You are on page 1of 29

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

15th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR


PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
MALIK LEIGH,
Plaintiffs,

CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION AI


CASE NO.: 50-2016-CA-005398

MB

And
ROBERT AVOSSA, (personally and in his capacity as
Superintendent of Palm Beach County
School District), PALM BEACH COUNTY
SCHOOL BOARD, et. al.
_____________________________________/
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action to recover damages from violations of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992
for Racial, Sex, and other Discrimination, Retaliatory Discharge - Public Sector Florida
Whistle-blowers Act, Breach of Contract, Declaratory Judgement, and Temporary Injunction. These Acts and causes of action were created by the Florida Legislature to protect Florida public sector employees and Florida Residents against Discrimination and retaliation for
disclosing important matters of concern without fear of discharge or other demonstratively
negative impact.
2. On or about March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff, along with five of his minority students and parents attended a school board meeting to request that the School district fulfill their Florida
Constitutional requirement to educate them with certified teachers instead of unqualified and
ineffective substitute teachers. The Plaintiff, acting as a private citizen, invoked the Florida
Whistle-blowers Act for his disclosures and participation at the School Board meeting, but
the Defendants decided to violate Florida Law and begin a campaign of retaliation and discrimination against the Plaintiff for both teaching the students of their legal rights, and because he is a member of a racial minority. The actions of the Defendants was against various

Florida statutes for which the Plaintiff seeks Compensatory and Punitive damages in excess
of Fifty (50) Million Dollars independent of interests and Attorneys fees.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, MALIK LEIGH, sues Defendants, ROBERT AVOSSA and the PALM BEACH
COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD and states:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action because the complainant seeks damages exceeding $15,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs, and attorneys fees.
4. Venue is proper in Palm Beach County because the Plaintiffs causes of action accrued in
this County as Robert Avossa and the District committed various and repeated acts of Retaliation which resulted in the Retaliatory Discharge of a Public Sector employee; Breach of
Contract, Intentional infliction of Emotional distress, Defamation, and Negligence in Palm
Beach County.
5. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled, satisfied, or excused.
PARTIES
6. The Plaintiff, Malik Leigh, is a Black Male Attorney and first year Law Teacher over the age
of 18, and is otherwise sui juris.
7. The Defendant Robert Avossa (hereinafter referred to as Avossa), in his capacity as Palm
Beach County Superintendent of Schools is over the age of 18 years old, resides in Palm
Beach County, Florida, and is otherwise sui juris.
8. Defendant, Palm Beach County School Board (hereinafter referred to as the District), is an
Agency as defined by F.S. 112.3187(3)(a) and its employees whom work for the District and
upon whom the District is vicariously liable for their actions, maintains its main office at
3300 Forest Hill Boulevard, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida.
9. The Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel, Watson Leigh, Law and Education Services Group, Inc., to represent him in this action and is obligated to pay his counsel for his
reasonable attorneys fee for their services.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
10. Plaintiff has complied with all of the conditions precedent in this case, or they have been
waived.
11. On or about March 18, 2016, Plaintiff Employee sent correspondence (email) and notice to
Robert Avossa disclosing and reporting harassment, bullying, and retaliation by school Administrators towards students and Plaintiff for practicing their First Amendment Rights to
speech and assembly.
12. Plaintiff Employee, on or about April 12, 2016, sent a Notice Letter letter of protection pursuant to F.S. 112.3187 to Robert Avossa and the District, and made whistle-blower disclosures for District investigation.
13. On or about May 18, 2016, in the District offices, upon receiving notice of suspension and
removal from classroom, Plaintiff Employee requested a hearing on allegations prior to removal and was denied.
14. Plaintiff Employee, on or about May 20, 2016, filed a charge of discrimination with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
15. On or about June 6, 2016, the Office of Inspector General sent Plaintiff Employee a letter
stating that they would not be investigating Plaintiff Employees claims and the disclosures
made to the District.
16. Plaintiff Employee has satisfied all administrative prerequisites for all claims for relief asserted herein and for the Courts assumption of jurisdiction over all claims for relief herein.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
17. On or about 18 August, 2015, Malik was interviewed and hired as the Freshman and Sophomore Law and World History teacher at Palm Beach Lakes Community High School, located
at 3505 Shiloh Dr., West Palm Beach, Florida, 33407 (hereinafter referred to as Lakes).
18. During his interview, Malik made his continued involvement and employment with Watson
Leigh, Law and Education Services Group, Inc., a condition for his hiring at Lakes.

19. Therefore, on or about August 18, 2015 Malik Leigh and the District entered into a mutually
binding employment contract for whereupon Malik Leigh would teach Law at Palm Beach
Lakes Community High School and the District would pay him for his services.
20. In addition to the employment contract between Malik and the District, Malik Leigh and the
District would mutually be required to abide by the Palm Beach County Teachers Associations Collective Bargaining Agreement CBA rules.
21. The agreement between Malik Leigh and the District is essentially a mutual agreement that
Malik Leigh would agree to follow the Districts rules, and the District would agree to follow
the Teachers Unions rules to protect the rights and privileges of the teachers employed by
the District for pay.
22. Immediately after hire, Malik Leigh realized that issues were present in all of his classes that
prevented learning by students; many of the children could not read at a level that was consistent with their ages, or grade level.
23. When Malik Leigh sought help from the Lakes administration, he was ignored.
24. On or about the end of the first semester: December 2015; during a lesson on Tort Law, Malik Leigh was asked by students if a school was not providing teachers to teach students
Geometry, and they had a duty to, would they be liable?
25. After expressing that a school district would be liable, the students explained that Lakes was
in fact that school and that many of their parents had called the Assistant Principals Michael
Huggins and Elena Villani and complained to the school about not receiving a certified
teacher, but instead, a series of substitutes that do not provide any actual lessons, but just a
B grade and youtube videos.
26. Malik Leigh made the discussion a lesson on Torts in all of his classes, however students
wanted to take action.
27. On or about February 1, 2016, upset because the then current substitute teacher told the students that she was not there to teach them, but to babysit and give them grades. . . the students decided to sue the District for education misconduct.

