The lawsuit, which was originally filed in Webster County Circuit Court, claims Mayo received reports from teachers about the behavior of coach Johnna Feazell against the girl, who is referred to as "KC," as well as text messages and other evidence, but other than talking to the coach, never took any disciplinary action or reported the coach's actions to law enforcement.
Mayo, a former Diamond R-4 superintendent, lawyer and Carthage City Council member, was fired by the Marshfield R-1 School District in 2015, escorted from the premises and is suing the district for age discrimination, saying he was fired because he was 60 years old.
KC's lawsuit details the coach's harassment and the failure of Mayo and other administrators to do anything about it.
In spring 2011, KC was a happy and active 7th grader attending Marshfield middle school. KC was a high achieving student, both academically and in extracurricular activities.
As a 7th grader, KC first came into contact with Johnna Feazell as her track coach. Feazell was at all relevant times an adult having reached the age of majority and an employee of the Marshfield School District in her 40s. She was at various times engaged in multiple activities for the district, including as a teacher of English and Language Arts, and a coach on the Track and Field, and later the Softball teams for the District, and was one of KC’s coaches during the time in question.
In 8th grade, Feazell continued to coach KC in track. For the first time, KC was also placed in Feazell’s English class as well. From the time KC was first placed in Feazell’s class, it became clear that Feazell had already begun to fixate on and pay inappropriate attention to KC.
At this time, in the fall of 2012, KC was 14 years old. Feazell would consistently focus on KC, to the exclusion of others in the class. Feazell also had a special seat that she placed next to her desk which was reserved only for KC.
Feazell moved this seat away from the other students, and placed it right by her desk, cutting KC off from the rest of her peers in the class. Feazell’s conduct was inappropriate, harassing, and embarrassing, and served to create an uncomfortable and oppressive environment for KC.
Feazell through her conduct, words, and other actions, had begun what is termed “grooming” KC, action taken by sexual predators who prey on children. Feazell’s behavior was so abnormal that other children in the class noticed and commented on it.
At least one of the children who commented did so to her mother, who also taught at the school. This student warned her mother, a Marshfield school teacher, about this odd relationship, the fact that an adult woman teacher was talking constantly on the phone with an 8th grade girl, and that Feazell had even showed up to see KC at a junior high girls’ sleepover.
Feazell’s stalking and abuse intensified during the spring of KC’s 8th grade year, during track season. Feazell began making overt physical contact with KC, rubbing her legs at track meets and giving overly long “hugs” for additional physical contact with KC.
On the way back from one track meet in Willard, Feazell on the bus ride home insisted on sitting with KC and rubbing her leg for an extended and clearly inappropriate amount of time, caressing and fondling KC’s leg in clear view of the entire bus, including students and other coaches and school officials for 30 minutes.
The sight of an adult teacher fondling and rubbing the leg of an 8th grade girl for half an hour was embarrassing and harassing to KC, and was sufficient to require action by itself by those witnessing such conduct, including Feazell’s supervisors or others with power over Feazell.
Similarly, such conduct should have and/or did trigger reporting to other school officials, and should have triggered the mandatory reporter status of every teacher, coach, educator, or employee on the bus, or who learned of the incident.
Another sign of the disturbing focus by Feazell on KC was that when KC decided to go out for softball, Feazell went to the school and requested to coach softball, although she had not been involved in that sport before at Marshfield.
Feazell’s preparatory predation also expanded to include writing inappropriate notes and letters to KC. One such letter from Feazell to KC stated that they were “meant” to be together, and instructed KC to “destroy, destroy, destroy.”
It was obvious to anyone who cared enough to look that something was seriously wrong. These letters from a grown woman in her 40s to a young girl telling her that they were meant to be together are simply sickening.
Further, there could be no innocent explanation when she is telling her young target to destroy the damning evidence.
Despite the instructions, KC did not destroy all of the notes, and her mother found them during KC’s 8th grade year. Recognizing immediately the inappropriate and dangerous nature of these letters, KC’s parents reported Feazell to the school, and brought the damning letters with them for review by school officials.
Upon information and belief, the school officials’ method of “handling” this situation was for Feazell to have no further contact with KC, with no further punishment issued for these acts, and no official steps put in place to ensure compliance with this “no contact” order.
