ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND

Curtis McCray,
SUMMONS
Plaintiff,

v.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice,

Defendant.

TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED:

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.

CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC

BY: __s/Ryan K. Hicks

Ryan K. Hicks (#100941)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A (29201)
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533

Attorney for Plaintiff

December 7, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND

Curtis McCray,

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
(Jury Trial Demanded)
v.

South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice,

Defendant.

EMPLOYMENT CASE

Plaintiff, by and through the undersigned counsel, complaining of Defendants, respectfully

alleges as follows:

PARTIES & JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff, Curtis McCray (hereinafter “McCray”), is a citizen and resident of Richland

County, South Carolina.

2. Defendant, South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice (hereinafter “Defendant

SCDJJ”), is a state agency that is responsible for providing custodial care and rehabilitation to the State

of South Carolina’s youth offenders.

3. This action alleges discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”) and Americans With Disabilities

Act of 1990, as amended, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the statutory and case

law of the State of South Carolina.

4. Charges have been filed with the appropriate federal and state agencies, the right-to-

sue letter was issued, and this action is timely.

1
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
5. Jurisdiction and venue are within the judicial circuit because the parties reside and

operate in South Carolina, and the events giving rise to this action occurred in Richland County, South

Carolina.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. McCray is a black male, and is a disabled veteran as a result of his military service with

the United States Army.

7. Outside of the events identified herein, McCray maintained a satisfactory employment

history with Defendant SCDJJ, and had been subjected to minimal, if any, disciplinary action during

his employment. McCray was also never subjected to a Performance Improvement Plan and/or any

other administrative action asserting that he was not meeting Defendant SCDJJ’s expectations.

8. McCray began his employment with Defendant SCDJJ in or around August 2017 when

he was hired as a Juvenile Correctional Officer, and was assigned to the Laurel Unit at the Broad River

Road Complex (“BRRC”). McCray resigned from this position on or about April 25, 2018. On June

4, 2018, McCray was rehired by Defendant SCDJJ as an Associate Teacher at the Midlands Evaluation

Center (“MEC”).

9. In or around June 2018, while working at MEC, McCray requested assistance from the

Lead Teacher and his supervisor, Brenda Lyles (“Brenda”), in response to ongoing issues he was

having regarding classroom safety/security and adverse effects on his mental health. Brenda is/was

the spouse of the Superintendent, Floyd Lyles (“Lyles”).

10. Shortly after the reporting of his concerns, McCray was involuntarily transferred from

MEC to Behavioral Management Intervention (“BMI”) in the Birchwood School at BRRC.

Birchwood is a girl/boy middle and high school within BRRC.

11. BMI is a classroom where a juvenile is sent when uncooperative, noncompliant,

disruptive, and/or subordinate within the school.

2
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
12. McCray was the only teacher assigned to the BMI classroom at Birchwood and was

not provided security personnel in his classroom to assist in his dealing with unruly students.

13. On numerous occasions McCray contacted Defendant SCDJJ employees, including,

but not limited to, Birchwood Principal, DeAngelo Edwards (“Edwards”) requesting that he be

provided a security officer in his BMI classroom and/or that his position be filled by a corrections

officer directly. To wit:

a. Throughout late 2018 McCray met with Edwards several times to discuss his mental

health and safety concerns. Therein, Edwards advised that the safety concerns

mandated that a male, and not a female be in the position.

b. On or about January 28, 2019, McCray requested that Edwards provided him a security

officer. This request was denied.

c. On or about February 6, 2019, McCray against requested that Edwards provide him

security as fights were becoming more frequent in the BMI classroom. Edwards

responded to simply let the fights happen and then the issues could/would be

addressed.

d. On or about February 7, 2019, McCray warned Edwards that violence was becoming

a sincere problem.

e. On or about February 11, 2019, McCray sent an email requesting a meeting so that his

concerns, and help, could be discussed.

f. On or about February 18, 2019, McCray submitted a request that Security replace his

position with a security officer.

g. On or about February 27, 2019, McCray sent an email to the Deputy Director of

Security requesting help. The Deputy Director advised that a Security Policy was being

created; however, upon information and belief, this never occurred.