28. Malik Leigh was employed as a Law Teacher at Lakes, under the control and direction of
Robert Avossa and the District, an Agency as defined by F.S. 112.3187(3)(a) for wages and
or other renumeration.
29. Malik Leigh, a teacher employed by the District, but acting as a private citizen exercising his
First Amendment Rights, on March 16, 2016, along with five (5) of his students, and on behalf of the students parents who were also in attendance, disclosed to Robert Avossa and the
District in an open and public School Board Meeting, that his students and their classmates;
approximately one hundred (100) minority students, were not being provided a certified
teacher, but instead multiple substitutes; that the substitutes were committing fraud in the
way that they were teaching and grading students in their classes Geometry section; that the
students wanted to learn and be prepared for their upcoming end of course exam; that Robert
Avossas and the Districts discriminatory and ambivalent behavior towards the minority students at their Black school was causing a direct and negative affect to their future college
prospects; and that athletes were being given special treatment; all in direct violation of State
and Federal Law. This disclosure also, though not expressed, was to inform the District and
Robert Avossa, and the general public that the District was not utilizing Federal Title 1
funds and that they were violating Title IV, VI, and IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
30. Malik Leigh sent Robert Avossa an email on or about March 18th, 2016 when he learned that
the Head Principal, Cheryl McKeever on March 17, 2016, corralled approximately 60 students from the Geometry sections five classes into the school auditorium and began to accost, harass, bully, and blame them all for their not having a teacher and for some going to
the school board. Robert Avossa acknowledged receipt of the email.
31. Malik Leigh again, on or about April 12, 2016 sent Robert Avossa and the District a letter
of protection pursuant to F.S.112.3187 and made disclosures for District investigation regarding other teachers making money off of students and not depositing the funds, para-professionals causing bodily injury to non-verbal special needs children, District officials harassing students without their parents present to get information on Malik Leigh, Lakes
Assistant Principals forcing teachers to change grades against their will, and attempts to harass and intimidate Malik Leigh himself, by casting him as a Ring Leader of the students

who attended the School Board Meeting on March 16, 2016. This letter was first emailed,
then mailed by certified mail to Robert Avossa and the District. Robert Avossa Acknowledged receipt.
32. Malik Leighs multiple disclosures revealed multiple violations of misconduct, abuse and or
assault, misappropriation of funds, violations of federal and state law, violations of misuse of
federal funds, education misconduct, and violations of personal civil liberties by the District
and its employees on its behalf, which created a substantial and specific danger to the publics and Lakes childrens health, safety, or welfare or an act of gross mismanagement,
malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual medicaid fraud or
abuse, or gross neglect of duty.
33. Subsequent to making the disclosures, Robert Avossa and the Districts employees: Head
Principal Cheryl McKeever - Principal of Lakes, the Area Four (4) Superintendent - Camille
Coleman, Human Resources Manager - Darren Davis, and the Office of Professional Standards Dianne Weintraub and Elvis Epps began to make an unsubstantiated claims against
Malik Leigh, resulting in his unjust suspension and termination in violation of F.S.
112.3187, 448.102-105 on or about May 18, 2016 without due process and against the tenants of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
34. Malik Leighs truthful disclosures were not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose;
were made for the benefit of the general public and promoted the overall health, safety, and
welfare of the public; were acknowledged and admitted as truthful by the Head Principal
Cheryl McKeever; and occurred prior Robert Avossa and the Districts retaliation.
35. On or about May 1, 2016, with the purpose of retaliating, humiliating, and embarrassing Malik Leigh for making his public appearance at the School Board meeting on March 16, 2016;
for the purpose of constructively terminating his position as Law Teacher at Lakes for his
disclosure to Robert Avossa that ultimately became public through the Palm Beach Posts
Sunshine Law request on March 18, 2016; and for Malik Leighs letter of protection on
April, 12, 2016, because of the Districts continuous allegations of misconduct using of the
Office of Professional Standards, Cheryl McKeever, Camille Coleman, and others; the district publicly posted his filled position as empty and available in direct violation of the Col-

lective Bargaining Agreement that both Malik Leigh, as an instructional employee and the
District agreed to, without notice.
36. On or about the month of April 2016, Malik Leigh received a call from someone in the
Districts Office of Inspector General (OIG) requesting that he come to the Districts offices
for the purposes of determining whether or not (he) was to receive Whistle-blower
protections.
37. Malik Leigh, declined, explaining to the OIG that it was not up to him to determine his
adequacy as a whistle-blower; that his letter was specific enough for them to take action;
and that he was putting them on notice that he was aware of his statutory protections.
38. On or about May 1, 2016, Malik Leighs position as a Law Teacher was publicly posted on
the District Employment website as vacant.
39. Prior to May 1, 2016, Malik Leigh was not notified of the posting of his position by the
Administration, Principal, the School District, or any official person tasked to do so, but
multiple teachers and staff came to Malik Leighs classroom to notify him that he was in fact
fired, or soon will be.
40. On or about May 3, 2016, Malik Leigh received an email from the Office of Professional
Standards accusing him of misconduct for proposing a joint law camp with the Districts
Joseph Lee; various students and teachers contacting and hiring Malik Leighs Law partner
for representation in actions against the district; for truthfully detailing the termination of
negotiations between the District and the non-profit law firm Watson Leigh regarding a joint
law camp after his visit to the School District on March 16, 2016; and claiming that Malik
Leigh violated Federal Law by not getting permission to post a video on his Firms website
promoting the Lakes Law Program, although permission had been requested and granted.
41. Immediately after the email from the Office of Professional Standards, Malik Leigh attended
a Climate Survey poll regarding the failure of the Head Principal, Cheryl McKeever and
her staffs impact on the happiness of the teaching staff.
42. On May 3, 2016, Malik Leigh responded to the Office of Professional Standardss letter with
a denial of all allegations, and asked whether or not there had been an investigation regarding
his disclosures and the Principal for Violating the Districts rules. None of these rules were

violated by Malik Leigh.


