Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Greenville Civil Rights Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Sallie Whitmore Papajohn and Chris W. McCarty

Description: Greeneville, Tennessee civil litigation lawyers represented Plaintiff who sued Defendants on civil rights violation theories under 42 U.S.C. 1983.

This case was initially filed in the Sullivan County Chancery Court, 20-CV-18791, and was removed to federal court by the Defendants.


On August 13, 2020, the Sullivan County Board of Education held a meeting to discuss the possibility of returning to in-person learning amid the COVID-19 pandemic At least one student and numerous parents spoke at the meeting and urged the Board to return to in-person learning. Plaintiff Jeremy McLaughlin, a teacher at Sullivan Central High School, voiced his concerns that a return to in-person learning would not be safe. Later, the mother of the student who spoke at the meeting posted on Facebook, critiquing Plaintiff “for the tone of his remarks at the Board meeting and for ‘dismissing' her daughter." The mother also posted screenshots of Plaintiff's personal Facebook posts, which she found offensive and commented, “Hopefully this Sullivan County teacher will be losing his job. He will think twice before being a condescending prick to my child or anyone's child again. Go look at his [Facebook]. I didn't post everything.” Plaintiff alleges that the mother and at least three other individuals emailed complaints about Plaintiff to David Cox, the Director of Sullivan County Public Schools, and members of the Board to influence them to discipline or dismiss Plaintiff.

On August 18, 2020, the Human Resources Supervisor for the Sullivan County Schools emailed Plaintiff informing him of the complaints and asking him to respond to the following two questions relating to his Facebook posts:

Your social media activity, specifically the use of profane and sometimes vulgar language on your Facebook timeline (PDF of Examples Attached). Specifically, as a teacher and as a role model, do you believe utilizing that type of language sets an appropriate example for students and/or elicits confidence in you from their parents?

Your social media statements which seemed to both admit multiple votes during the teacher survey, as well as seemed to encourage non-employees to vote during the same survey. Specifically, do you believe those were appropriate actions by a professional educator?

Plaintiff responded and, on August 20, 2020, he received a second letter with copies of the complaints against him. On September 3, 2020, Director Cox notified Plaintiff that he was being suspended for three days without pay due to “unprofessional behavior while utilizing social media” and “unprofessional attitude and poor judgment when failing to show remorse related to such poor behavior” [Doc. 8-1, pg. 3]. Specifically, Director Cox referenced the following activity by Plaintiff on Facebook:

shared a Twitter post mocking possible violence against a student who supports President Trump; utilized the f-word when commenting on an NPR news story; shared a photo of a young man in a way that seems to infer low intelligence, lying, and selfishness; utilized the phrase “you look like you're wearing your side chick's panties on your face” when mocking a man you saw at Food City; and sharing a meme with the phrase “Go F*** Yourself” when criticizing people for not wearing masks.

Director Cox went on to explain that “[p]erhaps even more troubling were” Plaintiff's Facebook comments about a faculty re-opening survey, which he interpreted as an attempt to explain to others how to vote on the survey more than once and to encourage non-faculty members to vote [Id. at pgs. 2-3]. Plaintiff posted the link to the survey and commented, “It's interesting how survey gizmo uses cookies to track if you've responded or not. If you're in incognito mode, it's like it doesn't even know that you voted. Weird!” [Id. at pg. 2]. Director Cox informed Plaintiff that one complaint he received stemmed from Plaintiff's “alleged bias and/or harassment toward certain students in classroom settings” but an investigation revealed no evidence to substantiate such complaint [Id. at pg. 1]. Director Cox also explained that he received complaints about Plaintiff's speech at the August 13th Board meeting, but that he did not consider such complaints when making his decision [Id.].

Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-512(d)(2), Plaintiff requested a conference with Director Cox, which the parties conducted on September 22, 2020 [Doc. 8, ¶ 15].[1] On September 24, 2020, Director Cox issued a decision letter pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-512(d)(4) affirming the three-day suspension [Doc. 8-2]. On October 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Complaint and Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee against Director Cox and the Board seeking judicial review of the suspension pursuant to the Tennessee Teachers' Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-5-513, and asserting a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the action to this Court on November 18, 2020 and, on December 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Defendants now seek dismissal of Plaintiff's claims, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

42 U.S.C. 1983 provides:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Outcome: Defendants' verdict.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: