STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE 9th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

James English,
Case No. 2023-0176-CZ
Plaintiff, Hon. Curtis J. Bell

v.

Kalamazoo Public Schools;

Kalamazoo Public Schools Board of Education;
Ms. Patti Sholler-Barber, in her individual and official capacity;
Ms. TiAnna Harrison, in her individual and official capacity;
Ms. Jennie Hill, in her individual and official capacity;
Mr. Jermain Jackson, in his individual and official capacity;
Ms. Megan Maddock, in her individual and official capacity;
Ms. Tandy Moore, in her individual and official capacity;
Mr. Ken Greschak, in his individual and official capacity; and
Ms. Cindy Green, in her individual and official capacity.

Defendants.

Eric D. Delaporte (P69673)

DELAPORTE LAW, PLLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
210 State St., Suite B
Mason, MI 48854
(517) 643-2626

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff James English (hereinafter “Mr. English” or “Plaintiff”), by and

through his attorney Eric Delaporte of Delaporte Law, PLLC, and files his Complaint under MCL

15.363 et seq. (“Whistleblower Retaliation”) and various claims under Michigan common law.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. Defendant Kalamazoo Public Schools (hereinafter, “Defendant,” “Defendant KPS,” or

“KPS”) is a Michigan governmental entity situated entirely in Kalamazoo, Michigan in

this Honorable Court’s territorial jurisdiction. Individuals associated with Defendant

1
 named herein are either employed by Defendant, acted on behalf of Defendant in their

official government capacities, or acted as Defendant’s agents.

2. Defendant Patti Scholler-Barber is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is the immediate past President of the Board of Education of Defendant

KPS.

3. Defendant TiAanna Harrison is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is a member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

4. Defendant Jennie Hill is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo, Michigan

and is a member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

5. Defendant Jermain Jackson is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is a member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

6. Defendant Megan Maddock is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is a member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

7. Defendant Tandy Moore is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is a member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

8. Defendant Ken Greschak is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo,

Michigan and is a former member of the Board of Education of Defendant KPS.

9. Defendant Cindy Green is an individual who resides near or within Kalamazoo, Michigan

and is the Interim Superintendent of Defendant KPS.

10. All of the acts complained herein occurred within the boundaries of this Honorable

Court’s territorial jurisdiction.

11. Thus, venue and jurisdiction is proper in this Honorable Court.

INTRODUCTION

12. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

2
13. This is a Complaint filed to redress egregious retaliation visited upon Plaintiff, Mr. James

English, for Mr. English’s attempt to hold public officials accountable for the use of

Kalamazoo public monies, to provide transparency and participation in the education of

Kalamazoo’s children, and to require adherence to the laws, policies, practices, and rules.

FACTS

Background

14. Prior to his employment at KPS, Mr. English had been an educator or administrator for

over 26 years in the education industry in the State of Michigan.

15. During this time, Mr. English has held a wide variety of positions, both teaching and in

finance. In each endeavor, including with KPS, he has excelled professionally, conducted

himself with the highest ethical regard, and worked towards and for the benefit of the

thousands of students he has either taught or led.

16. Prior to the subject of this complaint, Mr. English has never been disciplined or censured.

17. It is with great dismay, outrage, and, frankly, disgust, at the conduct of KPS towards him

that he feels compelled to file this lawsuit in order to, at least to the best of his ability and

under the law, restore his good name and, among other things, the monies and other

benefits owed to him.

Employment with KPS

18. By way of background, Mr. English began employment at KPS as Assistant

Superintendent of Finance & Operations in June 2021. The terms of his employment

contract require KPS to pay him $172,283 annually, with medical, dental, vision, life

insurance, long-term disability, and pension benefits.

3
19. It should be noted here that Mr. English’s 2022 work evaluation from KPS stated that

that he was “highly effective” in all available categories, including: planning and

organizing, core values, and interpersonal effectiveness. Furthermore, Mr. English

received the maximum rating for each indicator within those categories, indicative of

superior professional and ethical performance.

