The scrum between Jackson Academy and Jason and Carolyn Voyles continues as they argue over whether their dispute should be heard in court or arbitration.
The Voyleses sued the school in Hinds County Court on January 5, accusing the school of terminating their son's enrollment after the couple blew the whistle on its alleged recruiting of athletes from public schools.
JA filed a motion to compel arbitration on January 30. The school argued the enrollment contract requires all disputes be settled through arbitration. However, the motion did not follow the path of a typical motion to compel arbitration as it used the motion to strike back publicly at the Voyleses. Arbitration and humiliation. Two birds, one stone. Earlier post.
JA inserted in its motion to compel excerpts of a four-page email from Mrs. Voyles that well, did not exactly cast her in a flattering light. What was interesting was JA did not included a copy of the entire email in its motion.
The Voyleses wasted no time returning fire with a response to the motion that included a proposed amended complaint and an affidavit by Carolyn Voyles.
Mrs. Voyles stated in her affidavit the contract on the school's website did not allow her to make any changes, thus creating the impression it was a "standard enrollment contract." She said she and her husband were under the impression that their son would not be allowed to continue at Jackson Academy if they did not sign the contract as issued. Thus they were forced into a "take it or leave it" contract.
Jackson Academy and Mr. Wettech responded with a reply brief in support of its motion to compel arbitration on March 20. The defendants wasted no time thrashing the Voyleses in the opening paragraph:
Seeking to publicize their claims and damage the school’s reputation, however, the Voyles breached their agreement by filing their complaint in court and then disseminating it through the media. Now, they seek to justify their breach as asserted victims of contractual “oppression,” falsely suggesting that JA forced them to sign the agreement, so as to analogize their situation to cases of genuinely egregious, and wholly distinguishable, circumstances. The argument is as ridiculous as the Voyles’ underlying claims.*Ouch. The defendants argued the Voyleses were not denied "meaningful choice" and are not victims of contract abuse. The arbitration clause in the contract is routine. The Voyleses claimed the enrollment contract was a contract of adhesion. Such contracts are provided on a "take it or leave it" basis, leaving no room for negotiation. The reply states:
The sole evidence offered to support this contention is an affidavit executed by Carolyn Voyles, wherein she testifies that the enrollment agreement was “presented . . . in an electronic format” on a “website . . . [that] did not provide any opportunity to make changes to the document,” and that, as “[she] understood it, . . . [she] would either have to sign the contract as it was presented in the system, or C.V. would not be able to attend Jackson Academy during the 2025-26 school year.” Based on that testimony, the Voyles suggest unconscionability on the basis that they had “no meaningful choice.” The argument is both factually unsupported and legally misplaced.JA charges Carolyn Voyles of having it all wrong as "no provision in the contract prohibited modification." Indeed, the defendants state:
Every provision in this Contract is severable. . . . No waiver of any of the provisions of this Contract shall be deemed, or shall constitute, a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar, not shall any wavier constitute a continuing waiver. No amendment to this Contract and no alteration or addition to the printed terms hereof will be effective without the express prior written approval of the School’s Board of Trustees.The Voyleses made no attempt to modify the contract, claimed JA. They never voiced any objections to the contract terms even though they had five months to do so. The Voyleses are accused of being somewhat duplicitous in only seeking to invalidate the arbitration clause instead of the entire contract. JA argues the Voyleses can not claim they did not understand the contract:
the Voyles have not even attempted to satisfy their evidentiary burden that their agreement was a product of “external” constraint. Nor could they. As evidenced by their own correspondence to the school, the Voyles are highly educated, wealthy, and experienced. They are well trained in business affairs and matters of contract. They have multiple college and post-graduate degrees. Mrs. Voyles has a law degree. The missing evidence is fatal to the Voyles’ argument.
The defendants close by addressing the matter of punitive damages. This is the first time the issue has reared its head but JA has been doing the plaintiffs a favor.
By contrast, the Voyles have brought a most dubious “breach of contract” case predicated on the assertion that JA’s express contractual “right to terminate” an enrollment agreement was erroneously exercised. Even if the Voyles had not breached the rules and policies set forth in the Student Handbook (they did), and even if the Voyles had not breached their agreement to maintain a “positive and constructive” relationship (they did), and even if it was not reasonable for JA to view the Voyles’ egregious actions worthy of termination (it clearly was), the Voyles suffered no compensable loss.8 And because a compensatory award is a prerequisite to punitive damages, the Voyles have no possible route to such rare relief.Thus the Voyles are not entitle to punitive damages but JA argues it might be so entitled:
On the other hand, the Voyles’ conduct easily qualifies as that for which punitive damages are purposed, i.e., to deter conduct tainted by “actual malice, gross negligence which evidences a willful, wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or . . . actual fraud.” Miss. Code Ann. §11-1-65. As explained in JA’s principal motion, the Voyles acted surreptitiously (by recording conversations in violation of school policy), in bad faith (by breaching their obligation of acting in a positive and cooperative manner through doxxing JA students and placing them and the school in a bad light), with deceit (by attempting with undisclosed purpose to obtain identities of students they would later demean), and in reckless disregard for the rights of others (by publicly demeaning the school and its students). The Voyles have further abused the litigation process by bringing patently frivolous claims for the improper and ulterior purpose of harassment. 9 These actions were malicious and taken with the intent to cause harm. JA is the only party justified in seeking punitive damages in this case, and so the bilateral punitive damages waiver only favors the Voyles.Yup. The contract protects the Voyles because it disallows punitive damages. Thus the Voyles benefit from the contract's waiver. The reply brief concluded with a little warning:
the punitive damages waiver is both facially and effectively bilateral (and therefore enforceable), and b) even if the punitive damages waiver were unconscionable, the proper relief would be to strike the waiver before sending this matter to arbitration where both sides could seek punitive damages.
