IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MERCER COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA

AMANDA SHREWSBURY,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. _______________

Judge _______________________

THE MERCER COUNTY BOARD OF

EDUCATION, ALMA BELCHER,
STEVE HAYES and DEBORAH AKERS,

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

Now comes the Plaintiff, Amanda Shrewsbury, by counsel, JB Akers and Akers

Law Offices, PLLC, and complains and alleges as follows:

1. At all relevant times Plaintiff Amanda Shrewsbury resided in Mercer

County, West Virginia.

2. At all relevant times the Mercer County Board of Education (“Mercer

County BOE”) was a political subdivision doing business in Mercer County, West

Virginia. The Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over this Defendant.

3. At all relevant times Defendant Alma Belcher (“Belcher”) was a resident

of and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal

jurisdiction over this Defendant.

4. At all relevant times Defendant Steve Hayes (“Hayes”) was a resident of

and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal

jurisdiction over this Defendant.

 5. At all relevant times Defendant Deborah Akers (“Akers”) was a resident

of and/or worked in Mercer County, West Virginia. The Court therefore has personal

jurisdiction over this Defendant.

6. At all relevant times the individual Defendants, Belcher, Hayes and Akers,

were employed by Defendant Mercer County BOE. Defendant Mercer County BOE is

therefore liable for the individual Defendants’ misconduct, described more fully herein,

through respondeat superior and/or other legal avenues.

7. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in and about Mercer

County, West Virginia. Venue is therefore appropriately vested in this Court.

8. The Plaintiff’s claims, more fully described below, arise from certain West

Virginia statutory, common law and regulatory causes of action. The Court therefore has

subject matter jurisdiction over this cause of action.

9. The Plaintiff’s claims, described more fully below, may include, but are

not limited to, those allowed by West Virginia Code § 29-12A-4(c)(2) and/or (4).

10. The Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Belcher, Hayes and Akers may

include, but are not limited to, those allowed by West Virginia Code § 29-12A-5(b)(2)

and/or (3).

11. The Plaintiff’s claims also fall outside of the limitations of West Virginia

Code § 29-12A-1 et seq. since some of the relief sought revolves around her conditions of

employment pursuant to W.Va. Code § 29-12A-18 et seq.

12. At all relevant times Plaintiff was employed as a teacher aide at

Cumberland Heights Early Learning Center (“Cumberland Heights”) located in Bluefield,

Mercer County, West Virginia. Plaintiff worked in Defendant Belcher’s classroom.

2
Defendant Hayes was and is the principal of Cumberland Heights. Defendant Akers was

and is the Superintendent of Schools for Mercer County.

13. While working in Defendant’s Belcher’s classroom Plaintiff witnessed

Defendant Belcher abusing and neglecting students.

14. Sometime prior to Thanksgiving 2018 Plaintiff made her first verbal and

e-mail complaints to Defendant Hayes regarding Defendant Belcher. Plaintiff believes

she made approximately 57 complaints regarding Defendant Belcher’s misconduct

between around Thanksgiving 2018 and early January 2019. Plaintiff eventually notified

Defendant Hayes, Defendant Akers and other school personnel.

15. In early January 2019 Defendant Belcher physically and without consent

grabbed Plaintiff twice during a lunch period after Plaintiff attempted to protect students

from Defendant Belcher. Plaintiff notified Defendant Hayes. He told Plaintiff not to

contact police because law enforcement would ban her or Defendant Belcher from the

school and Defendant Hayes would make sure that person was the Plaintiff.

16. On January 11, 2019, a separate Board of Education employee interviewed

the Plaintiff while she was in Defendant Hayes’ office. At some point during that

interview that employee asked the Plaintiff if any students in her classroom had been

subjected to abusive and/or neglectful behavior. In the presence of Defendant Hayes the

Plaintiff answered “yes.” Defendant Hayes then asked his secretary to provide him with

an evaluation form in which he gave the Plaintiff a negative review. Defendant Hayes

told the Plaintiff that Defendant Akers did not want the Plaintiff to accept any more

MCBOE positions.

3
 17. On January 11, 2019 Defendant Hayes threatened Plaintiff’s employment

if she cooperated with CPS and police regarding their potential investigation of

Defendant Belcher’s mistreatment of students. By that time Plaintiff had made dozens of

complaints about Defendant Belcher’s misconduct to Defendants Hayes and/or Akers, as

well as other MCBOE personnel. Plaintiff was told by Defendant Hayes later that day

that her services were no longer needed at his school since her job had been offered to

and accepted by another MCBOE employee. She thereafter lost her teaching aide

position that was supposed to last the remainder of the school year.

Count I – Public Policy Violations

18. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

19. During the course of the Plaintiff’s employment she reported acts of

misconduct to her supervisors.

20. Defendants Mercer County BOE, Hayes and Akers violated the public

policy of the State of West Virginia by threatening her and eventually terminating her

position for reporting illegal conduct.

21. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct, jointly

and severally, the Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count II – Wrongful Discharge/Retaliatory Discharge/Public Policy Violations

22. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

23. After the Plaintiff reported the illegal actions of Defendant Belcher her

position was terminated by Defendants Hayes, Akers and/or Mercer County BOE. The

4
Defendants illegally retaliated against the Plaintiff and violated the public policy of this

State through their illegal employment actions.

24. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct, jointly

and severally, the Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count III – Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

25. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

26. The previously alleged conduct of the Defendants was of such a nature so

as to constitute negligent infliction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiff.

27. As a proximate result of the Defendants’ misconduct, jointly and

severally, the Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count IV – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress/Outrageous Conduct

28. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

29. The previously alleged conduct of the Defendants was of such a serious

nature so as to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress upon the Plaintiff

and/or to constitute the tort of outrage.

30. As a result of the Defendants’ wrongful conduct, jointly and severally, the

Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count V – Negligence/Civil Assault and Battery

31. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

5
 32. At all relevant times the Defendants, jointly and severally, had a duty to

use reasonable care towards Plaintiff in their supervision of her as a subordinate

employee. The Defendants breached their duty to use reasonable care, including but not

limited to the civil assault and battery inflicted upon Plaintiff along with the Defendants

negligent failure to report and remediate the misconduct.

33. As a result of the Defendants’ negligent acts, jointly and severally, the

Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count VI – Willful Misconduct/Punitive Damages

34. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

35. At all relevant times the Defendants, jointly and severally, acted willfully,

wantonly and with deliberate indifference to the Plaintiff’s rights.

36. As a result of the Defendants’ misconduct, jointly and severally, the

Plaintiff suffered damages.

Count VII – Negligent Supervision/Retention

37. The Plaintiff reincorporates by reference the allegations contained within

the previous paragraphs as if more fully set forth herein.

38. At all relevant times Defendants Hayes, Akers and Mercer County BOE

had a duty to supervise the relevant Defendants under their chain of command in this

matter. The Defendants failed to uphold their duty of supervision along with negligently

retaining the at-fault employees.

39. As a result of Defendants’ misconduct, jointly and severally, Plaintiff

suffered damages.

6
 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly

and severally, in such sums as will fairly and fully compensate her for the damages she

sustained as a result of the Defendants’ illegal conduct, together with pre-judgment and

post-judgment interest, attorney’s fees, costs of the proceeding, punitive damages and any

other such relief deemed appropriate.

PLAINTIFF FURTHER DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.

AMANDA SHREWSBURY,
By Counsel

______________________________________
JB Akers, Esq. (WVSB #8083)
Akers Law Offices, PLLC
128 Capitol Street
P.O. Box 11206
Charleston, WV 25339
(304) 720-1422
(304) 720-6956 (Facsimile)