Jane-Roe-Lawsuit

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF GREENVILLE ) ) CASE NO. 2020-CP-23- Jane Roe, ) ) Plaintiff, ) SUMMONS ) vs. ) ) Furman University, Furman University Police ) Department, Bob Jones University, John Doe, ) and Trevor Whitfield, ) ) Defendants. ) ______

YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the complaint in this action, a copy of which is hereby served upon you, and to serve a copy of your answer to the said complaint on the subscriber at his office, 1225 South Church, Greenville, South Carolina, 29605, within thirty (30) days after service thereof exclusive of the day of such service, and if you fail to answer the complaint within the time aforesaid, judgment by default will be rendered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Respectfully submitted,

Hawkins & Jedziniak, LLC

s/ Joshua T. Hawkins Joshua T. Hawkins, S.C. Bar No. 78470 Helena L. Jedziniak, S.C. Bar No. 100825 1225 South Church Street Greenville, South Carolina 29605 (864) 275-8142 (telephone) Greenville, South Carolina (864) 752-0911 (facsimile) August 5, 2020 [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-8142 Greenville, South Carolina fax: (864) 752-0911 June 22, 2017 [email protected]

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

COMES NOW, the plaintiff, alleging and complaining of the defendants as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 1. Jane Roe is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, South Carolina. 2. Furman University is an undergraduate and graduate university located in Greenville County, South Carolina. 3. Upon information and belief, the Furman University Police Department is a law enforcement agency operated by Furman University. 4. Bob Jones University is an undergraduate university located in Greenville County, South Carolina. 5. Upon information and belief, John Doe is a citizen and resident of Dillon County, South Carolina. 6. Upon information and belief, Trevor Whitfield is a citizen and resident of Greenville County, South Carolina. 7. The events giving rise to this action transpired in Greenville County, South Carolina. 8. Since individual deputies have not been named as defendants and no claims for deliberate indifference or violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights have been asserted, jurisdiction is only proper in this Court at this time. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a lawsuit bringing federal claims, including claims for deliberate indifference and for violation of constitutional rights, at a later date, if such an action becomes necessary. 9. Jurisdiction and venue are proper for the foregoing reasons. 2

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10. The plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if repeated here, verbatim. 11. At the time of the events described herein, the plaintiff was a student enrolled at Bob Jones University. 12. At the time of the events described herein, defendant John Doe was student enrolled at Furman University and a member of the university’s football team. 13. At the time of the events described herein, Trevor Whitfield was employed as an officer of the Furman University Police Department. 14. On or about October 6, 2019, John Doe invited the plaintiff to a party at Furman. The plaintiff accepted his invitation and went to Furman’s campus with Witness A, her friend and fellow Bob Jones student. 15. When the plaintiff and Witness A arrived, they found a much smaller gathering than the party that they had excepted. Other than the plaintiff and Witness A, seven members of the Furman football team were present. 16. John Doe gave the plaintiff alcohol and marijuana, which caused her to become noticeably impaired. Upon information and belief, Doe supplied the plaintiff with alcohol and drugs so that she would become intoxicated and so that her judgment would be impaired. 17. After Doe gave the plaintiff alcohol and marijuana and knew that she was intoxicated, Doe brought the plaintiff, Witness A, and two other football players to his apartment to watch music videos. While in his apartment, Doe continued to give the visibly intoxicated plaintiff alcohol. 18. When the plaintiff told Doe that she felt unwell and overheated, Doe told her that she could rest in his room. Doe then negligently and recklessly engaged in sexual intercourse with the plaintiff when a reasonable person would have known that the plaintiff was unable to consent. 19. FUPD officers Michael Banner and Trevor Whitfield responded to Doe’s apartment in reference to concerns that the plaintiff and Witness A had been drugged and involved in a sexual interaction that lacked consent. During their initial conversations with the officers, the plaintiff and Witness A told officers that they were worried that they would get expelled from Bob Jones if Bob Jones officials learned that they had consumed alcohol that night. 20. After hearing the plaintiff and Witness A express these concerns, Whitfield directly contacted officials at Bob Jones University and informed them that the plaintiff and Witness A were intoxicated on Furman’s campus. Whitfield expressed disapproval that the plaintiff and