43. In addition to the response to the Office of Professional Standards, Malik Leigh accompanied
his letter with his official notice of claim, intending to sue Robert Avossa and the District for
their repeated harassment and retaliatory actions.
44. On or about May 12, 2016, a week after the voluntary transfer period had ended, Cheryl
McKeever and the District delivered upon Malik Leigh his notice of non-renewal. This was
Malik Leighs second termination without just cause in two (2) weeks.
45. Because Malik Leigh has satisfied the time requirement expressed in F.S.1012.335
termination can only be for no cause or for just cause.
46. Just Cause defined under F.S.1012.335 includes but is not limited to:
(a)Immorality.
(b)Misconduct in office.
(c)Incompetency.
(d)Gross insubordination.
(e)Willful neglect of duty.
(f)Being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of guilty to,
regardless of adjudication of guilt, any crime involving moral turpitude.
47. Malik Leighs first-year observation ended at: Highly Effective, the highest level possible,
making him eligible for an Annual contract.
48. Because Malik Leigh was accused of being disloyal, accused of misconduct, and accused
of profiting off of his employment as an instructional employee by the District and its
employees after his multiple Whistle-blower disclosures to the School board and general
public (none of which were investigated) Malik Leighs terminations and non-renewal was
not for just cause but retaliation in violation of F.S. 112.3187, F.S. 448.101-448.104,
F.S.760.01-760-11.
49. Therefore, on Friday, May 13, 2016, Malik Leigh filed an Emergency Injunction for
Temporary Relief invoking the Injunctive Relief provision afforded F.S. 112.3187.
50. The Court reviewed the Injunction on Monday May 17, 2016, and denied the emergency
aspect to the injunction and set the hearing for Thursday May 19, 2016; the same day as
commencement ceremonies for Palm Beach Lakes, which would be attended by Cheryl
McKeever, Robert Avossa, and various members of the School Board.

51. On Monday May 17, 2016, Malik Leigh served by Process Service, Subpoenas to Cheryl
McKeever, Elena Villani, Adrian Seepersaud, and other teachers.

These Subpoenas

potentially would cause these administration personnel to miss Graduation ceremonies.


52. Later Monday evening, Malik Leigh received a call from Dianne Weintraub of the Office of
Professional Standards ordering Malik Leigh to report to the district offices at 0730 Tuesday
Morning May 18, 2016.
53. Malik Leigh attended a meeting with Dianne Weintraub and Elvis Epps at the District offices
at 0730 May 18, 2016 where they personally accused Malik Leigh of submitting an exam for
his students that was subject to an investigation as ordered by Cheryl McKeever.

They

instructed him to sign documents that ensured his due process, and then denied his due
process at the same time. Malik Leigh dated the letters and requested a hearing.
54. The letters expressed that Malik Leigh was to not speak to any witnesses, however, the
Districts personnel refused to give Malik Leigh any lists of actual or potential witnesses or
explain exactly the reasons for the suspension. Malik listed on the letters that he signed,
Witness List
55. Malik Leigh requested that he be given a hearing as the contract required and he was denied,
though told that he would be given an opportunity to explain when the investigation was
complete.
56. An hour after Malik Leigh walked out the Districts offices with a Security Escort on May
18, 2016, Eugene Pettis, Esq., filed his Notice of Appearance and a Motion to Dismiss
detailing all of the conversations that were had behind closed doors and a copy of the letters
and allegations that Malik Leigh just signed.
57. The suspension itself was against the Collective Bargaining Agreement as Malik Leigh, if
warranted, should have receive progressive punishment, a hearing, and if necessary,
suspended ONLY in situations where student safety is at issue. A hearing was proposed and
an opportunity to discuss was assured by Diane Weintraub and Elvis Epps, but no hearing
was conducted based upon the request. The District disregarded all of their own covenants
and denied Malik Leigh his due process.
58. The real reason Malik Leigh was suspended and removed from the school was because

students and teachers continuously came to Malik Leighs classroom asking for legal
assistance and to disclose various civil rights violations committed by the District, including
Administrators forcing teachers to change grades. Malik Leigh did not solicit these inquiries
from the teachers or students.
59. Cheryl McKeever had previously threatened Malik Leigh and all other teachers that spoke
against her at any time during a staff meeting with karma as punishment, and after students
became upset that the Principal would blame them for her not providing them with certified
teachers, the district sought to immediately remove Malik Leigh to try to limit financial
exposure to both the students, their parents, the State of Florida, and the Federal Government
for misappropriating federal funds.
60. The School and District were especially sensitive to Malik Leighs correct revelation that
certain staff was stealing money at the school, as the teacher that Malik Leigh was referring
to was in fact turned in by another teacher made to return some of the money; however, she
was Cheryl McKeevers friend and received light punishment. It is especially sensitive since
prior to Cheryl McKeevers arrival, the schools prior administration resulted in the
disappearance of over One hundred Thousand ($100,000) dollars of student and staff funds.
61. On May 19, 2016, Robert Avossa, on various media outlets made defamatory remarks about
Malik Leighs mental abilities, his abilities as a man, a professional, and his previous exams
that were knowingly false and intended to portray him in a false light.
62. This was expressly troubling because on March 7, 2016, Robert Avossa remarked to Malik
Leigh and various others that Blacks in Palm Beach were Self Hating; a comment that
Malik Leigh himself immediately rebuked.
63. On or about May 20, 2016, Malik Leigh filed a complaint with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission to invoke his right to sue under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and F.S. 760.01-760-11.
64. Malik Leigh then wrote a two complaints with the Department of Justice and the U.S.
Department of Educations Office of Civil Rights (OCR) for the Districts discriminatory
usage of Federal funds at Palm Beach Lakes that promotes unequal education and promotes
rationing for Minority Students.

65. Malik Leigh wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice due to Palm Beach County
School Districts various orders and settlement agreements to provide equal education to
students at black schools. However, Palm Beach Lakes, Pahokee, Royal Palm Beach,
Glades Central, and all of the middle schools and elementary schools that feed the Black
schools are not receiving equal education.