20. Throughout this tenure with KPS, he was involved in reporting violations of law, policy,

practices, and rules.

21. When those reports started to impact Board member "perks," Ms. Scholler-Barber, with

the backing of the Board of Education, determined to rid themselves of an unwanted

nuisance.

22. During December 2022, despite. having received highly effective ratings on her most

recent evaluations, the Board abruptly forced Superintendent Dr. Raichoudhuri to

resign, thus clearing the way to fire Mr. English.

23. After an exceedingly short, perfunctory, sham investigation by the Board's designated

"hit man," Interim Superintendent Cindy Green, the Board fired Mr. English for purely

fabricated reasons.

24. On or about December 28, 2022, Mr. English was discharged in retaliation for his

Whistleblowing activities.

KPS’s Violations of Mr. English’s Due Process Rights and Protections

25. Michigan law requires due process prior to termination of a public employee.

26. Mr. English did not receive the benefit of due process protections under law, policy, and

contract when he was unceremoniously, slanderously, and publicly terminated from his

employment with KPS.

4
27. KPS failed to provide Mr. English with notice, an opportunity to view the charges and

evidence against him, and an opportunity to be heard before the Board of Education

terminated his employment.

28. Tellingly, KPS’s established practice for many years prior to Mr. English’s tenure

authorized the Assistant Superintendent for Finance & Operations to engage independent

contracts, many without Board approval, and exercise discretion over business operations

and contracts.

29. Specifically - but not exhaustively – KPS did not provide Mr. English an opportunity to

share all relevant facts with the Board during their sham investigation of him.

30. Further, KPS denied Mr. English access to documents and information during KPS’s

rushed investigation that would have provided appropriate context to the incidents of

alleged wrongdoing.

31. Appallingly, although KPS knew the allegations of wrongdoing were untrue, they

publicized them anyway.

32. The reason for these violations is clearly retaliatory. As a result of Mr. English’s

whistleblower activities, further described below, KPS ran roughshod over his rights to

terminate him in a defamatory manner.

33. Contrary to normal personnel matters, the Board, Ms. Scholler-Barber, and Ms. Green,

went out of their way to publish false and defamatory allegations against Mr. English in

the press and on the school's website.

34. By aggressively defaming Mr. English, they hoped to destroy his reputation and

prevent him from being believed if he reported their wrongdoing.

5
 Kalamazoo Public Schools Foundation

35. One allegation against Mr. English used to terminate him is that he established the

Kalamazoo Public Schools Foundation (“Foundation”) without Board approval and

knowledge, resulting in over $91,000 of unauthorized expenditure of public monies.

KPS’s allegations greatly distort Mr. English’s role at KPS in the creation of the

foundation.

36. In his employment capacity as Assistant Superintendent Finance & Operations, Mr.

English was responsible for overseeing KPS’s financial and accounting matters. Mr.

English reported directly to the Superintendent; he never reported to the Board since it

was not his role to do so and, in fact, would be contrary to established procedure.

37. Contrary to KPS’s various allegations, Mr. English’s actions were done at the direction

of his superior, the Superintendent, Dr. Rita Raichoudhuri, and with the knowledge the

KPS Board and Ms. Scholler-Barber (who was the sole conduit to the Board of

Education; thus, informing Ms. Scholler-Barber was understood to be synonymous with

informing the Board of Education as a whole).

38. Mr. English’s primary involvement was to authorize the payment of bills at the direction

of his supervisor, Dr. Raichoudhuri.

39. In its separation agreement with Dr. Raichoudhuri, the Board of Education admitted Dr.

Raichoudhuri had not engaged in unprofessional conduct in establishing the Foundation

and authorizing the payments; therefore, the Board of Education knew that its charges

against Mr. English were false prior to levying them against the Whistleblower.

6
40. Many school districts throughout the United States have established similar foundations

for this purpose, seeking to replicate the success that college and university booster clubs

have had in raising money for their respective school programs and students.

