ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF MARLBORO
Kevin J. Miller,
Plaintiff,
SUMMONS
v.
City of Bennettsville & William Simon, Jr.,
Defendants.
TO THE DEFENDANTS ABOVE NAMED:
YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint herein, a copy
of which is served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to this Complaint upon the
subscriber at the address shown below within thirty (30) days (thirty five (35) days if served by
United States Mail) after service hereof, exclusive of the date of such service, and if you fail to
answer the Complaint, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded
in the Complaint.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
s/Jacob J. Modla____
Jacob J. Modla (#63031)
Nicholas J.M. Quatraro (#106417)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
T: (803) 799-9530
Jake@cromerbabb.com
Nicholas@cromerbabb.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Columbia, South Carolina
May 14, 2024
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF MARLBORO
Kevin J. Miller,
Plaintiff,
COMPLAINT
v. (Jury Trial Demanded)
City of Bennettsville & William Simon, Jr.,
Defendants.
EMPLOYMENT CASE
Plaintiff, Kevin J. Miller, by and through his undersigned counsel, respectfully alleges the
following causes of action under the South Carolina Common Law.
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, Kevin J. Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen and resident of Marlboro County,
South Carolina.
2. Defendant, City of Bennettsville (“City” or “Defendant City”) is a municipality in
Marlboro County, South Carolina.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, William Simon, Jr (“Simon” or
“Defendant Simon”) is a citizen and resident of Richland County, South Carolina.
4. This lawsuit alleges common law claims for negligence, civil conspiracy, workers
compensation retaliation, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and ratification
under the Restatement (Third) of Agency.
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these claims because they arise
under South Carolina common law.
1
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
6. This Court is a proper venue for this action because the events giving rise to these
claims occurred in Marlboro County, South Carolina.
7. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all triable claims and issues.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant City since April 17, 2017.
9. Plaintiff has worked as the Chief of Police for Defendant City since his hire.
10. Plaintiff has been a police officer since 2001 and has held the position of Chief of
Police for 15 years, including the last 7 with Defendant City.
11. Throughout his tenure with Defendant City, Plaintiff has never been reprimanded,
never been written up, or suspended until 2024.
12. Until this time, Plaintiff has always met or exceeded the expectations set forth by
Defendant City.
13. Plaintiff began having issues with Defendant City administration when former
Mayor Carolyn Prince took office on or about January 1, 2020.
14. The former Mayor made several negative public and private statements about
Plaintiff, including publicly stating that Plaintiff ‘was not her police chief’ (not verbatim).
15. The former Mayor’s dislike of Plaintiff was well-documented, but Plaintiff always
received good evaluations.
16. During his time as Chief of Police, Plaintiff has endured harassment from members
of Defendant City Council both publicly and privately.
17. Plaintiff made several complaints to Human Resources about how former Mayor
Prince treated him, and Defendant City never took action.
2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
18. On April 11, 2023, a workshop took place in which an immediate motion was made
to move into executive session to discuss a personnel matter. Plaintiff was the subject of this
personnel matter. Quashieka Lucas (“Lucas”), the Assistant to the City Administrator at the time
was in the Chamber and never came out during the executive session that was discussing Plaintiff.
19. It was highly unusual for an employee to be allowed to take part in an executive
session meeting.
20. Lucas was yelling and screaming during this meeting so loudly that people in the
lobby could hear her.
21. Defendant City employees and some prospective employees in the lobby heard and
witnessed all the yelling and screaming over Plaintiff.
22. Former Mayor Prince was replaced with current Mayor, Leith Fowler on or about
January 1, 2024.
23. Defendant William Simon, Jr. was appointed by former Mayor Prince as City
Administrator for Defendant City in June of 2023.
24. Since Defendant Simon has taken over the role of City Administrator, he has made
it clear that he has a personal vendetta against Plaintiff and has done everything in his power to
terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
25. In January 2024, a City employee filed a complaint against Plaintiff, claiming that
he was disrespectful to her. Defendant Simon did not conduct an appropriate investigation into this
claim, but rather reprimanded Plaintiff for the unfounded complaint.