Seeing these notes and the disturbing content, KC’s mother delving deeper into the stalking and harassment of her 14-year-old daughter asked whether Feazell had ever coached softball until KC signed up.
The School and its officials including Mr. Mayo and Mr. Curley confessed that not only had she not been involved in that sport previously, but that Feazell had been the one to approach the school about coaching softball, only after learning KC would be participating in that activity.
Rather than fire Feazell and/or report her to the authorities, as mandatory reporters are required to do, the school and its officials, including but not limited to Mr. Mayo and Mr. Curley, simply told Feazell to stay away from KC and/or stop harassing or otherwise acting inappropriately with her. KC’s parents were told the matter was resolved, and that there would be a zero tolerance, no contact policy for Feazell towards KC.
This no action, look the other way and hope nothing happened policy clearly did not have any effect, as KC’s parents, shortly after the school promised the issue had been taking care of, found that Feazell was texting and calling KC.
Like the letters that prompted the first contact with the school, the texts were highly disturbing coming from a woman in her 40s to a 14-year-old child. Examples of the content included Feazell telling KC she loved her, calling KC “sweetheart” and calling herself “momma.”
KC’s family again went to the school and spoke with Mr. Curley, showing him these lecherous texts, sent so shortly after the issue had supposedly been “taken care of.” KC’s mother was so distraught she advised she felt perhaps that this matter should be handled by the police or another proper arm of the state tasked with dealing with such improper behavior.
Rather than agree and comply with mandatory duties to report this conduct, Mr. Curley immediately did everything he could to discourage any action outside of the school.
Incredibly, Mr. Curley made a point of admonishing KC’s mother this was a school issue, that she needed to rely on and trust the school to handle it, and that it would be bad, wrong, and not best for anyone, including KC, to involve outside individuals such as the police.
KC’s family was again promised by the school that it would definitely never happen again, and that their daughter was safe and would be protected from any future actions by Feazell by Mr. Curley, and other individuals in the school with authority and power over Feazell such as Mr. Mayo, and the School itself.
The school and its administrators, for the second time, therefore failed to report Feazell to the authorities as required, and in fact took affirmative steps to prevent KC’s mother from doing so. They did not terminate, suspend or otherwise take any action against Feazell, despite Feazell having so recently broken her supposed no second chance “no contact” requirement.
Instead, the school and its officials allowed this disturbed child predator to remain at the school if she “promised” to not have any further contact with KC.
Not surprisingly, this worked as well as any reasonable person would have expected, which is to say it had no affect what so ever. Instead, it emboldened Feazell who saw there would be no consequences no matter what she did to KC.
Because of the school, and its officials conduct, Feazell’s predation only increased. Since KC’s parents had taken her phone away to try and ensure Feazell could not contact her, Feazell purchased a burner phone with significant prepaid time on it and gave it to KC. The only pre-programmed contact was Feazell, who had listed herself as “sweetheart.”
Feazell continued her harassment of KC, threatening KC that she must spend time with her and increasing the time and contact. Feazell began texting KC constantly, and started exerting control over every aspect of KC’s life.
Feazell required KC call her and tell her what she was wearing every day, and constantly checked up on who she was with.
Consistent with well-known and acknowledged predatory conduct, Feazell began cutting off KC from the rest of her friends, and sowing self-doubt and insecurity in KC. Feazell would degrade KC, and prey on her self-doubt by telling her that the only way to do things were Feazell’s way, and that KC was unworthy, bad, or somehow otherwise flawed.
This constant barrage of self-doubt and targeted insecurity by a teacher to a 14-year-old female student was harassing, created an unhealthy environment, and caused significant doubts, fears, and insecurity in KC.
Such actions are also well-recognized and classic grooming behaviors used by pedophiles, and are abuse by themselves.
Because of the position of authority, and the time she continued to spend around KC, in violation of the promises made to KC’s parents, Feazell began to increasingly wield greater and greater influence over KC, isolating KC from family, friends, and support to further the goal of preying on this young child.
As KC’s 8th grade year began to draw to an end, the school and its officials, including but not limited to defendants, and each of them, were continually warned that Feazell was violating the instructions she had been given to have no contact with KC, to not harass her, or otherwise was breaking the conditions of her continued employment.
