Four former Richland 1 school district officials have sued school board member Cheryl Harris since 2014, accusing her of using her position of authority to orchestrate demotions or to discipline them after upsetting her in their official duties.
“Harris … was known to remark to others that she was going to ‘get the plaintiff,’” one lawsuit read. Harris, along with school district officials, “used their respective positions of authority and positions within the community to perpetuate their personal vendettas.”
Among those suing Harris are:
▪ A former Lower Richland High School principal who said she was removed from her position after investigating a sexual assault complaint filed against a student with a “close familial relationship” with Harris as well as a harassment claim against an employee who also had ties to the board member.
▪ A former elementary school principal who said she was demoted when she ordered an audit of the PTO’s funding. At the time, the PTO was headed by Harris.
▪ A former district security official who said she was disciplined after Harris caused chaos during a gas leak at Lower Richland High School and after the official filed charges against an unruly fan at a basketball game who assaulted the official.
▪ Another former principal of Lower Richland High School who said she was demoted after giving a graduation speech that Harris disliked. That former principal, Ericka Hursey, is challenging Harris for the Richland 1 board’s district two seat in the Tuesday, Nov. 5, election..
The lawsuits each say that Harris overstepped her role as a school board member and was inappropriately involved in the distrct’s schools, especially Lower Richland High School.
“I do not recall board members being named individually or as often as Cheryl Harris,” said Beatrice King, a former board member. Of the current Richland 1 board members, Aaron Bishop and Jamie Devine have been named individually in one lawsuit each in their roles on the board, according to Richland County court records.
Hursey’s lawsuit is pending. The other three were settled out of court.
When approached at an October school board meeting, Harris refused to answer a reporter’s questions regarding the lawsuits. She promised to send a statement the next day. More than a week later, Harris sent a statement denying her involvement in the allegations made in the lawsuits.
The State has reached out to the district about the four lawsuits.
An Eastover native, Harris has spent 12 years on the Richland 1 board and is up for her fourth term this fall. A board member for multiple nonprofits and a founding member of the Lower Richland Alumni Foundation, she is highly involved in her hometown community. At school board meetings, she is highly engaged.
But community members and others agree that the behavior alleged in the complaints is inappropriate.
Richland 1 policy permits board members to visit individual schools only with board authorization and with the full knowledge of principals and staff. King said Superintendent Craig Witherspoon had “put a lid” on school visits from board members — except for certain individuals. Like Harris.
Her involvement, particularly at Lower Richland High School, is “irregular” at best and “disruptive” at worst, King said.
Sherry West, president of the South Carolina Educators Association, said the association wants school board members to be part of schools. But she said boundaries are essential.
“If school board members are there to discipline or intimidate, that crosses a line. When they take steps to hire and fire staff, that’s a problem,” West said. “That is unacceptable behavior and should not be tolerated.”
School board members are elected to set policy, manage finances and maintain a district’s vision, West said. It is the superintendent, appointed by the school board and entrusted to run a district, who is responsible for everything else.
West did not comment on the Harris cases because of the organization’s possible legal involvement. The SCEA sometimes aids in disputes involving teachers and administrators.
Here are details from each of the lawsuits, which also named the district and some administrators as defendants.
‘Suspended’ for a graduation speech
Hursey, a former principal of Lower Richland High School, sued Harris and the district last year, the most recent litigation.
The longtime Richland 1 teacher and administrator, who began working in the district in 1996 and who attended it as a student, alleged free speech violations, breach of contract and defamation. Hursey said she was removed as principal in retaliation for a speech she gave at a high school graduation in 2022.
In the speech, Hursey talked about overcoming personal and professional adversities by “letting go of negative thinking” and removing “negative people from her life,” according to the lawsuit. She indicated, but did not specify, that something made her question whether she would continue serving in her role, but she told graduates she overcame doubts by giving up on negative influences she could not change.
“As you leave here today, you will be faced with many challenges, disappointments, some failures and uncertainties in your life,” Hursey said at the ceremony, captured on video. “When you find yourself struggling in these situations, take time to reflect on your unique bond you’ve created with your classmates, the resilience you’ve displayed with all that you’ve been through, the persistence that you’ve shown to meet your goals, and remember that sometimes it’s okay to give up and give praise.”
The rest of the speech was apparently edited out of the video, posted on the district’s YouTube page.
Despite a signed contract to be Lower Richland’s principal for the following academic year, Hursey was swiftly removed from her role as principal in retaliation for the speech, according to the lawsuit.
Witherspoon, the superintendent, told Hursey the speech was “inappropriate” and “unprofessional,” and placed Hursey on investigatory administrative leave. Though Hursey was not formally disciplined for the speech, she was reassigned from Lower Richland to a new position as “coordinator of student hearings.”