3
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
h. On or about March 6, 2019, McCray emailed Edwards and others again requesting

security be provided and outlining the ongoing concerns.

i. On or about March 17, 2019, McCray emailed requesting immediate assistance in the

BMI classroom. This request went ignored.

j. On or about April 10, 2019, McCray met with the Deputy Director of Security

regarding his concerns. No action was taken.

k. On or about April 17, 2019, McCray notified Edwards and Security that he was taking

a mental health day and would be visiting the Department of Veterans Affairs.

14. On or about May 17, 2019, McCray was involved in an incident involving a youthful

offender (hereinafter “Vanover”). The incident was captured on the security camera located in

McCray’s classroom (no audio was captured).

15. It is undisputed that Vanover was known to be a problematic student with a lengthy

disciplinary history.

16. Vanover had been sent to BMI on the date in question by Edwards because he was

not permitted to be in his assigned classroom as that teacher had sought a restraining order against

him after Vanover stabbed the teacher with a tack.

17. Notably, Vanover had informed both Edwards and security guard, Penelope Brown

(“Brown”) that he did not want to go to the BMI classroom and that he was going to be disruptive if

so required.

18. Notwithstanding, Edwards and Brown left McCray in the classroom alone with

Vanover.

19. In pertinent part, Vanover can be seen ignoring McCray’s directives, walking on desks,

laying across desks, shaking McCray’s desk while he is working, and ultimately made a sudden and

4
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
aggressive movement toward McCray while McCray is sitting at his desk. Vanover admitted that he

was attempting to take items, including but not limited to, a pen, off McCray’s desk.

20. In response, McCray engaged in self-defense for his own safety.

21. Defendant SCDJJ acknowledges that a teacher may engage in ‘reasonable’ self-defense

but lacks any policy establishing such measures.

22. In the Medical Report dated May 17, 2019, it was documented that Vanover sustained

scratches to his left lower jaw and redness but no swelling. There was also “no injury noted to

[Vanover’s] neck.”

23. On May 21, 2019, McCray submitted a memorandum to Defendant SCDJJ Human

Resources renewing his request for an accommodation, to include adjusted working hours. McCray

further requested that he be provided security personnel in his classroom as his counterparts, who do

not work in a BMI classroom, were routinely provided such personnel.

24. On or about May 21, 2019, Vanover submitted a report concerning the May 17th

incident.

25. On or about May 23, 2019, McCray submitted his incident report in response to the

May 17th incident.

26. McCray continued to work, without interruption until June 5, 2019.

27. On June 5, 2019, only after his communication with human resources, McCray was

placed on unpaid administrative leave, pending investigation into the May 17th incident.

28. Concurrent to his being placed on unpaid leave, Jason Williams (“Williams”), a law

enforcement officer employed by Defendant SCDJJ, sought out an arrest warrant for McCray. The

warrant was issued on or about June 18, 2019.

5
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
29. In seeking the warrant, Williams only provided the Magistrate Judge a video 48 seconds

in length, capturing only the final seconds if the incident between McCray and Vanover. The entire

video from when Vanover entered McCray’s classroom is over 11-minutes long.

30. Williams’ submission of an edited version of the video was intentional and to otherwise

limited the context behind the event so as to justify a warrant being issued for McCray’s arrest.

31. On or about June 10, 2019, McCray filed a workplace violence complaint with the

South Carolina Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

32. On July 3, 2019, McCray filed a Charge of Discrimination (Charge No.: 14C-2019-

00924) race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation.

33. On July 30, 2019, Edwards issued McCray a Notice of Intent to Terminate.

34. In correspondence dated August 15, 2019, McCray was terminated, retroactive to June

5, 2019. McCray’s termination letter principally cites his arrest and criminal charges as the basis for his

termination.

35. On August 29, 2019, McCray submitted a second Charge of Discrimination (Charge

No.: 14C-2019-01234) alleging further retaliation (i.e. termination).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT SCDJJ
(Race Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)

36. Where not inconsistent herewith, the foregoing are realleged paragraphs.

37. McCray is a black male and is a member of a protected class.

38. McCray has performed his job in a competent, if not more than competent manner,

and has received satisfactory evaluations over the course of his employment.

39. Defendant SCDJJ has subjected McCray disparate treatment and hostile work

environment.

6
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
40. Principally, McCray was not provided security personnel in a like manner to his white

counterparts despite being over a ‘more dangerous’ classroom – BMI.