Several teachers reported Feazell to defendant(s) and/or each of them, for violating the prohibition on having contact with KC.
Incredibly, in just the short time remaining in KC’s 8th grade year, the school had multiple other instances where Feazell had to be reprimanded for continuing to stalk, harass, abuse, bully, and denigrate KC.
Despite all of this notice and warning, in what would continue to be the pattern of enabling and coverup, the school and its officials, including but not limited to defendant(s) and/or each of them, hid these incidents from KC’s parents and the authorities, in direct violation of Missouri law.
Feazell also began tracking KC’s movements by questioning other children in the school, keeping constant updates on her movements, what she was doing, and who she was doing it with. This constant attention and clearly unhealthy fixation on a 14-year-old girl by a teacher in her 40s was sufficient by itself to have required action by the school and/or defendant(s) and each of them.
Feazell also began overt threats against KC whenever KC would do something Feazell did not like.
On the few occasions that this would not work and get Feazell her way, she began abusing KC by manipulating KC’s sympathy, telling her she was going to kill herself if KC did not comply with her wishes and reciprocate her unhealthy and perverse affections.
These threats reached such a level that at one point KC reported them to yet another teacher when Feazell told KC she was going to drive into traffic the wrong way and kill herself, and leave incriminating evidence to let everyone know her death was KC’s “fault.”
KC felt this threat was so real and immediate, and it caused such severe emotional distress, that she was compelled to seek help. She therefore went to a teacher in the district who knew Feazell in a plea for help.
This teacher then reported this incident to the school and/or defendant(s), and/or each of them. Yet another opportunity for the adults and officials who should have been there to protect KC focused only on protecting the pedophile, and this incident of abuse was again not reported as required to the state, but swept under the rug like all of the prior incidents.
Feazell also began increasing her abuse of KC, including increasing the physical contact she demanded and or forced upon KC.
Feazell’s rubbing of KC’s legs became more and more frequent, with more and more sexual emphasis put on each encounter. Feazell also began giving KC longer and longer kisses that started on her cheek and then began moving to her mouth.
During softball practice, Feazell would tackle KC to the ground and lay on top of her in the field, in full view of everyone.
She would then hold KC down, warning her that she was much stronger than KC, and she could do anything she wanted to KC, and KC could do nothing about it.
Numerous school officials, including defendant(s) and/or each of them, saw and/or were aware of this conduct, that a 14-year-old girl was being taken down and held against her will in the grass by a teacher in her 40s who was laying on top of her
During school softball travel to and from games, Feazell would not sit with the other coaches on the bus. Instead, she would sit with KC, and rub her legs on the bus.
Other school officials saw this activity and/or reported it to others, but nothing was done to stop this abuse and harassment.
When no one put a stop to this harassment, abuse, and/or molestation, Feazell increased her inappropriate conduct by rubbing KC higher and higher up her thighs. Eventually this led to overt molestation of KC on the school bus when they would travel, with Feazell rubbing KC’s breasts and eventually her pubic area during the operation of the bus.
Feazell started touching her over her uniform, but every time no one did anything to stop her latest encroachment on propriety, Feazell would become more emboldened.
Feazell began putting her hands underneath KC’s clothes on the bus, continuing to increase the level of her constant violation, abuse, and harassment of KC.
On some occasions, Feazell would bring a blanket onto the bus, go sit with KC and cover her in the blanket so she could take longer molesting KC on the school bus.
Feazell also started bringing alcohol on these school activities. The use of alcohol to impede inhibition in victims is another well-known grooming behavior used by sexual pedophile predators.
When KC would not drink the alcohol, Feazell would be angry, and would consume it herself. Feazell became intoxicated at multiple school events she was attending to stalk KC, and would become loud and obnoxious.
The more she drank the more vulgar she would become. This occurred at games, as well as at band concerts KC was performing in.
Again, however, nothing was done by the school or its supervisors.
By fall of KC’s freshman year, Feazell had become so emboldened by her nonstop assault of KC, she began pushing for KC to perform sexual acts on her, demanding that if Feazell was going to touch KC sexually, KC needed to start doing the same to Feazell.
Despite the ever-increasing pressure from Feazell, the embarrassment, self-doubt, and trauma, KC attempted to remain active in her school.