It was a “dead-end” job, according to Hursey’s lawsuit, created so that the district could remove her as principal while denying her the ability to exercise her rights under South Carolina’s Teacher Employment and Dismissal Act.
Harris had a hand in the reassignment and interfered with Hursey’s contract, the lawsuit said.
Hursey was promoted to principal of Lower Richland High School in 2018 after serving in various roles in the district. During her tenure, Harris interfered with Hursey’s oversight of the school, which Hursey says undermined her and interfered with her ability to do her job. According to the lawsuit, Harris overstepped her role and acted “as if she was in control” of the high school.
During the 2019-2020 academic year, Hursey was called into a meeting with Witherspoon, who said there was a rumor that she and Harris “did not get along.” Hursey told Witherspoon she did not have any problems with Harris and was willing to meet with her to address any concerns. Witherspoon said it wasn’t necessary.
Hursey kept Witherspoon updated about Harris’ behavior, which the lawsuit said exemplified the board member’s “free reign” at the high school, including planning a concert on the campus without going through the principal’s office.
When she was reassigned, Harris made “numerous” defamatory statements about Hursey to community members that she knew were false and malicious, according to the lawsuit.
Harris had said Hursey was “suspended” from her role as principal, that she did not fulfill certain tasks at Lower Richland High School, that she stole money from the Lower Richland Alumni Association and that she allowed students to graduate without meeting the necessary requirements. Harris also said Hursey grew up on the “wrong side of the tracks,” according to the lawsuit.
Hursey’s reassignment became a hot button issue.
In July 2022, King, then a school board member, asked Witherspoon if he thought Hursey’s new position was the best way to employ an instructional leader with years of experience.
“We find this is an appropriate needed position with said individual,” Witherspoon replied.
Board member Robert Lominack later commented that it was one example that the district was “headed toward a ditch.”
Hursey and Harris, both Lower Richland alumni, would’ve attended the high school around the same time more than 30 years ago.
Retaliation after sexual assault investigation
Rose Pelzer, Hursey’s predecessor as Lower Richland’s principal, also sued Harris and the district.
According to the 2018 lawsuit, a student reported a sexual assault to an administrator who relayed the incident to Pelzer in the fall of 2017. It was reported to have been committed by another student, identified as “John Doe,” who had a “close familial relationship” with Harris, according to the lawsuit.
In accordance with state and federal law and Richland 1 policy, Pelzer thoroughly investigated the incident, and then contacted Harris to set up a meeting to address the incident and the discipline Doe would be receiving. Instead, Harris — who had been an “active participant” at Lower Richland — stopped her active role and stopped working collaboratively in general, the lawsuit said.
Later that fall, Pelzer had to address a sexual harassment incident involving two guidance counselors at the high school. It involved a close friend of Harris who “inappropriately touched” another counselor, according to the lawsuit. It was investigated, and Pelzer attempted to resolve the matter per district policy.
Harris communicated her “displeasure” with Pelzer after the incidents and told her she would take action against her.
In another instance, Pelzer had to remove a disruptive student from class, and was later called by Harris who said “she was tired” and “consistently getting complaints from the parents, teachers and community about the school.” Those claims were unfounded, according to the lawsuit. Harris told Pelzer she would be calling the superintendent.
Pelzer was abruptly reassigned from her role as Lower Richland’s principal by Witherspoon to the district’s Department of Instructional Services in December 2017 with mere a same-day notice, a violation of district policy. The Human Resources Department told her it was because the superintendent wanted to “move in a different direction.”
As an instructional coach, she was subjected to a “retaliatory” work environment, including segregating her from colleagues, excluding her from communication related to her job assignment and salary changes, restricting her access which prevented her from doing her job and forcing her to work in unsanitary conditions.
Pelzer was then notified she was to be further demoted to a teacher role.
The lawsuit alleges violations of civil rights, due process and federal Title IX law, and malicious intent on the part of the district. It also accused Harris and Witherspoon of civil conspiracy and causing emotional distress. The suit said they schemed to remove her as principal because of personal vendettas, and furthermore, verbally assaulted Pelzer and denigrated her reputation.
She also accused the district of defamation.
False accusations following PTO audit
Angela Brown had been a principal at Hopkins Elementary School and Hyatt Park Elementary School after working as a Richland 1 educator since 1998.
Despite her “excellent record” of leading “troubled” district schools, and her “exceptional” job performance and positive relationships with her colleagues, she came under personal attack by the district’s former superintendent and human resources director during the 2013-2014 academic year, according to her lawsuit filed in 2014.
Brown called for and obtained an audit of funding of the PTO at Hopkins Elementary. Harris, who was president of the PTO at Hopkins Elementary at the time, became adversarial with Brown and sought to criticize her and “undermine” her leadership.