41. It should be emphasized here that Mr. English did not benefit in any way – financially or

otherwise - from the establishment of the Foundation, whose sole purpose was to raise

funds to assist KPS students, nor was he primarily involved in the Foundation, beyond

following the directives of his supervisor who was acting with the full knowledge and

support of the Board President, Ms. Scholler-Barber.

42. Throughout establishment and standing up of the Foundation, Mr. English acted under

the direction of the Superintendent, Dr. Rita Raichoudhuri. Again, Mr. English had no

direct communication with the Board, but he acted in full knowledge and consent of the

Superintendent whose job it was to inform the Board of the Administration’s activities,

and who did inform the Board of Education through its President, Ms. Scholler-Barber.

Other Untrue Statements Used to Terminate Mr. English

43. The other allegations against Mr. English that were used to justify his termination are

likewise untrue.

44. For example, KPS alleged that Mr. English outsourced an administrative position without

Board authorization or knowledge. This allegation is untrue.

45. Mr. English led the hiring search for the Director of Finance administrative position at

KPS. The only two viable candidates expressed interest in the position only as

independent contractors, not as district employees.

7
46. The Superintendent and members of the cabinet were informed, involved, and supportive

throughout this selection process, knowing that the two candidates expressed interest as

independent contractors.

47. The Superintendent and three Board members on the Operations and Finance Committee

discussed the Director of Finance position at length with Mr. English.

48. Mr. English followed all existing policies, laws, and established processes in the hiring

process for the Director of Finance. Mr. English followed the same practices that had

been in place for several years, prior to his tenure at KPS.

49. It was the job of the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources to produce the regular

report to the board notifying them of changes in personnel. It was not Mr. English’s role

to produce this report, nor was it his role to communicate changes in personnel to the

Board.

50. Furthermore, KPS utilizes independent contractors for many roles in the district.

Utilizing an independent contractor is far from uncommon in the district.

51. Independent contractors are not, nor have they been, approved by the board prior to Mr.

English’s termination; however, it is important to note that the independent contractor

Director of Finance position, was in the budget reviewed and approved by the Board of

Education. Nothing was hidden, and had the Board of Education done its due diligence,

it would have known of the approved expenditure.

52. Notably, while employed at KPS prior to returning as Interim Superintendent, Ms. Cindy

Green worked as a substitute principal, a role not approved by the Board.

53. Additionally, when she retired (prior to being returned as Interim Superintendent), Ms.

Cindy Green received tens of thousands of dollars in unauthorized and unapproved

8
 compensation in the form of annuity contributions and the receipt of full year’s salary for

six months of work.

54. This was all done without Board approval through self-dealing and payments made

without the knowledge or authorization of the then Superintendent, Dr. Raichoudhuri.

Ms. Green was not the only senior administrator who received unauthorized, illegal, and

duplicitous payments.

55. Importantly, after firing Mr. English, KPS returned immediately to its ongoing practice

of hiring individuals and contractors without Board approval. The only difference

between those who have since hired individuals and contractors without Board approval

(and were not disciplined) and Mr. English, was that Mr. English was a whistleblower,

while those who were not disciplined were not whistleblowers.

56. KPS also alleged Mr. English entered into a contract for services without written

agreement and failed to identify the compensation to be paid for such services. Again,

KPS’s allegation is untrue and serves only to disparage Mr. English’s reputation.

57. For context, in 2022, KPS needed to convert its non-compliant account code structure to

meet established State of Michigan account code standards. KPS was over 18 years

behind in its implementation of the required account code structure.

58. Mr. English had a short timeline to address the account code conversion, just a matter of

months on top of his already heavy workload, due to a required software upgrade. In his

effort to bring the KPS account code into compliance, he approached Plante & Moran

and Styrax Financial to complete the project. Styrax Financial was the only contractor

willing to complete the work.

9
59. A written contract was not created, in part, because the project was a small and billed by

the hour. This was standard practice at KPS; many contractors are utilized without an

existing contract. For example, KPS’s contract with its legal counsel is not by written

agreement and maintains various billable rates. KPS also contracted with D&L Industrial

Services for building and grounds work without a written contract, with the company

billing over $3.5 million annually. The Executive Director for facilities also contracted

with CTS telecom for a lease on phone equipment and usage of phones, a contract which

was never approved by the Board.