KC participated in extracurricular activities such as marching band, softball, speech and debate, and “soda club,” an anti-drug club.
KC’s attempted to use these activities as a sanctuary from her abuse and her abuser. However, Feazell turned these activities into additional opportunities to abuse KC.
Feazell began following KC into the restroom stalls and forcing herself on KC during school activities like softball games, marching band, concerts, speech and debate events, or any other time KC was at school and Feazell could get at her.
Feazell began planning her junior high track practices to ensure that she would be done in time to force KC into a bathroom stall to molest her after KC’s practice was over.
Feazell had keys issued by the school that would allow her to lock the doors, and isolate KC. This continued into games at the school where Feazell would get up to leave to go to the restroom, and take KC with her, in view of everyone from the school, including but not limited to defendant(s) and/or each of them.
Feazell also began having sexual encounters with KC in her classroom at school. Because of KC’s busy schedule, KC would have a break between athletic practice and her other activities.
Despite being required for some time to have no contact with KC, Feazell arranged with the school for a door to be left open for KC, and forced KC to spend this “down time” with Feazell in her classroom at the school.
During one of these encounters, KC was preparing for band when Feazell came into the classroom and began running her hands all over KC. Feazell once again increased the level of her abuse, removing KC’s underpants and performing oral sex on her in the school classroom.
Feazell also began pushing KC to do the same to Feazell. All of this occurred in Feazell’s classroom at school, with an underaged student Feazell was supposed to be under strict protocols to ensure no contact with.
Feazell also continued to increase the odious sexual contact and harassment of KC, rubbing and/or penetrating her breasts and genitals, and demanding that KC do the same to Feazell.
Whenever KC would do anything that made Feazell think she was going to break free from her abuse, Feazell would harass, threaten and intimidate KC.
For instance, Feazell warned KC that she was much larger and stronger than KC, and would not hesitate to use physical force if KC tried to resist, and demonstrated this by holding KC down in front of people, who did nothing to help KC.
Despite the promise to KC’s parents, and the supposed restrictions on Feazell, Feazell continued to talk to other teachers in the school about KC during this time about their “special relationship.”
Feazell even went so far as to send a bouquet of flowers and chocolates to KC at school during KC’s freshman year. This blatant violation of the conditions on her remaining employed was well-known to the school.
Principal Curley, who had been involved in making the decision to not notify the proper authorities, but to instead trust Feazell to quit stalking a minor child, had moved from the junior high school to the high school.
He was alerted that the chocolates and flowers sent to KC were from Feazell, and confirmed this because Feazell felt she was so safe from any repercussions that she put her name on the card when she sent them to KC at school!
Again, rather than report as required, or even warn KC’s parents, Curley called Feazell to his office where he received yet another worthless promise that this time she would stop her improper relationship and stalking of KC.
The school and its officials therefore knew beyond question that Feazell continued her inappropriate relationship with this minor child despite having been warned not to do so.
Despite being mandatory reporters, the school and its officials instead became Feazell’s constant enablers.
The School and/or its employee defendant(s) and/or each of them, acted in complete reckless disregard of KC’s well-being. The more the school and the individual defendants looked the other way, the more brazen Feazell became, as when nothing was done to prevent continued abuse and harassment of KC during activity the District and/or the individual defendants had control over, it was incentive for Feazell to increase her predation.
Feazell’s impropriety was so well-known and blatantly obvious that she felt no problem approaching another teacher about a liaison with KC in or around October of 2013. This teacher had agreed for KC to have a sleepover with her daughter, who was in the same class as KC.
Less than an hour after doing so, the teacher was approached by Feazell who said she heard KC was going to be at her house. Feazell demanded time with KC, and told this teacher she would be picking up KC at her house and taking her so that KC and Feazell could “hang out.”
This teacher, having heard about Feazell showing up at a prior sleepover, canceled the overnight stay.
Feazell then began texting her co-worker, telling her she was “fixing a bedroom for KC at her house” and that she intended KC to come live with her, and asking her not to contact KC’s parents about her bizarre behavior.
Deeply disturbed by the contacts she had with Feazell, this teacher immediately reported the events to several Marshfield school supervisors, including Principals Mitchell, Summers, and Curley. This teacher advised all of them about this outrageous conduct, and even showed these school officials the text messages from Feazell which confirmed beyond any question Feazell’s continued abhorrent behavior.