Malik Leigh provided the district with these

letters as well.
66. On May 24, 2016, Malik Leigh received a letter from the Deputy Superintendent David
Christiansen and the Office of Professional Standards accusing him of stealing personal
contact information and trying to contact former students for the purposes of steering them
away from their education with the district, and onto a Law Academy portal on the Watson
Leigh website. They also demanded that Watson Leigh turn over all email information that
was password protected. Malik Leigh denied their allegations and refused.
67. The Office of Professional Standards then stated that Malik Leigh was effectively removed
as the teacher of record on May 18, 2016 which was proof that their investigation was a
sham and that no hearing was planned as promised and as required.
68. The Office of Professional Standards claimed that they told Malik Leigh that he was
violating the Districts directive to not speak with any child in the district as they were ALL
witnesses in their investigation. This was despite the non-existence of an actual investigation
and the Superintendents defamatory words of conclusion less than 12 hours after the
investigation even began.
69. On or about May 26, 2016, Malik Leigh received a letter recommending termination by
Robert Avossa and the District from David Christiansen - Deputy Superintendent.
70. In the Termination Letter of May 26, 2016, the District cited F.S.1012.335(1)(c):
Probationary contract employees may be dismissed without cause or may resign without
breach of contract.
71. However, the District in the next paragraph invalidated this seemingly purposeless
termination by stating that the reason for the termination was their unsubstantiated claim that
Malik Leigh was constantly initiating contact with students and engage in conduct that
disrupts the school and students.

72. This cause eradicated the Districts seemingly obscure reasoning for termination and
obligated them to not only get it right but exposes them to penalties for getting it wrong.
73. The Letter of Termination on May 26, 2016, was Malik Leighs Fourth (4th) termination
absent a just cause.
74. On or about June 3, 2016, Malik Leigh received a letter from the Office of Inspector General
asking if he wanted to come to the district to discuss his Whistle-blower letter again. Malik
Leigh disclosed that he had been terminated by the District and that his letter was very
descriptive at the time it was given, as was his email to Robert Avossa, and his April 12,
2016 letter of protection.
75. On or about June 6, 2016, the OIG sent another letter expressing that they will NOT be
investigating the Whistle-blower claims in any disclosures made to the district that is the
basis of this suit.
76. Pursuant to F.S.768.28 a plaintiff suing any State Agency or agency by state definition is
barred from filing suit for one hundred and eighty (180) days, or upon receipt of a denial of
claims. Service must be made to the Florida Department of Financial Services (FDFS) along
with the Agency.
77. According to the FDFS, the refusal to investigate Malik Leighs claims serves as a denial of
claims related and stemming from the allegations and the actions resulting therefrom,
therefore, the filing of this action is proper.
78. On or about May 27, 2016, without any purpose or authority, Elvis Apps, seeking to try to
limit the Districts financial exposure, forced various students from Malik Leighs law class
into an enclosed room without telling their parents, and demanded that they open up their
locked phones so that they can get screen shots of any possible communications between
Malik Leighs Law Academy Tab on the Watson Leigh website, and themselves, in violation
of the childrens Fourth Amendment rights, Due Process rights, State and Federal Law.
79. The Children were not accused of any wrongdoing, nor were they accused of possessing or
selling drugs or of carrying a firearm, the Districts aim was only to get information about
Malik Leigh for their own defensive purposes.
80. Many Students and some of their parents notified Malik Leigh immediately; one student was

extremely traumatized and hid in the school with a Teacher.


81. These actions of harassment and retaliation were done to scare minor children away from
communicating with Malik Leigh since the district had no way to prevent the students from
freely contacting him.
COUNT I
RETALIATORY DISCHARGE PUBLIC SECTOR
WHISTLEBLOWER ACT 112.3187-112.31895
82. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
83. Plaintiff Employee is a person that performs services for, and under the control and direction
of, an Agency (as defined by Section 112.3187(3)(a), Fla. Stat.) for wages or other remuneration.
84. Plaintiff Employee disclosed to appropriate government agency, entity, and official as defined by Section 112.3187(6); Dr. Robert Avossa, Palm Beach County School Board, and
Office of Inspector General. The violation and conduct disclosed to the appropriate government agency, entity, and official included: minority students not provided with certified
teacher, substitute teachers fraudulently grading students, principal bullying and blaming
students for their lack of a certified teacher, teachers charging students for food and other
items without then depositing the funds with the school, para-professionals causing bodily
injury to non-verbal special-needs children, school district officials harassing students and
forcing statements without parents present, Assistant Principals forcing teachers to fraudulently change student grades, and harassment and intimidation of Plaintiff Employee after
Plaintiff Employee asserted First Amendment rights at a local School Board meeting Exhibit
A - Electronic Exhibit School Board Meeting March 16, 2016, Exhibit B - Letter of Protection.
85. The violations and conduct disclosed are: (a) a violation or suspected violation of federal,
state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or
independent contractor which creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the
publics health, safety or welfare or (b) an act or suspected act of gross mismanagement,

malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or
abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor.
86. Subsequent to making the disclosure, Defendant Employer discharged Plaintiff. See Exhibit
G
87. Plaintiff Employees disclosure was not made in bad faith or for a wrongful purpose, and did
not occur after an agencys personnel action against the employee.
88. Defendant Employers conduct caused Plaintiff Employee to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court finds damages, attorneys
fees and costs, against Defendant for violation of Floridas Public Sector Whistle-Blowers Act
(Sections 112.3187-112.31895, Fla. Stat.), including but not limited to all relief available under
Section 112.3187(9), Fla. Stat., and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT II
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE
FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 (FCRA)
89. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
90. Defendant Employer has intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices and discrimination, in violation of FCRA, by treating Plaintiff Employee differently from similarly
situated non-Black employees in the terms and conditions of employment (Exhibit I - April
8 Letter from Professional Standards).
91. The discriminatory practices by Defendant Employer have deprived Plaintiff Employee of
equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affected his status as an employee,
because of his race. (Exhibit M - Proposed 2017 Budget for Advanced Course offerings
at Palm Beach County School District High Schools)
92. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional violations by Defendant Employer of
Plaintiff Employees rights under FCRA, by treating Plaintiff Employee differently from
similarly situated non-Black employees, Plaintiff Employee has been damaged. Damages
include back pay, front pay, loss of benefits, future pecuniary loss, lost future earnings capacity, emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, other non-pecuniary
losses, and punitive damages (Exhibit K - EEOC Right to Sue Letter).

