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.
They treated the support staff with less respect than the teachers. Part of their plan to save money was to get rid of a large number of support people. They treat secretaries, custodians, etc. like dirt.
ReplyDeleteTucker v. Joplin R-VIII School District et al
ReplyDeleteDefendant: Joplin R-VIII School District, C J Huff and Mike Johnson
Plaintiff: James Tucker
Case Number: 3:2011cv03282
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/missouri/mowdce/3:2011cv03282/100256
These people disgust me. They stand there and tell us how much they appreciate all we do and how they couldn't get the job done without us, which is true. The lie is that they hate us and do everything they can to get as much from us as they can for as little as they can pay us. But they all make six figure salaries. Liars and thieves and I hope they all get fired or go to jail soon. I know where they'll end up eventually and the meet their maker, but that might take too long. We need justice now.
ReplyDeleteJoplin Schools admin bullying staff of any kind is the norm, not the exception. I'm glad to see a few people have the nerve to make them pay for it. Most of us are too scared to speak up. We know our school board will do nothing for us. Instead like one of our current members did today, they go around to schools to do their electioneering, which is unethical, and tell people not to vote for new members who might make a change. I think that plan will backfire. We'll vote only for new people not associated with Huff.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this will be what it takes to get rid of the scum running our district. The board won't do anything until they're forced to. They'd rather sit on their thumbs and do nothing and pretend to believe in CJ's fairytales.
ReplyDeleteJoplin's upper admin are a big cluster of jerks. They do whatever they want because they think they'll get away with it. I hope they don't this time.
ReplyDeleteWhy wouldn't they do whatever they want? It isn't like they have to answer up to anyone. I bet the board likes what they do. Keeps cost down to get rid of staff. That's why they just turn the other way. Or they're getting a kickback. Nothing would surprise me about this school system anymore.
ReplyDeleteThey were bastards before the tornado. The dates of these lawsuits prove that. The tornado and all that money just let them exploit the district with no restraints at all.
ReplyDeleteThey have no ethics at all and should've been fired a long time ago. They're an embarrassment to the whole town. How many more of these lawsuits are going to show up? I expect they are all justifiable.
What has happened to the Joplin School District? This is horrible stuff. Bullying the staff? Misappropriating the money? Millions spent and the kids aren't even learning like they used to. And where was the board? Are they just that stupid or are they part of it? Either way, they have failed their community and they should step down.
ReplyDeleteI feel fortunate to no longer be a part of Joplin. But I still resent what I see happening to my friends and family still there. This is just unbelievable.
You said he was fired for complaining about huff. In the next paragraph you say he was fired for sending a letter TO huff complaining about someone else. Nowhere in that entire blog did I see an example of huff being a bully. Am I surprised? Hell no.
ReplyDelete9:39---
ReplyDeleteTurner isn't the one who filed this law suit. Don't make it out like he's not telling the truth about it. Huff and those people he has picked to work for him have destroyed the district. There is ample evidence of that.
I wonder what you have to lose if Huff goes down. HIs partner in crime didn't run out of town for no reason. They've got plenty to answer for.
Turner, I believe that I was the one referenced in this article that had Tucker sit in on my firing for a false reason. I would be happy to speak with you.
ReplyDeleteThis suit is perfectly believable. Huff and Besendorfer despise the unions because they get in the way of intimidating the staff. Remember when they went behind the board's back and stripped the teachers of union representation? They did that for a reason. They can't be trusted and it is Huff as much as it was ever Besendorfer.
ReplyDeleteThey deserve to get sued by every staff member who was ever fired by them, with the exception of the pedophile they hired to monitor the kids' computers. The parents should sue the district for that one.
I so want that little dimpled weasel gone...he & bess are pure evil...the school board pure stupid...so many employees unhappy, why are they still frightening people? Huff is just that...the big bad wolf huffing & puffing trying to blow employees to smithereens because he is an insecure, uneducated bully trying to cover up his incompetence by huffing & puffing...get those people out of that admin sanctuary...
ReplyDeleteIt's not just schools. The motto for governmental agencies in this area should be:
ReplyDelete"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,and that's how we like it".
One solution: TERM LIMITS FOR EVERY ELECTED OFFICE!
I too had a suit against Joplin for wrongful termination ..or not rehiring....but I dropped it because I was afraid of not being rehired by another district. :-(
ReplyDelete23 of us registered complaints to Huff abiut Johnson. All of us were fired. Johnson was given a pat on the back. Morris was fired for trying to help us. What does that tell you about Huff?
ReplyDelete