It led to her transfer away from Hopkins, to Hyatt Park Elementary, according to the lawsuit, which was orchestrated by Harris.
Though Brown was doing well at Hyatt Park, Harris and other district officials “falsely accused” Brown of failing to report an incident of child abuse to the proper authorities. There was no issue of child abuse, according to the lawsuit.
She later learned in June 2014 that the district was investigating her, though she hadn’t been informed. They told her that if she wanted to stay with Richland 1, she’d have to give up her principalship.
Brown refused, and was removed as principal anyway and transferred as an “administrator on special assignment,” according to the lawsuit, which put her career in jeopardy.
The district then sent her a letter informing her that she would be further reassigned to a non-school assignment for the following academic year because of the “severe and unwarranted” investigation. Staff was made aware of charges against her, and the lawsuit said it could leave the impression that she was guilty of a crime or incompetent.
Brown’s lawsuit alleges defamation, claiming the situation caused injury to her reputation.
It also alleged civil conspiracy, because Harris and other district officials planned in secret to “harass and ostracize” Brown to have her eliminated from her job as a principal because they disliked her as a person and wanted to harm her.
Brown is running for an at-large seat on the school board in the November 2024 election.
‘Personal dislike’ and a criminal investigation
Santana Robbins had been employed by Richland 1 as its manager of security and emergency services for four years, where she was qualified and performed well, according to her 2015 lawsuit.
In November 2014, a gas leak was identified at Lower Richland High School. Harris began directing students and staff to leave campus in personal vehicles without a determined evacuation point. It was not part of district protocol. Based on the lawsuit, it is unclear whether Harris had already been present at the school or if she came to the school after learning of the gas leak.
Chaos ensued, students panicked and safety protocols were not implemented correctly. There was poor communication between school personnel and emergency responders. The lawsuit alleges that once Robbins took control of the situation, calm was restored.
But Harris later criticized Robbins and her supervisor for their own mistakes and made “scapegoats” for missteps. And at a later meeting with the school board, Harris insulted, berated and defamed Robbins, the lawsuit said, falsely accusing her of incompetence, despite her otherwise unblemished record.
This is what first caused Harris to “personally dislike” Robbins and wish for her removal.
A few months later, Robbins was supervising a basketball game between Lower Richland High School and A.C. Flora High School in February 2015, when a fan, who had been unruly and ejected from previous games, was becoming “unruly,” the lawsuit said.
The fan was eventually removed from the A.C. Flora gymnasium by a school resource officer and another law enforcement officer. While they spoke to the fan, Robbins was an onlooker. The fan and his wife were yelling, demanding to file a police report and to call 911.
Robbins tried to calm the couple and discuss the situation when the wife yelled and pushed her hand into her face. Robbins attempted to parry her hand away from her face when she was punched in the chest.
The wife was handcuffed and the husband restrained. Robbins decided not to press charges at the time because the couple was with their children, but later filed criminal charges with the City of Forest Acres, where A.C. Flora is located.
Once Robbins filed those charges, she was placed on administrative leave, but did not receive a letter informing her until days after her leave was supposed to begin. She was not allowed to speak with her supervisor, and was asked to give a statement to the district’s lawyers, but was concerned. She asked to be read her Garrity Rights, which are meant to protect public employees from incriminating themselves, because of the pending criminal investigation she was involved in. She was refused.
Robbins learned Harris and others were accusing her of having made “racial insults and slurs” during the February 2015 incident, though there was video footage of the attack.
Harris had made remarks that she was going to “get” Robbins, and that she treated white people better than Black people.
In March 2015, Robbins filed a grievance with the district on the grounds that policies regarding due process, administrative leave and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act had been violated, according to the lawsuit. It was eventually denied.
Days later, the district sent Robbins a letter informing her that her leave was extended “indefinitely.” About a week afterwards, Robbins was reinstated to her position but sent a letter of reprimand with “numerous” inaccuracies and false statements, accusing her of improper conduct.
According to the lawsuit, Harris and district employees conspired to “harm” Robbins. Harris herself got the district to place Robbins on administrative leave, discouraged other board members from fairly deciding whether to issue a letter of reprimand and actively sought to get her fired. Robbins also said she was slandered by being called racist, unable to perform her job and accused of criminal conduct.
“The Defendants used their respective positions of authority and positions within the community to perpetuate their personal vendettas,” the suit read.
What did it cost the district?
Hursey’s lawsuit is still pending in federal court. Federal court records show that some depositions have been done, but next steps were postponed. An Oct. 18 update has scheduled discovery to conclude in December. Trial is scheduled for next July.
It is unclear how much these lawsuits have cost the district, including legal fees and potential payouts. The State has asked the district for copies of the settlement agreements in the other three cases..
Leave a Comment