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:


(a) Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
which provide equal opportunities for its employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past
and present unlawful employment practices.
(b) Order Defendant Employer to provide Plaintiff Employee compensation for past pecuniary losses to be determined at trial, including back pay with pre-judgment interest and lost
benefits, in amounts to be proven at trial, an other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the
effects of its unlawful employment practices.
(c) Order Defendant Employer to provide Plaintiff Employee compensation for future
pecuniary losses, including front pay.
(d) Order Defendant Employer to provide compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of work, and humiliation.
(e) Order Defendant Employer to pay Plaintiff Employee punitive damages for their malicious and/or reckless conduct.
(f) Order Defendant Employer to compensate Plaintiff Employee for his lost future earnings capacity.
(g) Award Plaintiff Employee attorneys fees and costs in this action.
(h) Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper.
COUNT III
RETALIATION UNDER THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 (FCRA)
93. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 81 as if fully set forth below.
94. Plaintiff Employee engaged in a protected activity by complaining about unlawful racial discriminatory behavior and retaliation by Defendant Employer and by filing charges of discrimination.
95. The Defendant Employer unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff Employee, after Plaintiff
Employee sent notice letters and filed charges of discrimination, when Defendant constructively terminating Plaintiff Employees contract, sent harassing letters, terminated and nonrenewed Plaintiffs contract; all actions which would, individually or collectively, dissuade a
reasonable person from making or filing a discrimination charge alleging same. Exhibit C-

May 1, 2016 Job Posting, See Exhibit I, (Exhibit J - May 3, 2016 Letter from Professional Standards)
96. Defendant Employer refused to rectify the racially discriminatory work environment, even
after making clear complaints of discrimination, and those complaints are causally linked to
the retaliatory actions from which Plaintiff Employee was forced to endure by Defendants
who did constructively and then directly terminate him See Exhibit C, (Exhibit N - June 3,
2016 Letter from OIG)(Exhibit O - June 7, 2016 letter from the Office of Inspector
General).
97. The Defendant Employers actions violate the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, by retaliating against Plaintiff Employee and otherwise treating him differently from similarly situated
employees because of his complaints of racial discrimination and caused him significant adverse employment action.
98. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and premeditated violation of the Florida
Civil Rights Act by the Defendant Employer with respect to its retaliation against him because of his complaints of racial discrimination, Plaintiff Employee was damaged.
99. Plaintiff Employees damages include, but are not limited to, loss of work, humiliation, emotional pain, distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of back pay, loss of front pay, loss of
business, loss of benefits, loss of future earnings capacity, and punitive damages See Exhibit K.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(a) Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
which provide equal opportunities for its employees, and which eradicate the effects of its past
and present unlawful employment practices.
(b) Order Defendant Employer to provide Plaintiff Employee compensation for past pecuniary losses, including back pay with pre-judgment interest and lost benefits, in amounts to be
determined at trial, an other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful
employment practices.
(c) Order Defendant Employer to provide Plaintiff Employee compensation for future
pecuniary losses, including front pay.

(d) Order Defendant Employer to provide compensation for non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of work, and humiliation.
(e) Order Defendant Employer to pay Plaintiff Employee punitive damages for their malicious and/or reckless conduct.
(f) Order Defendant Employer to compensate Plaintiff Employee for his lost future earnings capacity.
(g) Award Plaintiff Employee attorneys fees and costs in this action.
(h) Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper
COUNT IV
WILLFUL BREACH OF CONTRACT
100.Plaintiff incorporates and re-allages paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
101. Plaintiff Employee and Defendant Employer are parties to a Contract. (Exhibit P CTA
Contract.)
102. Defendant Employer breached the Contract, and the breach is material. See Exhibit C,
(Exhibit D - CTA Contract Art. IV Section B), (Exhibit E - Letters of Suspension with
Exam, May 18, 2016), (Exhibit F - Cease and Desist I.E. Letter of Termination #3 May
24, 2016), (Exhibit G - Letter of Final Termination May 26, 2016) Exhibit H - CTA Contract Art. II Sec. K
103. Defendant Employers breach of contract caused Plaintiff to suffer damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands damages, attorneys fees and costs, against Defendant
for breach of contract, all relief under Florida law, and such other relief this Court deems just and
proper.
COUNT V
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
104. Plaintiff incorporates and re-allages paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
105. The Defendant Employer and its agents conduct was intentional, deliberate, or reckless;
that is, the Defendant intended the behavior and knew or should have known that emotional
distress would likely result.

106. The conduct was outrageous, that is, beyond all bounds of decency, and utterly intolerable
in a civilized community.
107. The Plaintiff Employee suffered severe emotional distress and the outrageous conduct of the
Defendant Employer and its agents was the cause of the emotional distress suffered by
Plaintiff.
108. The emotional distress suffered by Plaintiff Employee was severe.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that he be awarded damages, attorneys fees
and costs, against Defendant for the pain and suffering that Plaintiff endured as a result of the
intentional and outrageous acts of Defendant, including compensatory damages, pre-and-post
judgment interest, and such other relief this Court deems just and proper.
COUNT VI
DEFAMATION
109. Plaintiff incorporates and re-allages paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
110. Defendant Employer published, or caused to have published, false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff Employee, a private person.
111. The false and defamatory statements were an unprivileged publication to a third party.
112. At the time of said publications, Defendant Employer either knew that the statements were
false, or acted without reasonable care as to the truth or falsity of those statements. (Exhibit
L - Electronic Exhibit Television Interview)
113. The false and defamatory statements published by Defendant Employer resulted in damage
to Plaintiff Employee, including hatred, contempt, ridicule, racism, and bigotry, irreparably
injuring Plaintiff Employee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests damages, attorneys fees and costs, against
Defendant for Defamation, all relief allowed under Florida law, and such other relief this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT VII
NEGLIGENCE
114. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.

