Earlier post with copy of complaint
St. Andrews vigorously objected to several questions about other students sought in discovery by Precious and Crystal Martin. The Martins sued Saint Andrews for breach of contract, as they claimed the school did not protect their son from bullying. The school filed a motion for a protective order to prevent the Martins from obtaining information on other students. A hearing is set for 9:00 AM on February 18. Judge Jeff Weill will preside.
Precious and Crystal Martin filed a lawsuit against the school, Headmaster George Penick, and then-lower school headmaster Leanna Owens, in October in Hinds County Circuit Court. Mrs. Martin is the daughter of Senior Hinds County Chancellor Patricia Wise. The suit also names Headmaster George Penick and Head of the Lower School Leanna Owens as defendants as well. Attorney James Bobo represents the Martins.
The Martins enrolled their three children in St. Andrews on January 13, 2013. The children were in the sixth, fourth, and second grades. They claimed they paid a minimum of $39,595 in tuition and fees to St. Andrews. The Martins claim another fourth grader subjected their child to "verbal and physical abuse". They state they notified the school about the problem as "early as August 27." The other child's parents complained to the school that Young Martin had then allegedly placed an "inappropriate comment" on the other child's Instagram page. (Don't know why a fourth grader has an Instagram page but I digress.) The school allegedly told the Martins no action would be taken about the Instagram caper as the event took place outside of the school. The complaint does not state whether the child was in the Klan.*
The Martins state their fourth grade son claimed the other child "stomped and kicked him as well as called him names." They allege he told the teacher about the incident but nothing was done. Mr. Martin then filed an affidavit for assault against the fourth-grader in Hinds County Justice Court. They claimed the other child harassed their kid and "called him rude names" at school a few days later.
The Martins met again with the administration. They allege Headmaster Penick said if they did not withdraw the affidavit, the school would dismiss their son. He repeated the statement in an email sent to the Martins (p.31 below). Mr. Penick stated in the September 10 email the charges were filed without "allowing the school time to address the situation." (They were filed the day after the incident.) He also asked for their promise to work with St. Andrews and its "procedures" before using the criminal justice system. The affidavit was withdrawn.
The Martins allege various claims such as breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith, tort of outrage, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, conspiracy, and tortious interference with contract. The Martins asked for actual and punitive damages. The two sides are currently engaged in discovery. They have since withdrawn their children from St. Andrews.
St. Andrews argues the court should prevent the Martins from:
"questioning the Defendants and their representatives on irrelevant and confidential matters related to minor students at St. Andrew’s for whom Plaintiffs are not the legal parent or guardian. The Defendants also seek a Protective Order regarding similar requests in written discovery."Indeed, the school all but accuses the Martins of going fishing in a discovery expedition:
During the course of discovery, it has become clear that the Plaintiffs are seeking irrelevant and confidential, personal information regarding other minor students. Indeed, it seems that the Plaintiffs’ motivation for filing this suit is to obtain information regarding other minor children at St. Andrew’s. As such, Defendants believe that the Plaintiffs will likely attempt to question St. Andrew’s 30(b)(6) representative, and Owens and Penick, individually, on matters related to the fellow student including any complaints against that student by other students and parents, discipline actions taken, private interactions with the student and the student’s family, discussions with the family and any other steps the school was taking as a result of the alleged issues....
Information and documentation pertaining to other minor children has no relevance to the Plaintiffs’ claim that the Defendants breached a contract with the Plaintiffs....
The educational, social, personal, and any disciplinary history of fellow students wholly exceeds the scope of discovery in this matter as it has no relevance whatsoever to the viability or lack thereof of the Plaintiffs’ claims for alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiffs are not only seeking the information as to a specific minor child, who was the victim Plaintiffs’ improper affidavit, they are seeking it on every child who has ever had a complaint raised against another child at St. Andrew’s.
19. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not and cannot show information regarding the fellow student is relevant to the Plaintiffs’ claims, much less those of all the other students.
(Kingfish note: What is probably taking place is the Martins are trying to find out through discovery if there is a pattern of bullying and failure to protect students from bullying at the school. St. Andrews is objecting.)
The school accuses the plaintiffs of um, overreacting (my word, not the defendants') in filing the suit:
The day after the alleged isolated incident, and based solely on that one single incident, rather than report anything to the school administration, the Plaintiffs then pressed criminal charges against a young child for an alleged kick and name calling. Id. Ultimately, after discussing their inappropriate actions with the school, the Plaintiffs then dropped the charges and withdrew all of their children from St. Andrew’s.
The motion for a protective order gets rather interesting in that it seems to go past the request for the order and its underlying reasons into a full attack on the Martin's case itself. It questions the cause of action for the suit: a claim that St. Andrews breached the contract with the Martins. The school claims
Ultimately, Plaintiffs decided to withdraw the charges and also leave St. Andrew’s. Thus, the family was not removed from the school instead they simply left after realizing St. Andrew’s would not bend to intimidation of another minor child by another parent or attempts to strong arm and intimidate the school itself to remove another student.The Martins have not yet filed a response.