26. This reprimand was Plaintiff’s first recorded disciplinary action in his entire career.
3
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
27. To date, this complaint lodged against Plaintiff has yet to be resolved, and has
created a tense workplace for Plaintiff regarding how to engage with the employee because
Plaintiff fears further retaliation.
28. Defendant City released an assessment titled “Bennettsville Carolina Police
Department On-Site Assessment” to the public on April 3, 2024.
29. Much of the assessment dealt with internal human resource and personnel issues
that Plaintiff was actively trying to work on in his role as Chief of Police.
30. One of the personnel issues includes police officer retention.
31. Plaintiff has attempted to address the issue of officer retention on three separate
occasions while employed by Defendant City. His first proposed plan passed in 2022. His second
proposed plan passed City Council then was later rescinded in a separate council meeting in April
of 2023, and a third proposal was given to the City in August 2023, but Defendant Simon told
Plaintiff that Defendant City did not support the August 2023 proposal.
32. The assessment is filled with the opinions of several disgruntled former employees
who had issues with Plaintiff.
33. The assessment is biased and was released simply to paint Plaintiff in a negative
light to the public.
34. Defendant Simon and Defendant City attempted to use this assessment in order to
terminate Plaintiff’s employment.
35. Defendant Simon suspended Plaintiff without pay for five-days between March 5
through March 11, 2024.
4
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
36. Prior to the suspension, Defendant Simon tried to pressure Plaintiff to write a
reference letter for an unqualified candidate in another City for the position of Police Chief because
Defendant Simon and the candidate were in the same college fraternity. Plaintiff refused.
37. Plaintiff has an ongoing workers’ compensation claim filed against Defendant City,
and Defendant Simon has bullied and tried to intimidate Plaintiff, in an attempt to get Plaintiff to
drop the claim.
38. A member of Defendant City Council wanted to confront Plaintiff about his
workers compensation claim in closed session to intimidate and bully him into dropping the claim.
39. Plaintiff was not suspended for the proffered reason (the assessment), but rather for
refusing to write a reference letter for an unqualified candidate who has fraternal connections with
Defendant Simon and for filing a workers compensation claim against Defendant City.
40. Plaintiff has attempted to look for other employment within the County and has
been refused interviews because of the negative media attention that the assessment and
Defendants’ actions have brought.
41. Defendant Simon is abusing his position as City Administrator in an attempt to
harass, bully, and intimidate Plaintiff.
42. There have been several situations revolving around Plaintiff where Defendant
Simon went against the wishes of City Council.
43. Upon Plaintiff’s suspension without pay, Plaintiff went to HR to request his
personnel file.
44. Within the hour, Defendant Simon had issued Plaintiff a negative evaluation.
45. This negative evaluation came several months before it was normally completed.
46. The negative evaluation was the first negative evaluation of Plaintiff’s career.
5
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
47. Due to the negative evaluation, Plaintiff lost out on a merit bonus that has always
been given to Plaintiff in the past for constantly meeting and exceeding expectations on the
evaluations.
48. Defendant Simon told Plaintiff that the suspension would be kept confidential, but
within thirty minutes of notifying Plaintiff of the suspension, Defendant Simon sent a subordinate
to Plaintiff’s home to collect his badge and department issued firearm.
49. Defendant Simon has improperly excluded Plaintiff from several meetings, in an
attempt to keep him out of the loop and uninformed on matters concerning Plaintiff’s department
to make Plaintiff look bad.
50. Upon information and belief, Defendant Simon’s targeting of Plaintiff has occurred
because Plaintiff is Caucasian.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY
(Negligence)
51. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
52. Defendant City has failed to properly supervise Defendant Simon with knowledge
that failing to supervise Defendant Simon could result in harm to employees, including the
Plaintiff.
53. Defendant City’s actions and inactions have resulted in a work environment where
Defendant Simon was empowered to target and harass Plaintiff, including suspending and
publishing a biased assessment against him for no reason other than to punish him and to prove a
point to Plaintiff and other employees.
6
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
54. Defendant City’s negligence and gross negligence has resulted in foreseeable harm
to the Plaintiff including a hostile work environment, suspension without pay, and loss of other
job opportunities.