115. Defendant Employer owed a duty to Plaintiff Employee to conform to a certain standard of
conduct for the protection of Plaintiff Employee.
116. Defendant Employer breached that duty.
117. The injury and damage to Plaintiff Employee was directly and proximately caused by the
breach of duty.
118. The breach of duty caused damage to Plaintiff Employee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests damages, attorneys fees and costs, against
Defendant for Negligence, all relief allowed under Florida law, and such other relief this Court
deems just and proper.
COUNT VIII
NEGLIGENCE OF HIRING OR RETENTION
119. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1through 81 as if fully set forth below.
120. Defendant Employer owed a duty to Plaintiff Employee to exercise reasonable care in hiring
and retaining safe and competent employees, including all District administrators.
121. Defendant Employer becomes aware or should have become aware of problems with a employees, including District administrators, that indicated his/her unfitness.
122. The Defendant Employer has the ability to control the employees, and District administrators, such as to substantially reduce the probability of harm to other persons.
123. Defendant Employer breached their duty to Plaintiff Employee by the negligent hiring or
retention of District administrators who damaged Plaintiff Employee.
124. The breach of duty caused damage to Plaintiff Employee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests damages against Defendant for Negligence
Hiring or Retention, all relief allowed under Florida law, and such other relief this Court deems
just and proper.
COUNT VI DECLARATORY RELIEF
Allegations in support
124. Plaintiff Malik Leigh incorporates and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 81 as if fully set forth
below.
125. The Plaintiff, Malik Leigh is a first year teacher in the Palm Beach County School District

that has been the victim of Public Sector Retaliation for making public disclosures regarding
the inadequacy of the Palm Beach County School Districts policies towards minority
children and incidents and occurrences within the school where he worked: Palm Beach
Lakes Community High School.
126. Malik Leigh made specific disclosures regarding the behaviors of District personnel and
employees; all of which would categorize him as a Whistle-blower, and grant him
protections under F.S.112.3187 the Florida Whistle-blower Act and F.S. 448.102-103.
127. However, on May 1, 2016, after Malik Leigh made his multiple disclosures exposing the
District to legal and financial culpability, and after the District and Robert Avossa engaged in
a relentless campaign of retaliation against Malik Leigh, they constructively terminated him
by posting his position as vacant without notice in an attempt to embarrass and humiliate
him, and then on May 12, 2016, recommended him for non-renewal; effectively terminating
his employment again for the next school year.
128. The District cited their powers to terminate pursuant to F.S. 1012.335(1)(c), stating in part:
Probationary contract employees may be dismissed without cause or may resign without
breach of contract. See Exhibit G
129. However, F.S.1012.335 also states: Any instructional personnel with an annual contract
may be suspended or dismissed at any time during the term of the contract for just cause as
provided in subsection (5). The district school board shall notify the employee in writing
whenever charges are made and may suspend such person without pay. However, if the
charges are not sustained, the employee shall be immediately reinstated and his or her
back pay shall be paid. If the employee wishes to contest the charges, he or she must, within
15 days after receipt of the written notice, submit a written request for a hearing to the
district school board.
130. There exists an unconstitutional problem with F.S.1012.335 that the Plaintiff requires this
Court to declare unconstitutional in part or in its entirety pursuant to F.S. 86.011.
131. For a Plaintiff to be granted Declaratory Relief, four elements must be established: (1) there
is a bona fide dispute between the parties; (2) the complainant has a justiciable question as
to the existence or non-existence of some right, status, immunity, power, or privilege, or some

fact upon which their existence may depend; (3) the complainant is in doubt as to the right,
status, immunity, power, or privilege; and (4) there is a bona fide, actual, and present need
for the declaration.
A. There is a Bona Fide Dispute Between the Parties
There is no doubt of the existence of a bona fide dispute between Malik Leigh and
the Palm Beach County School District (Board) and various other similarly situated
minority teachers and their School Districts.
B. The complainant has a justiciable question as to the existence or non-existence
of some right, status, immunity, power, or privilege, or some fact upon which
their existence may depend.
The purpose of F.S.1012.33-1012.335 is to give Florida Schools and School
Districts the power to terminate ineffective teachers and employees and for the general
health of the education system in Florida; however, it is being used to great effect by
Schools, School Districts, and Superintendents in a destructively abusive fashion with
personal and public agendas.
These abusive freedoms purportedly afforded School Districts, Principals and
Superintendents, promote extremely unhealthy and unsafe environments in schools
because it often prevents employees from making important disclosures and
recommendations regarding safety or the general welfare of students and employees
when these disclosures will result in the disclosing persons termination for no just
cause. The Plaintiff is protected under Florida Law and the United States Constitution
and should receive equal protection under both laws, however, the unfettered and liberal
exercise of F.S. 1012.335 by the Defendants denied him and similarly situated Florida
citizens and teachers their State and Federal Constitutional Rights.
In the instant case F.S. 1012.335 denies equal protection and due process to all
citizens, rendering it unconstitutional and should be declared unconstitutional due to is
lack of constitutional protections for employees holding positions but terminated for
illegal, discriminatory, or other unjust reasons. In proclaiming that the Defendants used
F.S.1012.335 to suspend and terminate the Plaintiff or any other probational employee

without due process while proclaiming that it has the power to terminate any
probationary employee without cause . . . it violates Plaintiffs Civil Rights under the
Florida Constitutions Article 1, Section 2: Basic Rights, Article 1, Section 9: Due
Process, and additionally, the 4th, 5th, 10th, and 14th Amendments of the United
States Constitution.
A Judgment for Declaratory Relief determining F.S.1012.335 unconstitutional is
necessary because absent a specific and demonstrative Order by this Court in the instant
case, pursuant to Florida Statutes 86.011, the Palm Beach County School District and
various other school districts will continue to violate the Florida and United States
Constitutional rights of its citizens.
C. The complainant is in doubt as to the right, status, immunity, power, or
privilege.
Florida Statute 1012.335(4) speaks to suspensions of ANNUAL CONTRACT
employees only, however, the Teachers Contract (CTA) probational employees are held
to specifically covers Probational AND Annual employees.

Under Contract law, all

parties are held to the four corners of their agreement absent fraud, duress, coercion,
or misrepresentation. Under the Teachers Contract (CTA), Article 1, Section 2, of the
Florida State Constitution, and F.S.1012.335, Probationary employees are entitled to a
hearing and due process, however, the Plaintiff was specifically denied a hearing,
therefore denying him Due Process under the Contract and the Florida State
Constitution.
As stated previously, the Florida Legislature created F.S.1012.335 to give school
districts power to remove ineffective and underproducing teachers. The Contract and the
statute grants Florida School Districts the power to remove teachers that are ineffective
or hopelessly ineffective, physically or mentally incapable, and/or actual dangers to
children and students. It was not created for the purpose of control, intimidation, or
retaliation, however, it gives Districts an avenue to breach contracts.