10. The most disturbing thing about this entire case is that Plaintiffs are licensed attorneys. Plaintiffs, more so than lay persons, should understand that resort to the courts is adversarial and creates a controversy rather than seeking a solution for all concerned. The school environment is one in which the children must learn to live together and work out differences as they grow and mature. In most aspects of life, but particularly one where the parties are of tender age and still maturing and learning, resort to the courts should be a last resort, not a first resort, and certainly not for an alleged grade school incident.
It should be noted that the Plaintiffs’ minor child is not a party, is not making a tort claim, and one is not being made on the child’s behalf. Again, this is a claim for a breach of contract between the Martins and St. Andrew’s, and has nothing to do with the conduct of other students, the Plaintiffs’ children, or the how the school addresses “bullying”.
43 comments:
If the clear racist Precious Martin hates white people so badly, why does he continue to send his kids to predominantly white schools?
Why doesn't he, and the other "successful" blacks do something to correct the black community, instead of high tailing it to the white community?? (Can you spell Bridgewater and racist radio program?)
Good filing by St. A. Hopefully, they will be successful. Very good key points made in the motion.
If the Martin's son is being bullied so badly(enough to psychologically scar him for life) that it warrants the parents' to sue the school. then why the hell did the Martin's still left the children enrolled at the school? According, to the Martins the school is incompetent to address the bullying. St. A did the right thing by kicking them out and fighting all this nonsense.
"The complaint does not state whether the child was in the Klan.*"
ROFLMAO
No one was kicked out of anything. The Martins withdrew their children from school.
Is the James Bobo attorney the father of the nutjob who drank hydrogen peroxide at the Wal-Mart?
I thought the motion was pretty weak - no cases cited to support the school's position and trying to argue that maybe some of this is covered by medical privilege? No privilege would exist if the parents voluntarily turned the information over to a third party like the school.
The bigger issue to me seems to be whether the voluntary withdrawal from the school defeats the claims as a matter of law, which they do raise in the motion. Why didn't they file a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment? Wouldn't the easiest way to avoid discovery be to have the case dismissed?
Of course, that would put an end to billable opportunities for the lawyers . . . .
Siiii Senor.
The Martins should enroll all of their children in Jackson Public Schools. If for some reason they do not live in Jackson, they should immediately move back in and become Jackson residents and lead by example...support Jackson Public Schools.
Note: I'm trying to win the award for the most absurd post of the day....frankly, I believe I've nailed it.
KF. Any way to get the Justice Court affidavit posted? Please redact the minor's name as JUSTICE COURT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION OVER 4th GRADERS!!!! That is the domain of the Youth Court, where the proceedings (and most importantly - identities) are kept confidential.
I really don't want to see the affidavit but it should have been "Exhibit A" to the school's motion for a protective order. No confidence that names and information regarding the other minor students wouldn't be disclosed by the Plaintiff.
Shakedown by a scumbag.
Precious, and those of his ilk, cut their teeth on EEOC filings and wasting the time of employers. The first effort is always to demand production of records involving most/all/a majority of those similarly situated, likely to be similarly situated or ever having been terminated or similarly documented in the history of the company.
It's always a bullshit demand and will be interesting (although I hope obvious) to see how the Judge handles this.
Some people got law degrees that should not have. The Martins are a prime example. Let's see if we can con some money from someone or anyone. The Mississippi Bar should be ashamed!
Come on you all know he is qualified! After all, he IS black.
I wonder if George is comforted by the type of comments posted in his defense here? Lawsuits make strange bedfellows.
Look people, it is well known among SA parents and a good portion of Northeast Jackson that families - good folks in anyone's book- have withdrawn their kids from SA because parents say bullying complaints were not addressed at the lower school. That does not mean the Martins are correct in the way they handled this or that their lawsuit should be successful. But it does mean that there has been a documented problem with this type of issue at this school. I feel sorry for other families if they get drawn into this mess and lay this totally at the feet of the school for failing to address a problematic administrator they knew about for a long time.
Hey, it isn't like Penick came to the school with significant experience leading schools either. LMAO Nor did the former Worldcom clerk they have as Associate Head.
they must have blew through the Motorola/Hinds Co $$$... St A is the next vacation!!
I pray 11:03 is not an attorney. And if so, no one utilizes their services.
What's with all the talk about race people?
Jackson Academy is next.
5:18 Jesus God in heaven 5:18!!!! Are you familiar at all with this race pimp? Have you listened to him on the radio???
What a stupid comment/question.
Why hasn't SA's counsel raised FERPA in this? The Federal Educational Records Privacy Act (think of it as the HIPAA of education) prevents schools - private or public - from releasing any information about a minor or contents if his "educational records" (which the courts have generally interpreted quite broadly to even encompass items not truly within an educational record) without permission of the minor and/or his guardian. Schools usually rush to hide behind FERPA in my experience. You'd think that SA could quash all of the discovery on other kids on these grounds (and yes it's federal legislation but it applies equally in state litigation for those non-lawyers who may ask).
Shhhh...... That will require 10 hours of research and a memo.
I don't know if this kid deserved to be bullied before his parents pulled a stunt like this, but I think it's pretty safe to say that wherever he goes, he's going to get the shit bullied out of him now.