55. The above alleged herein resulted in damages to Plaintiff for lost wages, lost
earning capacity, and emotional pain and suffering.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY
(Workers’ Compensation Retaliation, S.C. Code Ann. § 41-1-80)
56. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
57. While employed by Defendant City, Plaintiff sustained injuries arising out of and
in the course of his employment.
58. Plaintiff instituted, in good faith, a workers’ compensation proceeding under the
South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Law (Title 42 of the 1976 Code).
59. Defendant Simon, in his role as City Administrator, has harassed and attempted to
bully Plaintiff into dropping his good faith workers’ compensation claim against Defendant City.
60. Plaintiff was suspended for five-days without pay after initiating the workers’
compensation claim.
61. The reasons Plaintiff was given for his suspension are pretext for workers’
compensation retaliation.
62. There is a causal connection and close temporal relationship between Plaintiff’s
suspension and the beginning of the workers’ compensation proceedings.
63. By suspending Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant City violated S.C. Code Ann. §
41-1-80.
7
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
64. Defendant is liable for lost wages suffered by Plaintiff as a result of the violation
of S.C. Code Ann. § 41-1-80. Plaintiff further seeks a sum to be awarded to offset the increased
tax impact of a lump sum backpay award and pre and post judgment interest on the backpay award.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
(Civil Conspiracy)
65. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
66. The defendants met, conspired, and schemed to cause Plaintiff harm.
67. Defendant Simon and others (members of Defendant City Council) acted outside
the scope of their employment and in abuse of their position(s) to harm Plaintiff for their own
personal agendas and personal benefit.
68. Defendant Simon and several members of Defendant City Council wrongfully
targeted Plaintiff, suspending him without pay and releasing a biased assessment against Plaintiff.
69. Defendant Simon has publicly chastised Plaintiff solely to embarrass Plaintiff and
to prove that he has unfettered power that Defendant City has failed to keep in check.
70. Defendant Simon and members of Defendant City Council released the biased
assessment knowing that he could use the assessment as a basis for falsely suspending Plaintiff.
71. Defendant Simon has given Plaintiff confusing directives regarding whether
Plaintiff can speak to the media about matters of public concern.
72. Defendant Simon has cited policies that do not exist to control Plaintiff. When
questioned, Defendant Simon refuses to provide proof of the policies.
73. Defendant Simon suspended Plaintiff out of spite, and continues to harass him,
despite knowledge that the opinions in the assessment are biased and only from former employees
who have known issues with Plaintiff.
8
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
74. The above alleged herein amounts to civil conspiracy for which Defendant Simon
and Defendant City are liable.
75. Such actions of the Defendants have isolated and damaged Plaintiff in his field of
service and employment.
76. Plaintiff was suspended without pay as a result of his opposition to Defendant
Simon and Defendant City’s actions.
77. Defendant Simon has made decisions that directly opposed the wishes of other
Defendant City Council members on several different occasions. Decisions that should have been
made with the consent of the majority of the Council. Some of these decisions directly impact
Plaintiff. Defendant Simon made these decisions despite the explicit knowledge that some of City
Council has advised him differently. This includes hiring and firing decisions, as well as cutting
several positions and budgets within the Defendant City Police Department.
78. The foregoing conduct amounts to an unlawful civil conspiracy to harm Plaintiff,
interfere with Plaintiff’s employment, defame Plaintiff, and deprive Plaintiff of income, for which
Defendant Simon and Defendant City are liable.
79. Defendants’ actions have directly and proximately caused Plaintiff damages,
including, but not limited to loss of income, increased anxiety and emotional damages, attorney
fees, and costs. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages for the malicious,
intentional, and mean-spirited actions of the individual, Defendant Simon acting herein.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT SIMON
(Defamation)
80. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
9
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
81. At all times herein, Defendant Simon knew or should have known the allegations
and charges against Plaintiff that he was incompetent in his profession, failed to meet criteria, and
that he was liable for the contents of the biased assessment released to the public were false.
82. The accusations of Defendant Simon, including, but not limited to, publicly sharing
via the assessment that Plaintiff was incompetent in his profession and could not retain police
officers for the Defendant City, despite proposing retention plans on several occasions, as
discussed herein, and actions associated herewith have defamed Plaintiff by actions as well as
words.
