Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM

17JE-CC00408

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

STATE OF MISSOURI

ADAM GRINDSTAFF, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Cause No.
v. )
) Division
DESOTO SCHOOL DISTRICT )
BOARD OF EDUCATION, )
)
Serve at: )
610 Vineland School Rd. )
DeSoto, MO 63020 )
)
JOSHUA ISAACSON, )
)
Serve at: )
610 Vineland School Rd. )
DeSoto, MO 63020 )
)
CLINTON FREEMAN, )
)
Serve at: )
610 Vineland School Rd. )
DeSoto, MO 63020 )
)
Defendants. )

PETITION

COMES NOW Plaintiff Adam Grindstaff and for his Petition in multiple counts against

Defendants the DeSoto School District Board of Education, Joshua Isaacson, and Clinton

Freeman, states as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Adam Grindstaff is an individual residing in the City of DeSoto, DeSoto School

District, County of Jefferson, State of Missouri.

 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
2. At all times pertinent to this cause of action, Plaintiff Grindstaff was the Principal of the

Vineland Elementary School, an elementary school in the DeSoto School District.

3. The DeSoto School District (School District) is a governmental agency created by state

statute.

4. Defendant the DeSoto School District Board of Education (Board of Education) is the

governmental agency that governs the DeSoto School District.

5. Defendant Joshua Isaacson is an individual residing in the City of DeSoto, DeSoto School

District, County of Jefferson, State of Missouri.

6. At all times relevant to this Petition Joshua Isaacson was the Superintendent of the DeSoto

School District.

7. Defendant Clinton Freeman is an individual residing in the City of DeSoto, DeSoto School

District, County of Jefferson, State of Missouri.

8. At all times relevant to this Petition Clinton Freeman was the Assistant Superintendent of the

DeSoto School District.

9. At all times relevant to this Petition Isaacson and Freeman acted both individually and as

agents and representatives of the DeSoto School District and Defendant DeSoto School

District Board of Education.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

10. On or about 2003 Defendant the DeSoto School District Board of Education entered into a

contract with Plaintiff Grindstaff wherein Plaintiff Grindstaff was hired as an employee of

the School District, specifically as Principal of Vineland Elementary School.

11. Plaintiff Grindstaff and Defendant Board of Education entered into numerous subsequent and

similar contracts over the course of fourteen (14) years, wherein Plaintiff Grindstaff was

2
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
hired as an employee of the School District, specifically as Principal of Vineland Elementary

School.

12. The current such contract was entered into for the 2016-2017 school year (2016-2017

Employment Contract). A true and correct copy of the 2016-2017 Contract is marked

Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference thereto.

13. The most recent such contract was entered into for the 2017-2018 school year (2017-2018

Employment Contract). A true and correct copy of the 2017-2018 Contract is marked

Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by reference thereto.

14. On or about April 28, 2017 Defendants Isaacson and Freeman called an immediate meeting

with Plaintiff Grindstaff with no prior notification.

15. During such meeting Defendants Isaacson and Freeman advised Plaintiff Grindstaff that the

administration has decided to place you on administrative leave with pay and that benefits

will also continue.

16. Also during such meeting Defendants Isaacson and Freeman then stated that Plaintiff

Grindstaff was being terminated from his position as Principal of Vineland Elementary

School, and demanded that Plaintiff Grindstaff issue a resignation.

17. Such demand was made under threat to Plaintiff Grindstaffs employment, career, reputation,

and vocation by Defendants Isaacson and Freeman.

18. Such demand was not justified by any act on the part of Plaintiff Grindstaff.

19. Plaintiff Grindstaff verbally requested reconsideration of the termination, which Defendants

Isaacson and Freeman denied.

20. Defendant Board of Education never advised Plaintiff Grindstaff of any rights to appeal, due

process hearing, or any other hearing before Defendant Board of Education or otherwise.

3
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
21. Defendant Board of Education never conferred upon Plaintiff Grindstaff an appeal, due

process hearing, or any other hearing before Defendant Board of Education or otherwise.

22. On or about May 1, 2017 Defendant Board of Education then terminated Plaintiff

Grindstaffs 2016-2017 Employment Contract, 2017-2018 Employment Contract, and

employment.

23. On or about May 2, 2017 Defendant Board of Education notified Plaintiff Grindstaff of its

May 1, 2017 actions.

24. Defendant Board of Education has failed and refused to provide a reason or justification for

termination.

COUNT I - PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION

25. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

26. Plaintiff Grindstaff appeals termination of his employment pursuant to Chapter 536 R.S.Mo.,

the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act.

27. Plaintiff Grindstaff makes demand for a hearing regarding termination of his employment

pursuant to Chapter 536 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Administrative Procedure Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendant DeSoto School District Board of

Education on this Count I of Plaintiffs Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue any

other judgments and orders this Court finds just and proper.

COUNT II - PETITION FOR REVIEW OF DECISION OF BOARD OF EDUCATION

28. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

4
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
29. Plaintiff Grindstaff appeals termination of his employment pursuant to 168.102 et seq.

R.S.Mo., the Teacher Tenure Act.

30. Plaintiff Grindstaff makes demand for a hearing regarding termination of his employment

pursuant to 168.102 et seq. R.S.Mo., the Teacher Tenure Act.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendant DeSoto School District Board of

Education on this Count II of Plaintiffs Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue any

other judgments and orders this Court finds just and proper.