Kudos to the Martins for thinking this through.
The playbook is already laid out for your reading pleasure. Check out "Shakedown" by Jesse Lee Peterson. He tells how the reverends do it such as Jesse Jackson. They shake down institutions that would rather be labeled child molesters than racist. Here is some money, see we are not racist.
The liberal types that seem to populate SA will pay out of white guilt. They feel guilty for having more money than others. Now they don't want other whites to participate but they think other whites should pay.
JA does the same. If there's any pushing, fighting, etc, blames the biggest kid or the kid whose parents don't donate enough, puts them on out of school suspension, then doesn't allow the parents any appeal. My kid was the one hurt, but was the one blamed and suspended for a week because he was the biggest kid.
The stomping and kicking in the halls of St Andrews is still going on?
The bully stomps down hard on the victim's foot and then kicks them in the shins. Despite the repeated incidents, the bully claims it accidental while navigating the halls between classes. That was happening over a decade ago.
If the Martins are looking for a pattern of condoning bullying, they will find it.
This isn't about race. Many of the victims of bullying at St As have been white and the bully was black on at least one occasion was a black female.
A private school has more power to take action to protect students from bullying. They can even refuse to re-enroll a child.
I hope the Martins succeed.
No kid "deserves" to be bullied!
7:44 am, I hope to hell that you are not teaching a child that if they find someone else annoying , instead of learning to cope with the fact that they won't like everyone, they get to physically assault or torment people they don't like!
Sounds to me like a lot of former bullies are trying to rationalize having been jerks !
All kids should be home-schooled.
6:02 pm way to be what you criticize!
Whether or not Martin is " a race pimp" doesn't mean his child wasn't bullied or that St As didn't protect him from bullying ( perhaps from a kid who heard their parents call Precious names?)
Show me a kid who bullies and I'll show you a parent who can't intellectually rise above name calling and physical intimidation to win an argument or make a point!
Show us 8:22 AM where 6:02 PM argued otherwise. Put up.
Anyone who continues to use "Precious" as a name deserves any ass-raggin' he gets, in court or out. Okay, his parents cruelly gave him a really crummy, silly non-name on his birf certificate. Not his fault. But if he'd had an ounce of sense (which I can see no evidence for) he'd have changed it as soon as he was legally able. St. Andrew's is well rid of these numbskulls.
On an uplifting note;
I understand Martin is headed to Meridian to fight for our oppressed new Mayor ... The Honorable Percy "Can't speak a coherent sentence" Bland; a "Hope & Change" intellect of the highest caliber. Why we ignorant rubes just can't see the promise of Little Kush is truly beyond me. Bennie, Ike ... & now Precious. If only we can get Lt. Graham & Kennuff to join in, we will be set.
The Martin children were always very nice, smiling and fun to be around when my son went to SA. There is no reason to attack them.
It is comments like those above and often found on this site that create the Precious Martin's of the world. The bigotry above is met with an equal and opposite bigotry. May be that this is the reason your kids are self-absorbed bullies that may or may not be hacking the shell of a turtle in the basement while you spew your anonymous comments unaware.
You fricks should be put in a room with Precious to fight it out Russell Crow style. After about an hour you'd become best buds, realizing the animus that stains your hands is no different from your opponent's.
To the extent that comment moderation is enabled for these comments the site's owner is just as complicit in fostering and furthering the bigotry and racism that exists in the greater metro area as represented by the comments above. In other words, once comment moderation is enabled the moderator acquiesces to the comments her/she moderates.
Yoknapatawpha
I think the martin's and their ilk are trying to sue these private white school's out of business. I would think that St. Andrews has enough lawyers with children attending that they could repel martin and send him back under the rock that he crawled out from under. What a douchebag.
Since when is a racial description bullying?
February 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM = CVS or Walgreens stock many brands of laxative
8:42 am, 6:02 pm comment was typical of that of a bully.
I understand you don't " get it" but adults model behavior for children.
I don't agree with Mr. Martin's political point of view, but when it comes to a private school not protecting students who are bullied by other students on campus, when they have the authority to do so according to the contracts signed, Mr. Martin's suit is well taken with me.
I doubt seriously that you or 6:02 pm have ever had children at St. Andrews or know many who have or else your children are the bullies.
February 11, 2014 at 1:05 PM, since you cannot do something as simple as pluralize 'Martin', I sincerely doubt you had a son who went to SA.
You can't bully a Martin
153 agree!
I am NOT a racist by any means. however why would someone send their child to a school that does not predominantly support their culture that they are so proud of? it seems as though they might have wanted trouble or a reason to sue to prove a point. there is no excuse for bullying-none! but its not so confidential when the parents' names are listed as everyone will know who the child is. their children will surely be bullied since it seems as though it's been made so public. and if St Andrews shoved this under the rug on former complaints, then I hope they are penalized. children should not suffer consequences because of their parents or SA's stupid actions. I hope that they went through the proper channels and provided SA time too rectify the situation before just throwing a lawsuit out there. I feel sorry for the children.
Post a Comment