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

Witness A had consumed alcohol and noted his disappointment in their behavior as an alumnus of Bob Jones University. Not only was it out of line for Whitfield to admonish the plaintiff or anyone else for what he perceived to be a moral flaw, but the plaintiff had just been injured by the reckless conduct of Doe and traumatized by unwelcomed sex. 21. Upon information and belief, Whitfield notified Bob Jones because of his personal disapproval of the plaintiff’s and Witness A’s consumption of alcohol. In doing so, he was motivated by a reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s rights, well-being, and safety. 22. FUPD officers told the plaintiff and Witness A that they could either go to hospital or go to jail. Again, officers showed no concern or regard for what the plaintiff had just been through and seemed to be threatening to punish her. The plaintiff and Witness A elected to go to the hospital and were transported by EMS from Furman to Greenville Memorial Hospital. 23. The plaintiff did not receive medical treatment at that time but returned to the hospital later that day. During that visit, medical personnel performed a sexual forensic exam on the plaintiff. 24. As of a direct result of Whitfield’s unsolicited statements to Bob Jones about the plaintiff’s use of alcohol, Bob Jones’ Dean of Women, Deneen Wilson, attempted to speak with the plaintiff at the hospital. After she learned that the plaintiff had left the hospital prior to her arrival, Wilson contacted the plaintiff and scheduled a meeting with her and her mother for several hours later. 25. At that meeting, Wilson informed the plaintiff that Bob Jones was expelling her for consuming alcohol. This meeting occurred just hours after the events described herein, including the plaintiff’s nonconsensual sexual encounter with Doe. 26. Bob Jones made the decision to expel the plaintiff without investigating the allegations against her, conducting any type of fact-finding investigation, or holding any type of hearing. 27. Upon information and belief, investigations into this incident and others have established that: it is well-known that members of Furman’s football team routinely engage in the type of reckless behavior described above – specifically, plying young and often underage female college students with alcohol and drugs before recklessly engaging in sexual encounters with them; that Furman knew or should have known of prior similar incidents; and that incidents like the one described herein were likely prior to the occurrence of the events described herein. 28. Upon information and belief, Doe recorded some or all of his sexual encounter with the plaintiff and disseminated the video to others without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

29. Upon information and belief, Furman officials knew or should have known that, in some or all of the above-described interactions with female students, members of the football team recorded female students without their knowledge or consent. 30. All defendants named herein caused some of the plaintiff’s injuries. 31. The entities related to this action ratified the actions of the individual employees involved. 32. All defendants violated policies and procedures, and those violations contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. 33. Some or all of the defendants’ actions were motivated by unreasonable financial gain. 34. The defendants are liable for several different and distinct acts and omissions, including some of the defendants’ negligent hiring. 35. All defendants are jointly and severally liable. The individual defendants, including Trevor Whitefield and John Doe, likely have homeowners’ insurance, and those insurance companies likely have a duty to provide a lawyer and defense for the individuals. It is also likely that those insurance companies have a duty to tender their policy limits to protect the individuals from a large judgment. The individuals also have a right to hire their own lawyer so that they can make sure the lawyers hired by their homeowners’ insurance protect them with tender of each policy limit related to this case. 36. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment against the defendants for actual and punitive damages. 37. The plaintiff has not set forth any federal claims and there is not diversity among the parties, so removal would be improper. The plaintiff reserves the right to file a separate federal lawsuit in the future if appropriate. FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Common Law Liability for Negligence, Gross Negligence, and Recklessness) 38. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, not inconsistent herewith, are hereby re-alleged as if set forth herein verbatim. 39. Each defendant had a duty to exercise due care, defined to mean the care which a person of ordinary reason and prudence would exercise in the circumstances. 40. Governmental entities and employees had a duty to exercise the degree of knowledge, skill, and care that is required of police officers, guards, governmental employees, public officials, and municipalities and that is ordinarily possessed and exercised by those in their special line of work. 5

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

41. Breaches of these duties constitute negligence and sometimes recklessness. 42. Each defendant has breached its duties in a negligent, reckless, and grossly negligent manner in some or all of, but not limited to, the following particulars: a. by causing injury to the plaintiff though reckless and negligent acts; b. by engaging in sexual conduct with an incapacitated individual; c. by providing alcohol to an individual known to be a minor; d. by providing an illegal substance to an individual known to be a minor; e. by failing to ensure that Furman, FUPD, and Bob Jones employees and others complied with all applicable policies and procedures; f. by summarily suspending/expelling the plaintiff without a fact-finding investigation or hearing; g. by summarily suspending/expelling the plaintiff hours after a traumatic event and prior to the plaintiff receiving medical treatment; h. by implementing policies and procedures that are themselves unethical, unconscionable, or improper; i. by failing to provide the plaintiff with immediate and/or appropriate medical care; j. by creating an atmosphere conducive to under-age drinking; k. by failing to exercise even slight care; l. by failing to provide reasonable protection and preventative measures; m. by failing to warn others of some or all of the defendants’ dangerous tendencies; n. by failing to adequately investigate the employees’ conduct prior to the commission of the tortious actions described herein; o. by allowing Furman football players’ conduct to continue unchecked, even with knowledge of prior similar events; p. by unnecessarily contacting the plaintiff’s school with a reckless disregard for the plaintiff’s safety and well-being; q. by allowing personal opinions to influence actions taken in an official capacity; r. by authorizing, adopting, and ratifying the defendants’ conduct toward the plaintiff; s. by hiring employees who were incompetent, lacked proper education and training, or were otherwise unfit; t. by promoting an atmosphere where the events described herein were likely to occur; and