60. Notably, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources sought to hire a third party

for an open position, similar to when Mr. English sought to hire a contractor for the

Director of Finance Position. She also contracted for paraprofessionals and security staff

on a regular basis. No issue was raised regarding the actions of the Assistant

Superintendent of Human Resources, who was not a whistleblower.

61. KPS also had no established practice, nor requirement, for using contracts with all

vendors, nor did KPS regularly bring service contracts to the Board for approval. Mr.

English followed the same practice that had been in place several years, prior to his tenure

at KPS.

62. Further, the Board Operations and Finance Committee was informed on several

occasions of the need to undergo the account code conversion and the Superintendent

(who was cleared of any wrongdoing) approved the payment to the contractor for this

work.

63. There were also agreed upon compensation rates in the arrangement with Styrax

Financial, contrary to KPS’s allegation.

10
64. KPS alleged Mr. English routinely worked from home Friday without allowing others in

the business office the same opportunity.

65. The administration building was closed to the public on Fridays during Summer 2022

and staff members had the option to work remotely on those days. This applied to all

business office staff members, along with the rest of the administration office.

66. Mr. English did nothing to prevent employees in the business office from working

remotely.

67. Mr. English worked remotely only occasionally, and with the support of the

Superintendent. Mr. English’s remote work was never raised as an issue.

68. KPS alleged Mr. English directed staff not to share information about the district’s budget

with others. Mr. English exercised discretion in issues related to confidential budget

information. Mr. English’s exercise of discretion was not prohibited. In fact, protection

of confidential information is fundamental to working in the business office.

69. Importantly, at no time did Mr. English prevent anyone from making legally protected

reports to the Superintendent or Board of Education. Mr. English's instructions were

limited to exercising discretion in his staff's day-to-day job.

70. KPS alleged Mr. English failed to provide Human Resources with requested information

about contractors. During the only instance where the Assistant Superintendent of

Human Resources requested a contract, Mr. English followed the usual protocols under

the express advice and guidance of the Superintendent.

71. KPS alleged Mr. English never told his assistant to avoid turning in paid time off (PTO)

when he was not working. Mr. English planned for PTO days in his calendar, but rarely

could take those days off due to his workload. In the interest of accuracy, Mr. English

11
 instructed his assistant to allow him to review the paper absence slips before signing, as

most of the PTO days he scheduled were never actually used.

72. Further, Mr. English’s supervisor never voiced concerns with his attendance and use of

PTO. In fact, she regularly told him that he “worked too much” and needed to spend less

time working.

73. KPS alleged Mr. English sought reimbursement for meetings, meals, and auto expenses

without identifying the district purpose of the event. All expenses logged by Mr. English

were legitimate and easily identifiable and traceable by names or companies listed. All

expenses related to his role at KPS. Mr. English’s expense reports were also routinely

audited by KPS’s independent auditors without concern.

74. Mr. English finds it ironic that his expense reports, which were all legitimate, easily

identifiable, and legal, were being questioned at a time when the Board of Education and

Ms. Cindy Green were busy retaliating against whistleblowers who had reported or

participated in the reporting of improprieties by the Board of Education related to their

receipt of improper reimbursements and payments toward illegal expenditures.

Whistleblowing

75. Throughout the course of his employment, Mr. English noticed unusual accounting and

spending practices by the Board and certain administrators.

76. He made note of these irregularities and notified the KPS Board and Administration of

these irregularities that constituted violations of law.

77. Mr. English engaged in whistleblowing activities on countless other occasions.

78. In June 2021, Mr. English raised concerns about being refused a written contract in

violation of the Revised School Code.

12
79. In November 2021, Mr. English expressed concerns to the Director of Finance over the

inaccurate reporting on state special education reports for transportation and classroom

costs.