COUNT III - BREACH OF CONTRACT

31. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

32. Plaintiff Grindstaff and Defendant Board of Education entered into two (2) Contracts, being

the aforementioned 2016-2017 Employment Contract (Exhibit A) and 2017-2018

Employment Contract (Exhibit B).

33. Plaintiff Grindstaff performed under the terms of the Contracts.

34. Defendant Board of Education failed to perform under the terms of the Contracts.

35. Plaintiff Grindstaff has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Defendant Board of

Educations failure to perform.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendant DeSoto School District Board of

Education on this Count III of Plaintiffs Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue

any other judgments and orders this Court finds just and proper.

5
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
COUNT IV - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

36. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

37. Plaintiff Grindstaff has valid contracts with Defendant Board of Education, being the

aforementioned 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Employment Contracts (Exhibit A and B).

38. Defendants Isaacson and Freeman knew of the existence of such Contracts.

39. Defendants Isaacson and Freeman intentionally induced Defendant Board of Education to

breach the Contracts.

40. There was no justification for the acts of Defendants Isaacson and Freeman.

41. Plaintiff Grindstaff has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Defendants

Isaacsons and Freemans actions.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendants Isaacson and Freeman jointly

and severally on this Count IV of Plaintiffs Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue

any other judgments and orders this Court finds just and proper.

COUNT V - LIBEL AND SLANDER

42. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

43. Defendant Board of Education has published and spoken statements with regard to misuse of

School District funds by Plaintiff Grindstaff.

44. Defendant Board of Education has published and spoken statements with regard to Plaintiff

Grindstaff and his employment with the DeSoto School District that:

6
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
a. the District conducted a thorough investigation into allegations regarding Mr.

Grindstaff and the use of District monies.

b. Mr. Grindstaff was offered his statutory right to a public hearing to challenge the

results of the investigation.

c. Instead, Mr. Grindstaff elected to resign from his position .

45. Defendant Board of Education has published and spoken other negative statements with

regard to Plaintiff Grindstaff and his employment with the DeSoto School District.

46. Defendants Isaacson and Freeman have published and spoken statements with regard to

misuse of School District funds by Plaintiff Grindstaff.

47. Defendants Isaacson and Freeman have published and spoken other negative statements with

regard to Plaintiff Grindstaff and his employment with the DeSoto School District.

48. Such statements are false.

49. Such statements are defamatory.

50. Such statements are not justified.

51. No mitigating circumstances support such statements.

52. Plaintiff Grindstaff has been damaged as a direct and proximate result of Defendants

statements.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendants DeSoto School District Board

of Education, Isaacson, and Freeman, jointly and severally, on this Count V of Plaintiffs

Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue any other judgments and orders this Court

finds just and proper.

7
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
COUNT VI CHAPTER 610 R.S.MO. MISSOURI SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATIONS

53. Plaintiff Grindstaff restates and incorporates herein by reference thereto the allegations set

forth in Paragraphs 1-24 of his Petition as if set forth here in full.

54. Defendant Board of Education held a closed meeting on or about May 1, 2017 to discuss

Plaintiff Grindstaffs employment with the School District.

55. Defendant Board of Education failed to provide proper notice of the closed meeting pursuant

to Chapter 610 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Sunshine Law, and specifically 610.020 R.S.Mo.

56. Defendant Board of Education failed to provide proper notice of the closed meeting pursuant

to Chapter 610 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Sunshine Law, and specifically 610.022.2 R.S.Mo.

57. Defendant Board of Education failed to hold a public vote to close the meeting pursuant to

Chapter 610 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Sunshine Law, and specifically 610.022.1 R.S.Mo.

58. Defendant Board of Education failed to provide a specific reason to close the meeting

pursuant to Chapter 610 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Sunshine Law, and specifically 610.022.1

R.S.Mo.

59. Defendant Board of Education held a meeting the week of May 7, 2017 at an area not on

School District real property, being at a restaurant.

60. At such meeting a majority and/or quorum of the Board of Education gathered for the

purpose of discussing and/or voting on public business.

61. Defendant Board of Education failed to provide proper notice of the meeting pursuant to

Chapter 610 R.S.Mo., the Missouri Sunshine Law, and specifically 610.020 R.S.Mo.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Grindstaff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter

judgment in favor of Plaintiff Grindstaff and against Defendant DeSoto School District Board of

8
 Electronically Filed - Jefferson - May 17, 2017 - 09:33 PM
Education on this Count VI of Plaintiffs Petition, costs assessed against Defendant, and issue

any other judgments and orders this Court finds just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

THE LOWRY LAW FIRM

/s/ Michael D. Lowry /s/ Corinne Darvish

Michael D. Lowry MBEN 43136 Corinne N. Darvish MBEN 43168
Natalie Pigg MBEN 69746 Attorney for Plaintiff
Attorneys for Plaintiff 8151 Clayton Rd., Suite 201
4633 Yeager Rd. St. Louis, MO 63117
Hillsboro, MO 63050 (314) 727-8900 (telephone and facsimile)
(636) 797-3131 (telephone) cdarvish@cdarvish.com
(636) 797-5205 (facsimile)
michaellowry@thelowrylawfirm.com
nataliepigg@thelowrylawfirm.com