Using F.S.

1012.335, Defendants actions promote discrimination, retaliation, and various other


illegal adverse actions that violate its employees Florida Constitutional rights as well as

their United States Constitutional rights.


The Florida Legislature also knew that School Districts would use F.S.1012.335
as a guide for Teachers contracts. For this reason, F.S.1012.335 specifically separates
those covered as Probationary and Annual Contract employees. Although, Florida is a
right to work state; extremely unfavorable to workers unions, especially Teachers
Unions, it cannot build into its laws discriminatory practices as a way to dissuade union
membership, collective bargaining, or absolute civil rights violations. F.S.1012.335 in
its current form denies minorities of all suspect classes true Equal Protection in violation
of the Fourteenth (14) amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and should for that
additional reason, be declared unconstitutional.
In the instant case, although requested, the Defendants conducted no investigation
to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs initial suspension was for just cause as
provided in the Statute for Annual Contract employees, and then cited F.S. 1012.335 as
their authority despite significant evidence to the contrary.
1. There is a bona fide, actual, and present need for the declaration.
Florida Statute 1012.335 in its current form is unconstitutional.
In the instant case, F.S. 1012.335 creates two (2) classes of people in violation of
Florida Constitution Article 1, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution.

The unconstitutionality of F.S.1012.335 is obvious when the

freedoms allowed a school district within the first year of employment puts the burden of
proving that the school district behaved in an illegal manner greater than that of an
annual contract employee. This is a Violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth (14th) Amendment of the United States Constitution.
If an Annual Contract employee is suspended or terminated, they are protected by
the Florida Constitution in a manner that is unequal to probationary employees;
suspended or terminated for the same reasons.

If an Annual Contract employee is

suspended or terminated, the reason must be articulated in a manner that justifies the
action; and if the suspension or termination is not JUST then the annual employee is
restored to their position.

Under F.S. 1012.335, probationary minority employees,

female employees, quiet employees, different employees, LGBT employees, and


others are disproportionately affected because school districts can simply hide their
discrimination in silence, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of blatant
discrimination. F.S.1012.335, provides no equal relief for probationary employees that
are unjustly suspended then subsequently terminated as F.S.1012.335(4) applies only
to Annual Contract employees. The presumption is given that they are suspended or
terminated for a JUST cause, unless, the statute accepts Defendents illegal causes as
just causes for the termination of Probational Employees.
The Defendants and many other school districts have operated under the belief
that F.S.1012.335(1)(c) gives them carte blanche to remove ANY Instructional
Personnel (probational) for just AND unjust reasons, including their own illegal
reasons, such as Title VII violations or Whistle-blower disclosures that protect the
general health safety and welfare of the public.
The idea that the Palm Beach County School District or any Florida school
district who hires instructional staff under F.S.1012.335 can dismiss an employee for an
unjust cause, such as sexual harassment or racial abuse from the superintendent or a
principal, by simply not revealing to that employee why they are being suspended or
terminated, flies in the face of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendments Due
Process provision, and Fourteenth Amendments Equal Protection provision as well
as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA)
Under the United States Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendment, ALL
citizens are afforded Equal Protection under the law. For persons of color and persons
from protected classes, these protections take on a significant importance; one that the
Defendants for decades have ignored.

Palm Beach County School District has

approximately twelve thousand (12,000) teachers; only about two thousand (2000) are
Black or African-American. The retaliatory abuses faced by Black teachers from all
ethnicities in Palm Beach County, especially those hired after F.S.1012.335 was
enacted in 2011, equals only that in which Black Students have faced in all years.
132.Wherefore, for the above mentioned reasons, the Plaintiff requests declaratory judgement

finding that all or part of Florida Statute 1012.335 unconstitutional.


SECOND AMENDED INJUNCTION
FOR TEMPORARY RELIEF
133. Plaintiff Malik Leigh incorporates and re-alleges paragraph 1 through 81 as if fully set forth
below.
134. Plaintiff requests from this Court, an injunction for temporary relief pursuant to Florida
Statutes 112.3187 the Florida Whistle-Blower Statute.
135. On March 16, 2016, Plaintiff personally attended a public Palm Beach County School
Board meeting with five (5) of his students to disclose wrongdoing at Palm Beach Lakes
Community High School.
136. On or about March 18 and April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff made written disclosures to the Superintendent, Robert Avossa, and the Palm Beach County School Board regarding fraud,
waste, abuse, theft, bullying, and misconduct by the School Principal, Area Four (4) Superintendent, and others under their instruction.
137. On or about May 18, 2016, Malik Leigh was suspended purportedly for drafting an exam
that was submitted for approval, but never given to any students.
138. On or about May 23, and 24, 2016, Malik Leigh was terminated purportedly for not complying with Orders demanded in the suspension of May 18, 2016.
139. Before being suspended, the Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing but was denied
prior to suspension.
140. The March 18, 2016 and April 12, 2016 letter invoked the Florida Whistle-blowers Act F.S.112.3187 and F.S.448.102.
141. Pursuant to the Whistle-blowers statute, under F.S. 448.102 the District and Robert Avossa
is prohibited from:
1. Prohibitions.An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against
an employee because the employee has:
1. (1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental
agency, under
oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity,
policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has

afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy,


or practice.
142. The District retaliated against the Plaintiff by suspending him for an unjust and retaliatory
cause, denied him a requested administrative hearing, and ultimately terminating him for an
unjust cause.
143. Retaliatory adverse actions are actions a direct violation of F.S.448.102.
144. Pursuant to F.S.112.3187(8) Malik Leigh initiated suit against the Palm Beach County
School District and Robert Avossa for Retaliatory Discharge pursuant to the Public Sector
Whistle-blowers Act.
145. All conditions precedent to filing have been met pursuant to F.S.112.3187-112.31895, including: Plaintiff requested an administrative hearing prior to adverse action by the agency,
but was denied; Plaintiff provided written notice to the retaliating agency prior to retaliatory
adverse actions; Plaintiff filed suit within one hundred eighty (180) days after the entry of a
final decision on the allegations; and Plaintiff abided by F.S.768.28.
146. Pursuant to F.S.112.3187(9) Malik Leigh seeks the following relief:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction;