80. In 2022, Mr. English also raised concerns about unlawful payments and conflict of

interests. One such payment related to Trustee Jackson in 2021, where only Interim

Superintendent Green authorized the transaction, despite Michigan law requiring full

Board approval of such a transaction.

81. When Mr. English took the extraordinary step of bringing his concern to Board President

Patti Scholler-Barber, in addition to his normal practice of informing Superintendent Dr.

Raichoudhuri and Clark Hill Attorney Marshall Grate, Attorney Grate (who was

beholden to the Board of Education) indicated there was no need to address the payment

to Trustee Jackson.

82. In January 2022, Mr. English raised concern with the Director of Finance regarding the

fact that KPS did not remit sales tax as required by the State of Michigan in 2021.

83. On January 12, 2022, Mr. English raised concerns about unlawful compensation practices

for attendance at Board meetings, including compensation requests for meetings

unrelated to KPS, or allowing the Board president to approve compensation when

Michigan law required there be Board approval.

84. On January 27, 2022, Mr. English emailed the Director of Finance to inform her that KPS

had not followed the state requirement to issue 1099 copies required by law enacted in

2012.

13
85. In March 2022, Mr. English participated in an investigation over missing public funds at

Hillside Middle School. Mr. English reported that to Human Resources, who failed to

complete the investigation and discipline staff.

86. In June 2022, Mr. English discovered numerous individuals retained health insurance,

even though they were no longer district employees (in fact, some appeared to be dead).

Mr. English believed this improper health insurance payments to be fraudulent and

potentially criminal. Mr. English opened a forensic audit related to this matter in the Fall

of 2022, after learning that monthly reconciliations were reportedly unavailable for his

review. KPS discontinued the audit after terminating Mr. English and KPS legal counsel,

Marshall Grate, instructed auditors to destroy all evidence. Notably, members of the

Board Operations & Finance Committee were aware of Mr. Grate’s unprecedent request

to destroy evidence.

87. In September 2022, Mr. English voiced concerns to auditors regarding secretaries

routinely approving invoices for payment despite KPS procedures requiring

administrative approval.

88. In October 2022, Mr. English voiced concerns to the Superintendent and auditors

regarding inaccurate number of miles reported on the special education transportation

cost report completed by the Director of Finance.

89. On October 4, 2022, Mr. English reported two material weaknesses to the Board

Operations & Finance Committee as documented by the district’s external auditors

regarding KPS accounting. Auditor identified a need for KPS to improve their

accounting, including an issue where the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources

allowed subordinates to sign expense reimbursements.

14
90. On October 31, 2022, Mr. English reported questionable board donation of public funds

to private organizations and requested a second district law firm to provide a legal

opinion regarding the question of donations.

91. Throughout Mr. English’s employment with KPS, he did not shy away from raising

concerns regarding unusual spending by the Board and KPS. In many instances where

Mr. English reported suspected violations of law to KPS employees, his concerns were

disregarded or referred to as “isolated incidents.” Importantly, the crux of Mr. English’s

whistleblowing was directed toward improper Board actions and perks.

Retaliation

92. As a result of receiving these whistleblower complaints from Mr. English, and after

removing a highly effective Superintendent, KPS targeted Mr. English for retaliation.

93. In the sham investigation where Mr. English was not allowed to fully explain his side of

the story and access relevant documents and information, Ms. Cindy Green, Interim

Superintendent, recommended that Mr. English be terminated in a closed-door session of

the Board.

94. On December 28, 2022, while Mr. English was out of state visiting his terminally ill

mother, and in spite of the clear violations of his due process rights, the Board terminated

Mr. English from his employment at KPS. Ms. Green, Ms. Scholler-Barber, and the

Board then collaborated with a reporter-friend of Ms. Scholler-Barber to drag Mr.

English’s good name through the mud by making untrue derogatory statements about Mr.

English and his conduct.

15
 95. Notably, Interim Superintendent Cindy Green recommended Mr. English’s termination

less than a month after his whistleblower complaint about Trustee Jackson, with votes in

favor of termination from Trustee Jackson and President Scholler-Barber.

