va. Code § 55-11-1 et seq. The Defendants’ misconduct violated W.Va. Code Section
5-11-1 et seq. since five year old A.G. was mistreated and discriminated against due to
her age.
10
59. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct, jointly and severally, the
and severally, in such sums as will fairly and fully compensate them for the damages
sustained as a result of the Defendants’ illegal conduct, together with pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs of the proceeding, punitive damages and any
A.G., a minor,
by and through Ad.G. and S.G.,
her parents and next friends,
and Ad.G. and S.G, individually
By Counsel
_______________________________________
JB Akers, Esq. (WVSB #8083)
Akers Law Offices, PLLC
128 Capitol Street
P.O. Box 11206
Charleston, WV 25339
(304) 720-1422
(304) 720-6956 (Facsimile)
11