Immediate reinstatement during the pendency of this Case;
Compensation for Lost Wages
Reasonable costs

147.With the Standard of Review for an Request for Temporary Injunction, the Florida Supreme
Court has set forth its essential elements as follows: (1) irreparable injury will result if the
injunction is not granted; (2) there is no adequate remedy at law; (3) the party has a clear legal right to the requested relief; and (4) the public interest will be served by the temporary
injunction. See, also, Net First Nat. Bank v. First Telebanc Corp., 834 So.2d 944, 949 (Fla.
4th DCA 2003).
B. The Plaintiff Will Suffer Irreparable Injury if the injunction is not granted.
The Plaintiff is a first year teacher who has received outstanding observations by
all year and finished the year as a Highly Effective educator. Along with being a first
year teacher comes a series of ongoing certification benchmarks. During the school year
2015-2016, the Plaintiff was not made aware of the year-long certification benchmarks

because he was supposed to be granted a certified mentor and he was denied this mentor.
The state of Florida department of Education allows schools to grant extensions for
teachers whove fallen into this deficiency through no fault of their own, however, this
extension is not permanent. Upon learning that there were specific benchmarks that the
Plaintiff was not aware of, he was promised that he would be granted an extension by
school administrative personnel. If the Plaintiff does not complete these benchmarks, he
will lose his temporary teaching certification. Pursuant to Mullinix v. Mullinix, 182 So.
2d 268 (Fla 4th DCA 1966), First Nat Bank in St. Petersburg v. Farris, 156 So.2d 421
(Fla 2nd DCA 1963) irreparible harm is harm that an award of monetary compensation
cannot repair. The plaintiff cannot purchase his teaching certificate nor can he pay money awarded to reclaim these benchmarks.
C. There Is No Adequate Remedy at Law.
As stated previously, there is no way for the Plaintiff to use any compensation to
further his teaching career. Under the F.S. 1012.335 and the CTA contract binding both
parties, reinstatement is proper. The retaliatory acts by the Defendants are specifically
remedied by immediate reinstatement pursuant to F.S. 112.3187 and F.S. 448.102.
D. Plaintiff Has a Substantial Likelihood of Succeeding on the Merits of His Complaint.
The Plaintiff has alleged Public Sector Retaliation due to his multiple disclosures
to the School District in person and in writing. The Plaintiff was retaliated against in
multiple forms and fashions by the Superintendent of the School District, by the School
Board, by agents of the School Board and Superintendent, and all because the Plaintiff
taught his students to demand an education, and because he disclosed information that
proved the district was misappropriating money and physically injuring its students. The
Plaintiffs witnesses will provide direct testimony, physical evidence, and through discovery, a concerted scheme to discriminate against students and teachers of colour in the
district. All counts within the Plaintiff Complaint are ripe with evidentiary proof that a
reasonable jury would find for the Plaintiff. And the Defendants have not denied any
allegations, they would need to collude much better than they have. They simply hope to

succeed simply upon procedural defect. Absent any perceived defects, the Plaintiff will
be successful.
Florida Statute 112.3187 is clear; much like F.S.448.102 is clear, and the Defendants violated each one. The Plaintiff demanded an administrative hearing after being suspended and prior to removal and was denied. The Plaintiff was only denied because he was a Black Male first year teacher who exposed the district to their racially
discriminatory practices. The Defendants clearly breached their contract with the Plaintiff by not providing an administrative hearing, by not investigating their own allegations
of misconduct or those raised by the Plaintiff, by defaming the Plaintiff, by violating his
Florida and United States Constitutional Rights to Equal Protection and Due Process by
suspending and terminating him in the manner they did. Upon the merits of his complaint, the Plaintiff WILL prevail.
E. The Public Interest Will Be Served By The Temporary Injunction.
As previously stated, Granting the Petitioners injunction will serve the public
good by providing his students the knowledgable Law Teacher they know and trust. It
provides the parents of these students with the teacher that they know, respect, and trust,
it forwards the aims of the Choice Magnet Program at Palm Beach Community High
School, and it reinstates an educator that clearly has the childrens best educational interests at heart.
Additionally, Florida Statutes 112.3187 demand that provided that a Plaintiff
has adequately provided written disclosures to an Agency pursuant to F.S. 448.102 and
F.S.448.103, that no adverse action can be made by that Agency against the disclosing
Plaintiff, and if that adverse action results in a termination or suspension, that that Plaintiff be reinstated immediately. Because the Florida Statutes have provided that this is the
appropriate course of action in these types of cases, then it can be resolved that this
serves the public the greatest.
148.Temporary Injunctive relief in the form of immediate reinstatement is adequate, appropriate,
proper, authorized, and demanded in this manner pursuant to F.S.112.3187 and F.S.760.07.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, MALIK LEIGH, respectfully demands entry of judgment in


his favor against the Defendants for injunctive relief, along with an award of attorneys fees and
costs pursuant to pursuant to F.S.112.3185-112.3187, F.S.448.102 and F.S.448.103 and such
other relief deemed just and proper.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiff, Malik Leigh, demands a Jury Trial for all issues triable.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this document was electronically served via email
or the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal to the person(s) listed below on September 7, 2016.
Helene Baxter, General Counsel
Palm Beach County School District
Email: Helene.Baxter@palmbeachschools.org
Eugene Pettis, Esq.
Email: epettis@hpslegal.com
Shawntoyia Bernard, Esq.
shawntoyia.bernard@palmbeachschools.org

WATSON LEIGH
LAW AND EDUCATION
SERVICES GROUP, INC.
Attorney for Plaintiff
P.O. Box 221172
West Palm Beach, FL 33422
Tel: (888) 399-0678
Fax: (888) 371-1475
Service: service@WatsonLeigh.com
By:
/s/ Danielle Watson
Danielle R. Watson, Esquire
Email: Danielle@WatsonLeigh.com
Florida Bar No: 93155
By:
/s/ Malik Leigh
Malik Leigh, Esquire
Email: Malik@WatsonLeigh.com
Florida Bar No: 89820