Aftermath of the Retaliation on Mr. English

96. Based on the kangaroo court-type “process” in which he was maligned publicly, Mr.

English has found it exceedingly difficult to obtain employment as a result of the baseless

allegations that he is dishonest and engaged in improper behavior.

97. Mr. English and his family are struggling financially as a result of his wrongful

termination.

98. Again, prior to being terminated by KPS, Mr. English had received nothing but praise for

his work professionalism and ethics.

99. Furthermore, Mr. English has been shunned in the community as a result of his baseless

and slanderous public termination, a termination that occurred without proper due

process.

100. He experiences sadness, depression, and despair at the position that KPS put him in

and has suffered emotional distress.

101. His family has likewise endured hardship emotionally from the allegations and also

is struggling financially along with Mr. English.

Wherefore, Plaintiff states the following Counts against Defendants:

COUNT I

Whistleblower Retaliation

(MCL 15.363 et seq.)

102. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

16
103. Plaintiff, inter alia, complained of unlawful conduct related to the use of public

monies and other violations of law, policy, practice, and rules to the Superintendent and

to the KPS Board of Education.

104. Defendant KPS was aware of Plaintiff’s complaints.

105. In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant KPS terminated Plaintiff from

his position as Assistant Superintendent of Finance & Operations for KPS.

106. As a result of this unlawful retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered severe economic and

noneconomic damages, as well as extreme emotional distress.

COUNT II

Discharge Against Public Policy (plead in the alternative)

107. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

108. Mr. English was working for KPS when he reported violations of law to KPS.

109. After receiving notice of these violations, KPS terminated Mr. English from

employment in retaliation for reporting these violations.

110. KPS’s conduct in terminating Mr. English violates public policy because it

discourages employees from reporting illegal activities.

111. As a result of KPS’s termination of Mr. English, Mr. English has suffered both

economic and non-economic damages.

COUNT III

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

112. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

113. Defendant KPS intentionally engaged in retaliatory conduct towards Plaintiff for

his whistleblowing activity.

17
114. Defendant KPS’s conduct was extreme and outrageous in that it caused Plaintiff to

be publicly humiliated and slandered Plaintiff by involuntarily terminating Plaintiff

without due process, without an opportunity to be heard to defend himself, and in express

violation of rights, school policy, and both the Michigan and federal law and

constitutions.

115. Defendant KPS intended that Plaintiff be humiliated publicly for exposing

Defendant KPS’s unlawful activities.

116. Defendant KPS’s conduct caused Plaintiff severe emotional distress to include

sleeplessness, extreme anxiety, feelings of humiliation and worthlessness, and long and

frequent episodes of isolation, depression, and sadness.

COUNT IV

Breach of Contract

117. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

118. Defendant KPS and Mr. English had valid employment contract between them.

119. Defendant KPS’s breached the employment contract by not fulfilling the terms of

the contract when KPS unlawfully terminated Mr. English as KPS Assistant

Superintendent of Finance & Operations, thereby preventing Mr. English from working

for the full term of the contract.

120. Mr. English has suffered damages from KPS’s contractual breaches of $81,357.17

because he no longer has income or benefits from his position as KPS Assistant

Superintendent of Finance & Operations. He has suffered further damages because

KPS’s unlawful actions have made Mr. English virtually unemployable in a similar

capacity elsewhere.

18
 COUNT V

Implied Contract Based on § 1229 of the Revised School Code (plead in the alternative)

121. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

122. Section 1229 of the Revised School Code requires employment contracts for

administrators be in writing and include a fixed term of employment.

123. A contract will be implied only if there is no express contract covering the same

subject matter. Barber v SMH (US), Inc, 202 Mich App 366, 375; 509 NW2d 791 (1993).

124. The essential elements of a contract are parties competent to contract, a proper

subject matter, legal consideration, mutuality of agreement, and mutuality of obligation.

An implied contract must also satisfy the elements of mutual assent and consideration.