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

u. in other such particulars as the evidence may show. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent, grossly negligent, and reckless acts and omissions of the defendants, the plaintiff sustained injuries and damages, including some or all of the following: a. monetary damages; b. loss or impairment of earning capacity; c. out-of-pocket expenses; d. medical expenses; e. psychological trauma; f. mental anguish; g. mental distress; h. anxiety; i. emotional injury; j. psychological injury; k. depression; l. pain and suffering; m. loss of enjoyment of life; and n. such other damages as will be shown through discovery and at trial. 44. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment against the defendants for actual and punitive damages. FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligent Hiring, Supervision, and Retention) 45. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, not inconsistent herewith, are hereby re-alleged as if set forth herein verbatim. 46. Defendants Furman, FUPD, and Bob Jones each had a duty to hire competent and fit employees; to require appropriate education, experience, and other qualifications; to properly supervise employees; and to terminate unfit employees. 47. Defendants Furman, FUPD, and Bob Jones each breached its duties to adequately supervise, hire, and retain employees and acted in a negligent and grossly negligent/reckless manner in some or all of the following particulars: a. in failing to ensure that employees complied with procedures regarding incidents such as

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

those described herein and others; b. in failing to provide proper training and education; c. in failing to conduct routine check-ups and monitoring; d. in failing to ensure that employees complied with employment policies and procedures; e. in failing to adequately investigate the conduct of the defendants toward the plaintiff; f. in failing to appropriately interview candidates or require that candidates be qualified before hiring them; g. in failing to require sufficient education and training before hiring employees; h. in failing to properly screen applicants, perform appropriate background checks, check references, and perform sufficient and formal interviews; and i. in other such particulars as the evidence may show. 48. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent and grossly negligent/reckless acts and omissions of the defendants, the plaintiff suffered injuries and damages, including those set forth above. 49. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment against the defendants for actual and punitive damages. FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Interference with a Contract) 50. The allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs, not inconsistent herewith, are hereby re-alleged as if set forth herein verbatim. 51. A valid and enforceable contract existed between the plaintiff and Bob Jones. 52. Trevor Whitfield had actual or implied knowledge that a contract existed between the plaintiff and Bob Jones. Whitfield knew that the plaintiff was enrolled as a student at Bob Jones. Additionally, as a former Bob Jones student, Whitfield had actual knowledge of Bob Jones’ contractual relationship with its students, specifically with respect to the university’s conduct code. 53. Whitfield intentionally interfered with the contract by contacting officials at Bob Jones in order to notify them that the plaintiff was intoxicated on Furman’s campus. 54. Whitfield was not justified in his actions. He contacted Bob Jones because of his personal disapproval of the plaintiff’s consumption of alcohol in an attempt to ensure that the plaintiff was disciplined.

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Aug 05 2:57 PM GREENVILLE COMMON PLEAS CASE#2020CP2303715

55. As a direct and proximate result of Whitfield’s actions, the plaintiff sustained damages, including those set forth above. 56. The plaintiff is therefore informed and believes she is entitled to judgment against the defendants for actual and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests a jury trial and judgment against the defendants for actual damages, all statutory damages, punitive damages, costs, and such other relief the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Hawkins & Jedziniak, LLC

s/ Joshua T. Hawkins Joshua T. Hawkins, S.C. Bar No. 78470 Helena L. Jedziniak, S.C. Bar No. 100825 1225 South Church Street Greenville, South Carolina 29605 Greenville, South Carolina (864) 275-8142 (telephone) August 5, 2020 (864) 752-0911 (facsimile) [email protected] [email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Pursuant to Rule 38, SCRCP, the plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

s/ Joshua T. Hawkins Joshua T. Hawkins