41. Defendant SCDJJ’s actions have adversely affected McCray’s conditions of

employment and deprived McCray of his statutory right to a workplace free of discrimination.

42. Defendant SCDJJ has caused McCray to suffer disparate treatment, termination, and

hostile work environment. Harris’ race, black, was the direct and proximate cause of the adverse

employment actions taken by Defendant SCDJJ’s agents and employees, acting within the course and

scope of their duties, which violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for which Defendant is liable.

43. Defendant SCDJJ has violated McCray’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

and has directly and proximately caused him damages, for which it is liable, including: loss of salary

and benefits, back pay, front pay, reduced income and retirement benefits, lost benefits, as well as

mental, physical, and emotional suffering. McCray also requests pre-judgment interest, and reasonable

attorney’s fees and costs of this action.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT SCDJJ
(Title VII Retaliation)

44. Where not inconsistent herewith, the foregoing are realleged paragraphs.

45. Following his suspension in June 2019 and the circumstances surrounding the same,

McCray promptly filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and South Carolina Human Affairs Commission asserting that he had been subjected to

race discrimination, disability discrimination, and retaliation.

46. McCray’s action in filing a Charge is a protected activity within the meaning of Title

VII by raising concerns of discriminatory treatment he reasonably believed to had occurred.

47. On July 30, 2019, McCray was notified of Defendant SCJJ’s intent to terminate.

7
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
48. On August 15, 2019, Defendant SCDJJ terminated McCray’s employment, retroactive

to June 5, 2019.

49. McCray maintains at the time of this recommendation and subsequent termination he

was otherwise performing his job satisfactorily.

50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful and retaliatory acts in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Plaintiff is entitled to recover lost earnings and benefits,

lost future earnings and benefits, and for his sustained embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish,

and suffering. Additionally, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs of this action, and

all other damages available pursuant Title VII.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT SCDJJ
(Violation of the ADAAA – Disability Discrimination)

51. Where not inconsistent herewith, the foregoing are realleged paragraphs.

52. Prior to the course of his employment with Defendant SCDJJ, McCray was recognized

as a disabled veteran with the V.A. Specifically, McCray had documented disability connected with his

military service in the United States Army.

53. McCray has a cognizable disability under the ADAAA.

54. As early as June 2018, McCray notified his employer, Defendant SCDJJ, of his

disability and requested accommodation to include adjusted working hours and that security personnel

be provided in his classroom.

55. McCray’s requests were not only denied, but patently ignored.

56. McCray requests injunctive relief to include reinstatement as permitted under the

ADA/ADAAA as against the State.

8
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT SCDJJ
(ADA/ADAAA Retaliation)

57. Where not inconsistent herewith, the foregoing are realleged paragraphs.

58. McCray engaged in a protected activity within the meaning of the ADA/ADAAA by

requesting accommodations. Such protected activity occurred by way of both internal requests to

Defendant SCDJJ but also by way of the filing of a Charge of Discrimination on or about July 3, 2019.

59. McCray was thereafter subjected to an adverse employment action(s) – suspension

without pay and later termination.

60. McCray maintains at the time of this recommendation and subsequent termination he

was otherwise performing his job satisfactorily.

61. No similarly situated employee(s) who did not engaged in a protected activity suffered

an adverse employment action.

62. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant SCDJJ’s unlawful retaliatory acts in

violation of the ADA/ADAAA, McCray is entitled to reinstatement into his position with Defendant

SCDJJ, with or without backpay, and any other relief as this Court deems equitable and appropriate.

Additionally, McCray is entitled to an aware of attorney’s fees, costs of this action, and all other

damages available pursuant the ADA/ADAAA.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Curits McCray prays for judgment against Defendant South Carolina

Department of Juvenile Justice for all actual and compensatory damages in an amount to be

determined by a jury. McCray further prays for reinstatement, for pre-judgment interest, attorney’s

fees and costs of this action, and any other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper

from Defendant.

[Signature Block on Next Page]

9
 ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2021 Dec 07 4:10 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2021CP4005945
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC

BY: __s/Ryan K. Hicks

Ryan K. Hicks (#100941)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A (29201)
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone 803-799-9530
Fax 803-799-9533

Attorney for Plaintiff

December 7, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

10