Mallory v City of Detroit, 181 Mich App 121, 127; 449 NW2d 115 (1989).

125. Defendant KPS and Mr. English had valid employment contract between them.

126. While Plaintiff was refused an express, written contract in violation of Section 1229

of the Revised School Code, Plaintiff maintained an implied employment contract with

Defendant KPS because he was hired as an administrator under MCL 380.1229(2).

COUNT VI

Violation of 42 USC § 1983

127. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

128. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a person acting on behalf of the State who causes a citizen

of the United States to be deprived of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by

the Constitution shall be liable to that party at law.

19
129. All of the actions taken by Defendants, or those acting on behalf of, or conspiring

with, Defendants, and referred to herein, were done by Defendants while acting under

color of state law.

130. Defendants’ wrongful acts deprived Plaintiff of rights and freedoms guaranteed

under the Constitution.

131. Defendants’ wrongful acts deprived Plaintiff of his Fourteenth Amendment right to

equal protection under the law and to be free from discrimination.

COUNT VII

Violation of Plaintiff’s Constitutional Liberty Interest in Good Name

132. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

133. Defendant KPS falsely stated as fact that Mr. English acted with gross negligence

and bad judgment in expending KPS funds in hiring personnel to work for the Foundation

without Board knowledge and consent.

134. Defendant KPS falsely stated as fact that Mr. English acted with gross negligence

and bad judgment in expending KPS funds in hiring personnel to do accounting work for

KPS without Board knowledge and consent.

135. Defendant KPS altered information provided to KPS by Mr. English and used that

information to create a fabricated, public report regarding Mr. English’s work as

Assistant Superintendent of Finance & Operations.

136. Defendant KPS falsely stated Mr. English acted against Board policy and

procedures in hiring an independent contractor for the Director of Finance position.

20
137. Defendant KPS falsely stated Mr. English retained an outside contractor to do

account code conversion without Board approval, without a written contract, and without

establishing an hourly rate.

138. These false statements were published to the public online, via newspapers, and

television.

139. Defendant KPS acted intentionally or grossly negligently in publishing these false

statements about Mr. English.

140. As a result of KPS’s defamation, Mr. English has suffered both economic and non-

economic damages.

COUNT VIII

Due Process Under Michigan and Federal Law and Constitutions

141. Plaintiff incorporates the previous paragraphs as if contained herein.

142. Public employees with a property right in continued employment cannot be

terminated without due process of law. Cleveland Bd of Ed v Loudermill, 470 US 532,

538; 105 S Ct 1487; 84 L Ed 2d 494 (1985).

143. Due process requires a hearing and notice prior to termination, with an explanation

of the employer’s evidence and an opportunity for the employee to present his side of the

story. Loudermill, 470 US 532, at 546.

144. Mr. English had a property right in his continued employment under Section 1229

of the Revised School Code.

145. Mr. English was denied due process when KPS failed to give him notice of his

termination and failed to provide Mr. English with an explanation of KPS’s evidence

against him for termination.

21
 146. Mr. English was further denied due process when KPS did not provide Mr.

English with a legitimate pre-termination hearing prior to making a decision on his

termination.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff James English prays that this Honorable Court to do the following:

1. Find that Defendants unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s whistleblowing

activity.

2. Find that Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff through,

inter alia, its retaliatory, bullying, and oppressive behavior towards him.

3. Find that Defendants wrongfully terminated Plaintiff in violation of law.

4. Find that Defendants breached its employment contract with Plaintiff.

5. Award to Plaintiff all appropriate compensation, fines, and penalties against Defendant

available under law.

6. Award Plaintiff his attorney fees and costs.

7. Enjoin Defendants from terminating and demoting Plaintiff from the employment

position that Plaintiff had prior to being terminated on December 28, 2022.

8. Provide any other relief to Plaintiff that this Honorable Court deems fit.

By:

Eric D. Delaporte (P69673)

DELAPORTE LAW, PLLC
210 State St., Suite B Mason,
MI 48854
(517) 643-2626
Eric@DelaporteLaw.com

22