83. Such statements were false and known to be false by Defendant Simon at the time
they were made. Defendant Simon was and is aware that Plaintiff is competent in his profession
and has always kept the best interest of Defendant City in mind.
84. Such statements and acts are defamatory per se as they accuse Plaintiff of
incompetence in his profession.
85. Plaintiff has suffered severe reputational loss both professionally and personally;
Defendant Simon caused and is liable to Plaintiff for the same.
86. As a direct and proximate result of the defamatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered
reputational loss, been embarrassed, humiliated, and has sustained mental anguish. Plaintiff is
entitled to an award of actual damages against Defendant Simon, including damages for emotional
pain and suffering, in amounts to be determined by a jury. Plaintiff is further entitled to an award
of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs for this action.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT SIMON
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)
87. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
10
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
88. Defendant Simon planned and carried out an intentional and reckless campaign of
harassing, and hostile, behavior toward Plaintiff that he knew would result in distress to Plaintiff
as a result of his actions.
89. Such behaviors include but is not limited to: harassing comments made to Plaintiff,
releasing of the biased assessment in order to smear Plaintiff’s professional reputation, going
against the wishes of City Council in order to punish Plaintiff, intimidating and threatening
Plaintiff through suspension and evaluations that do not reflect Plaintiff’s work, purposefully to
further harm Plaintiff both financially and professional.
90. Because of Defendant Simon’s treatment of Plaintiff, Defendant Simon has caused
Plaintiff to sustain severe and continuing emotional distress.
91. Due to the stress, Defendant has intentionally caused, Plaintiff has been forced to
explore the option of prematurely buying out his retirement and look for other jobs.
92. Plaintiff was also forced to miss several weeks of work because of the emotional
distress he was suffering.
93. Defendant Simon’s conduct was and is continually oppressive, extreme, and
outrageous and amounts to conduct that no human being should have to endure. Moreover, the
conduct of Defendant Simon extends beyond the reasonable conduct of any ordinary person and
is utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
94. Plaintiff’s overall physical and mental condition are negatively impacted by
Defendant Simon’s egregious behavior toward him.
95. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s outrageous actions and intentional
infliction of emotional distress Plaintiff sustained shock, humiliation, mental anguish, physical and
emotional damages, pain and suffering, and he will continue to sustain the same for an in-
11
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
determinate period of time into the future. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual and punitive
damages against Defendant Simon for the intentional, malicious, and reckless conduct directed at
Plaintiff.
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY
(Ratification)
(Restatement (Third) of Agency § 4.01)
96. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where consistent.
97. Defendant City Council has the ability to act on behalf of Defendant City for policy-
making and various other decisions that directly impact Defendant City.
98. Defendant city knew and has failed to stop Defendant Simon from acting in a
vindictive manner toward Plaintiff for the purpose of attempting to get Plaintiff to resign from his
employment and for his own personal benefit.
99. Defendant City’s knowledge, and failure to address Defendant Simon’s behavior
justifies a reasonable assumption that Defendant City by and through City Council consents and
ratifies this behavior.
100. Defendant City has ratified the actions of Defendant Simon; thus, Defendant City
is liable for Defendant Simon’s actions alleged herein.
101. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant City’s ratification of Defendant
Simon’s behavior, Defendant City is liable for Plaintiff’s lost wages, lost earning capacity, mental
anguish, emotional pain and suffering, and further damages as the Court deems appropriate.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kevin J. Miller prays for judgment against Defendant City of
Bennettsville and Defendant William Simon, Jr. for all damages available to him under South
12
ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2024 May 14 9:09 AM - MARLBORO - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2024CP3400158
Carolina law. Finally, Plaintiff prays for equitable relief, attorney’s fees and costs of this action,
pre-judgment interest on all damages, and any such other relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
s/Jacob J. Modla____
Jacob J. Modla (#63031)
Nicholas J.M. Quatraro (#106417)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 799-9530
Jake@cromerbabb.com
Nicholas@cromerbabb.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Columbia, South Carolina
May 14, 2024
13
