Lawsuit response: Mount Vernon R-5 had good cause to fire maintenance director

The Mount Vernon R-5 School District had every reason to fire former maintenance director Roger Brown, according to a response to Brown's lawsuit filed recently in Lawrence County Circuit Court.

In his lawsuit, Brown claimed he was fired after he repeatedly warned district officials of safety hazards in the agriculture room and shop but was ignored.

Brown's concern led him to ask city officials for an inspection, which the district failed, according to his petition.

The district's response indicates Brown's decision to go over administrators' heads and go to the city about his concerns, was far from the only thing that led to his dismissal.

From the response:

Plaintiff’s employment was terminated for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons, including documented performance issues, insubordination, and unprofessional conduct.

Specifically, the District presented Plaintiff with a written disciplinary memorandum dated August 7, 2025, which he refused to sign. The memorandum and subsequent meeting notes from November 24, 2025, document Plaintiff’s refusal to follow administrative directives, including contacting outside agencies without authorization, and making inappropriate comments about District leadership. These issues were discussed in detail during the termination meeting attended by Superintendent Christina West and Principal Dr. Garrett Prevo, as reflected in contemporaneous notes.

The District's decision to terminate Plaintiff was made in the lawful exercise of administrative discretion and sound business judgment. The termination was based on legitimate, non-retaliatory business and operational considerations, including Plaintiff's documented performance issues, insubordination, and unprofessional conduct. Even if the termination decision may be characterized as harsh or unwise, it was not motivated by any alleged protected activity under § 105.055, RSMo, and Missouri law does not permit substitution of a jury's judgment for that of the employer where the decision was based on legitimate business considerations.

At all times relevant, the District acted in good faith, with just cause. The District provided Plaintiff with multiple opportunities to address performance concerns, including a May 2025 meeting where maintenance priorities were discussed and a written chart was provided for Plaintiff to complete.

Plaintiff repeatedly failed to follow administrative directives, including submitting written documentation and inventories of maintenance supplies despite multiple requests. Plaintiff was also directed on numerous occasions to return District property that he had removed from school premises.

Although Plaintiff eventually returned certain District property, he did so only after repeated requests, and the District was unable to verify that all District property had been returned. 

Additionally, the District learned that Plaintiff, without authorization, used District property and equipment for personal purposes, including, but not limited to, the use of a District lawn mower for his own personal use.

While Plaintiff ultimately cleaned and organized the maintenance building, this occurred only after repeated directives over an extended period of time.

The District’s decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment was based on a documented pattern of conduct that included insubordination, failure to follow administrative directives, misuse of District property, and unprofessional behavior, as reflected in internal communications and contemporaneous meeting notes. There is no causal connection between Plaintiff’s alleged protected activity and his termination. 

The District had been addressing AG/Shop safety concerns prior to Plaintiff’s contact with city officials. The termination decision was based on Plaintiff’s conduct, including his refusal to follow directives, his failure to complete assigned tasks, and his unprofessional interactions with District leadership, staff, and patrons of the District. These issues were documented in internal records and discussed with Plaintiff prior to his termination.

The district is represented by J. Drew Marriott and Gage Scott Teel of EdCounsel, Independence.