Such an attempt to take an underage child away without the consent, and specifically without the knowledge of her parents, was sufficient by itself to require reporting of the incident to the proper authorities, and immediate suspension of Feazell, and/or other protection to KC, as it constituted not only a clear warning sign to anyone who viewed it within reason, but also an attempted crime under Missouri law.
During this reporting of this misconduct, this teacher was advised that Feazell was in violation yet again of her “no contact” rule.
The teacher’s phone with the text messages was taken to show other school officials, including Superintendent Mark Mayo, as this was clearly evidence requiring the termination of Feazell, along with mandatory reporting which would finally end KC’s nightmare of abuse.
The teacher also advised these principals and other high school officials that Feazell was constantly texting and calling KC, in violation of the “no contact” rule, and of other abhorrent and clearly improper behavior.
In an utterly unexplainable decision, however, the school and its employees, including defendant(s) and/or each of them, did not terminate Feazell, report Feazell as required by law, or otherwise take action to protect KC.
Instead, the decision was made to again do nothing, in violation of promises made to KC’s parents, the agreement with Feazell that she was to have no contact with KC, and common decency.
Had proper action been taken, Feazell’s abuse and harassment of KC would have been stopped, including but not limited to action such as reporting this to the proper authorities, terminating Feazell, or advising KC’s parents of the continued stalking, harassment, and abuse.
Another school official, when informed of this incident, reported the matter to principal Gurley, because as a mandatory reporter, she intended to report Feazell if it had not already been done.
Principal Gurley assured this school official that it had been taken care of, which the concerned school official understood to mean Feazell had been reported as required by law. It was only after the arrest of Feazell almost a year later that she learned in fact nothing had been done, and that it had instead been concealed, even from KC’s parents.
A few days after this latest incident, Feazell showed up outside the reporting teacher’s classroom, very upset and wanted to know why she was telling others about her relations with KC, and warning her to stop doing so. Feazell confessed to this teacher KC was making her “a mess” and that KC was “consuming” her life.”
The teacher again went to the principal and advised of this additional clear confirmation that Feazell was not safe to have around children, especially KC. However, despite this additional evidence, the only protection the school provided was to the teacher, as Feazell was barred from her classroom.
Yet again, the school did nothing to protect KC.
The School District, and the individual defendants’ actions, and/or each of them, behaved in conduct so reckless and abhorrent with regard to KC that it was as if they were trying to follow a how-to book on how to allow a pedophile predator to abuse a young child.
Due to the school and its officials, including the individual defendants’ continued inaction and cover up of these incidents, the relentless abuse of KC both physically and mentally continued for the rest of freshman year, and into her sophomore year.
The decision by the adults who were supposed to be protecting her to do nothing left Feazell with so much control over this child’s life KC had no idea where to turn. She was afraid, and disgusted by what was going on, but saw no way out without everyone knowing her shame.
The abuse of KC ended only when her mother found the burner phone, and discovered sexually explicit messages from Feazell to her young daughter, including statements about KC only being good for Feazell “in bed,” and referencing KC as Feazell’s “wife.”
With the parents finally aware, the school and its officials could no longer cover up Feazell’s misconduct, and law enforcement was called in.
Once the proper authorities learned of this long-standing situation, they immediately arrested Feazell, and charged her with multiple crimes. Feazell eventually pled guilty to four felonies, including sodomy and sexual contact with a student by a teacher.
On August 11, 2015, Feazell pleaded guilty to four felony charges.
She received sentences of seven years for statutory sodomy, four years for sexual contact with a student, four years for tampering with physical evidence and seven years for tampering with a victim/witness.
All sentences were to run concurrently.
However, the judge gave Feazell shock probation.
Feazell spent 120 days behind bars and is on probation until August 2020.
***
Two children. Two murders. Two communities searching for strangers when the killers were closer than they knew. Lost Angels: The Murders of Rowan Ford and Doug Ringler is available at Changing Hand Book Shoppe and Always Buying Books in Joplin, Pat's Books in Carthage and Granby Auto Supply and Hardware in Granby or in paperback or e-book format at Amazon.com at the links below.
