Lawsuits: Huff, Johnson bullied Joplin Schools support staff, targeted union leaders

Lawsuits filed by former Joplin R-8 support staff members provide a picture of Superintendent. C. J. Huff that is totally at odds with the touchy-feely, water fountain tears image he presents to the public. The lawsuits also depict Mike Johnson, director of buildings, grounds, and transportation as creating the same type of atmosphere of fear among the employees as Assistant Superintendent Angie Besendorfer created with teachers and lower level administrators.

One such lawsuit, filed by former custodial supervisor George Morris in 2010, was scheduled to finally come to trial next month in Jasper County Circuit Court, and lists the Joplin R-8 School District and Johnson as defendants and claims Morris was fired an an act of "retaliation" in violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act.

The district has already settled a lawsuit filed by James Tucker, a 26-year veteran, who was fired after bringing complaints about Huff, though court records do not indicate how much money changed hands.

Tucker was president of the Joplin Education Support Personnel, the chapter of Missouri NEA for support staff and as part of his responsibility in that position, according to the lawsuit, he sent letters to "Defendant Huff registering complaints brought to him by members of the union that Defendant Johnson had threatened them and otherwise acted inappropriately towards them in the course of his role as their supervisor."

Those letters were the beginning of the end of Tucker's employment with the R-8 School District, according to the lawsuit.

These letters played a direct role in Defendants’ decision to terminate Plaintiff  from employment and his termination constituted retaliation for raising the issue of Defendant Johnson’s inappropriate behavior in addition to his other advocacy on behalf of the Union.

    

Plaintiff attended a meeting with another Union member and Defendant Johnson in which the Union member registered complaints with Defendant Johnson about another employee. 

At the meeting, Defendant Johnson told Plaintiff and the other Union member that he could fabricate facts about them and have them terminated from employment if they did not cease their advocacy.  The other Union member was in fact terminated from employment shortly thereafter.   

 On May 3, 2010, Tucker received a letter from the district telling him he was being laid off due to "significant financial restraints."

Since according to the district's agreement with the union, Tucker should have been eligible for any job that came up because of his considerable seniority, he continued to serve as union president, until C. J. Huff put an end to that, according to the lawsuit.

After Plaintiff was terminated from employment on June 3, 2010, he still served as Union President until August 5, 2010, and it was expected by Union members that Plaintiff would still perform his duties as Union President and negotiate on the Union members’ behalf. 

  

When Plaintiff attempted to attend a meet and confer session on behalf of the Union with representatives of the Defendant School District at which the Administrative Guidelines were to be renegotiated, he was told by Defendant Huff to leave the meeting because he was no longer an employee and could no longer serve as a representative on the Union’s behalf.  

 

 Defendant Huff terminated Plaintiff’s employment and asked Plaintiff to leave the meeting because he knew that he would not be able to force his agenda upon the Union if  Plaintiff was present. 

  

Plaintiff’s termination from employment constituted retaliation for Union advocacy and other activities which he had a right to engage in under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution.

   

The individual Defendants engaged in a concerted pattern of intimidation as part of a School District policy and custom designed to intimidate Union leaders and other Union members so that they would cease advocating for their interests and to destroy the efficacy of the Union itself.  This policy culminated in the termination from employment of Union leaders who refused to bend to the will of the School District.   

Tucker sued the school district because of its denial of due process. After he was laid off, Tucker filed grievances, but was never allowed to have a hearing.

The Administrative Guidelines defined the procedures by which employees could file grievances and appeal decisions made by their supervisors concerning their grievances. 

   

After learning that he would be laid off from employment and after he learned that he would not be allowed to replace employees with less seniority than him as is required by the Administrative Guidelines, Plaintiff filed multiple grievances against the School District pursuant to the Administrative Guidelines in May and June of 2010.

   

On June 25, 2010, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant Huff stating that because Plaintiff was no longer an employee of the School District, he had no recourse to file grievances under the Administrative Guidelines and therefore denied Plaintiff the opportunity to defend his rights using the process described in and required by the Administrative Guidelines.