Kingfish note: The students were "doxxed"? Uh-huh. JA and its defenders complain over and over the Voyleses exposed children. Yeah. These students have their own pages on the various high school sports websites. They hold themselves out to the public as JA athletes. Their exploits on the field are reported in the media, giving them due credit. Almost all promote themselves on social media. To say they are "doxxed" is a bit disingenuous.
How Did We Get Here? (Synopsis of Case)
Jason and Carolyn Voyles sued the school and Headmaster Edward Wettach in Hinds County Circuit Court in January. charging the defendants terminated their son's enrollment because the father blew the whistle on alleged "recruiting" of public school athletes for sports. However, Jackson Academy said not so fast, my friend as it filed a motion to compel arbitration that dished some dirt on the Voyles while rebutting their claims.
The plaintiff's son started attending Jackson Academy in 2014 in K-4. He was a rising sophomore after the 2023-2024 school year and played on the baseball team. Mr. and Mrs. Voyles signed a re-enrollment contract in May 2025.
18. On June 9, 2025, Jason, Carolyn, Eddie, and a board member met in Eddie's office. According to Eddie, Jackson Academy had decided to unenroll the Voyles family, including C.V. from the school.19. Eddie claimed ""the amount of negativity"" caused by the pdf was ""just unacceptable and extreme."" When Carolyn asked Eddie to identify any factual inaccuracies with the pdf, Eddie responded: ""I am not dealing with facts."
21. And it was the facts-not Jason's actions-that sparked the negative backlash that Jackson Academy felt. The facts of Jackson Academy's illegal recruiting demonstrated just how far it had strayed from its mission. Rather than inspiring and equipping "each student" for success, Jackson Academy actively poached rosters of nearby schools so it could win more games.This harms Jackson Academy's students who have devoted their time and loyalty to the school and who, because of Jackson Academy's actions, have fewer athletic slots for which to compete....
The complaint charged JA with breach of contract and sought repayment of 11 years of tuition as well as damages.
39 comments:
If only this JA drama had the all short skirts and minimal swimsuits of the recent Blonde and Leaving Ol Miss drama.
Rich people all around with too much time on their hands.
Definitely first world rich white people with lawyers having life changing level legal quarrel problems.
PG rated Netflix drama amongst the beautiful people of The Fondren.
I can only agree that the obvious recruitment of student athletes has left certain of the JA faithful with "fewer slots" for which to compete. The answer is also obvious. JA should create a quota system and a kind of "affirmative action" to insure that the kids whose parents pay the freight will have a fair chance. The token slots. Who would argue with that?
So this is what I missed by letting my kids go to a real school. Along with enjoying clean running water every damn day.
JA's lawyer is actually claiming the parents can negotiate the terms of the enrollment contracts? That's absolute bullshit.
And 1:42, I guess poor people "of color" are the only ones who have a right to seek justice, huh?
If this was some inner-city dark-skinned kid who got expelled over his parents exercising their rights to free speech, I bet you'd be all over it (or even some privileged brown-skinned kid getting kicked out of an Ivy League university)
The correct action would be MSHAA investigate and suspend JA athletics from competition if the allegations turned out to be true. That would also require MSHAA to not be completely useless.
You surely don't think this is only about lost team sport spots do you? If I'm paying 17k a year in tuition, you darn right I'm concerned as a parent about the type of kids JA is recruiting, and they were recruiting the types of kids who get killed by a homeowner when breaking into a person's home. It would have zero to do with athletics.
An interesting question would be exactly which families have negotiated a change in the enrollment contract.
Yawn. Their kid is now the star 2B at TCA and will most likely lead them to a 3rd straight 2A championship. They should be happy and just get on with their lives.
Really! Glad this family had the guts to speak up!!!
You never know...
Someone in the recruit's crew might have asked something like 'Is this the best you can do for him? Because you know what he can do for you right away,' and the response could have been something like 'Of course our enrollment contract is just as negotiable as an NIL deal. What would you like to see in it?'
lol
MHSAA cannot rule against JA. The executive director will lose the house he leases from JA.
I love seeing all the Jackson Academy Facebook and Twitter post. They highlight all the recruit kids. What a joke that none of the paying kids get highlighted anymore. It will be interesting to see who they bring in next year
I have 2 kids at JA. I pay roughly 34,000 in tuition. I am tired of seeing the clinton, Brandon, NWR kids walking around for free. It pissees me off. My wife and I struggle to make our monthly payments and these kids don’t pay
I have one daughter and one son at JA. My daughter can’t transfer now. I would tell anyone looking at JA, don’t come… If you are thinking about it, come watch one baseball, football or basketball game and ask where are the kids that played 3 years ago…
Who actually gives a shit about this?