12 comments:
This is unbelievable. I hope the student gets therapy immediately. I believe her parents will do that for her. Thank you for caring about the Students.
What a complete failure on the part of the school. This is one case where I hope the family is awarded heavy damages, including every cent from the administrators' pensions--they failed so miserably in their duties they don't deserve retirement.
Too much of this Sh!t going on around here. So disturbing. The schools are failing at paying attention to things like this and bullying. Too busy socializing with eachother. Disgusting. Hoping for the best for KC and her family
https://www.news-leader.com/story/news/crime/2014/10/22/marshfield-teacher-facing-new-felony-charges/17708017/
New charges for Marshfield teacher accused of sex with student
Sarah Okeson, News-Leader Published 7:18 a.m. CT Oct. 22, 2014 | Updated 6:41 a.m. CT Oct. 23, 2014
EXCERPT:
Mark Mayo, the school superintendent, has said Feazell has been the girls' track coach at the junior high and has previously coached basketball and softball.
The board voted unanimously at its meeting Monday night to direct the school district's attorney to draw up a statement of charges on Feazell to review her employment status, according to the board minutes.
Mayo said the board could schedule a hearing after the statement of charges is drawn up and vote to terminate Feazell or put her on unpaid leave. Feazell could also choose to resign.
Mayo told the board in a memo that, "It is the understanding of the district that all such alleged behaviors took place outside school hours and away from any campus of the district."
Feazell was disciplined by the school district about a year ago for "inappropriate conduct" with the student, according to court documents. Administrators told her in writing not to have contact with the student.
Feazell was told in June 2013 to stop texting and writing letters to the student, according to court documents. She was disciplined again, in October 2013, according to court documents.
Mayo wrote in his memo to the board that "at no time has the possibility of Ms. Feazell being engaged in any type of inappropriate sexual behavior been raised prior to the allegations of Oct. 13, 2014."
This is horrific, and I hope that this young girl and her parents are awarded the highest payout possible. It seems that since it's a female lesbian having sexual relations with a child it's just fine because the teacher happens to be attractive. She's as much a predator as any 40-year-old man having sex with a 14 year-old boy. Or would that be okay with the school and judge too. She should have to serve her time in prison just like any other sexual predator.
I'm wondering if Mr Mayo thinks he can clarify and clean up this situation in his deposition.
Mayo wrote in his memo to the board that "at no time has the possibility of Ms. Feazell being engaged in any type of inappropriate sexual behavior been raised prior to the allegations of Oct. 13, 2014."
Go-o-o-o-llee!
Who could ever think of such a thing?!
Hold my beer and let me know how that all turns out if and when damages are assessed.
And did the author of this story, Randy Turner, point out that he was once fired from his job as a teacher, over the objections of his School Superintendent, Mark Mayo? Will he approve this comment?
Perhaps I should have mentioned that Mayo was the superintendent during the last couple of years I taught at Diamond, but the rest of your comment is inaccurate.
In 2003, after I signed a contract to teach at Diamond for the 2003-2004 school year, I fell victim to what is called a RIF (Reduction in Force), which is permitted under Missouri law if a district declares a budget problem. Three teachers, including me, remained on contract, but were placed on unpaid leave. Since Missouri lawmakers did not intend to hold teachers to a contract where they were not being paid, I signed a contract to teach in Joplin.
At the end of the 2003-2004 school year, I received a registered letter from the Diamond R-4 school Distirct informing me that it was not extending me a contract for 2004-2005. By that time, I had already signed a contract to teach a second year at Joplin.
I don't know where you got the idea I was fired over Mayo's objections. That did not happen.
Okay, you were not fired by the Diamond School Board, your contract was not renewed. You were deemed expendable along with two other teachers. Like many people would be, you probably were not too happy about what happened to you. My point is that these same school individuals who did not renew your teaching contract are being accused of wrongdoing in regard to a student and teacher's private relationship and you might not be an entirely neutral observer, or reporter.
This took place in Marshfield. Mayo is the only one that I ever worked for. As for a "private relationship," this was no private relationship, it was a felony and the woman who committed the crime is now a registered sex offender. You seem to be more interested in picking a fight then making a genuine criticism.
These allegations are so bad it seems there should be some kind of criminal neglect charges made.
Post a Comment