Boo Hoo. Your choice. Don't like it, send them to public. Not impressed by your posting your tuition amount. Your decision, nobody forcing you to pay that.
JA is not MHSAA. Thanks for your insight.
In the early 90's Tonka Wallace and another kid from Choctaw came and played at JA. This has always occurred just not quite as obvious as it apparently is now.
Hmm...while other private schools already had students of color whose parents paid tuition and their kids passed entrance exams before " white flight" to the "burbs", a few stayed lilly white for a long time. Scholarships were given to raise the educational bragging rights ( how many college scholarships were awarded, what were the SAT and ACT test averages not athletic scholarships!). They wanted the people who would not only pay tuition but had smart enough children to pass courses and parents who could also donate money to the school.
Some of us remember a time when our parents wanted us to be well educated and even sports was considered physical education to improve body strength and health of mind and body and to find fun outlets that suited the student! I had a PE course in billiards/pool and you didn't have to be take gymnastics to be a cheerleader. Now everything is geared to our kids adulthood, not their childhood and we are giving them adult responsibilities and worries far too early that way!
I don't know when high school and college sports became only about the money , I think it was that " winning is the only thing" quote by a ND coach, but we've fouled everything up with that and money being our primary measure of the value of a human! Character and ethics doesn't matter. We use the kid to punish the parent?
Again, the two worst people you know are in an argument with each other.
@9:19
Unfortunately I came send my kids to public school. We live in the Sheffield area. We moved here to put our kids at Jackson Academy. It is quickly becoming a public school.
This is all very disheartening. The surrounding area around Jackson Academy is not safe anymore. One of our former students was just killed. Everyone wants to act like it didn’t happen. I feel sorry for him.
It looks to me like if the Voyles were un0happy with the recruiting by Mr Wettech, they should have scheduled a face to face meeting with him. If the Voyles were un-happy or didn't understand the new contract a simple phone call to the principal's office coulda cleared things up. Instead, it was all aired on Public Media...We live in the age of instant communication but we still ain't communicating!
The former student was killed because he chose to participate in a crime and was not a victim. It only takes one bad decision to destroy your life.
6:43, I get your point and you aren’t wrong, but wouldn’t that be the very definition of recruiting? We all know that JA would never. *wink*wink*
Isn’t the way around the recruiting rule to have a “donor” pay the bill without JA’s official involvement?
I meant has anyone ever had part of the enrollment contract changed. Don’t like the clause about arbitration? Okay, we will take it out for you. Don’t like the clause about following all of our rules? Cool. We will change that for you. I really don’t think that happens in any private school in MS. But, I guess we will see as I would think that JA would have to have some type of proof that their contract was not “take it or leave it”. I’ve got my popcorn ready!
I’ve always respected JA and their leadership, but this is a hot mess and they keep making it worse. I wonder if they have lost students. The fiasco with the former JA football player breaking in a JA family’s home just proves that the Voyles are not off base in their concerns.
Lots of people! Those of us with kids in other MAIS schools that don’t recruit would love to see some tangible change to those policies. But, at least we are only losing games and not having former classmates break into houses.
There are also those that are recruited, but aren’t minorities and are good enough athletes that they are recruited before HS. By recruited, I mean not paying their own tuition or that of their siblings. So, recruiting is even more wide spread than it appears..
Amen, amen, amen
@1:51 - name a MAIS school (that is competitive in sports) that doesn’t recruit.
"this is a hot mess and they keep making it worse"
Yeah, that's what happens when you hire a d*ck lawyer for his political connections.
What you have just read about is regular people challenging an empire loaded up with lettuce-headed-lawyers in wingtips showing up in court driving black-windowed SUVs with golf clubs in the back. No way normal people can fight these battles.
The supreme irony here is that the very people who have for 50 years avoided interaction with 'colored people' are now recruiting them to run A-pass-right, Wing left on Friday nights.
The post said that at least those schools that don’t recruit are only losing games.
I've had a blind plaintiff compelled to arbitration with Wells Fargo in a fake account case. No way this doesn't get sent to arbitration. The Miss. Supreme Court will if the trial Judge does not.
@2:47, quit using generalizations. If you aren't an alum of Tri-County Academy your kids have no chance of getting enrolled. Heisman trophy potential or not.
A quick glance at the TCA rosters says otherwise.
Did JA ever acknowledge the death of their former student - if not publicly, did they at least hold an assembly with the students, offer student support for grief, anything like that? Or did they truly pretend it never happened?
JA never acknowledged the death of their student!!!!! Young families, please realize a student was killed during a breaking and entering 1 week after he left!!! A lot of kids knew him. JA never acknowledged it and this will happen again!
Look at the kids that have left our football team after “we” won a championship! Keep the championship. I want a safe environment and we don’t have it
Mr Ogden keeps up Sheffield but the whole school is too much
Post a Comment