SC Misenheimer

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Nov 23 3:54 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP4005548
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND
Jaime Susanne Misenheimer,
Plaintiff, SUMMONS
v.
University of South Carolina and

David W. Voros, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
TO THE DEFENDANT 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 & HICKS, LLC
BY: s/Samantha E. Albrecht

Samantha E. Albrecht (#102642)
Elizabeth M. Bowen (#103337)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone: 803-799-9530
Fax: 803-799-9533
samantha@cbphlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
November 23, 2020

Columbia, South Carolina
1
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF RICHLAND
Jaime Susanne Misenheimer,
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
v. (Jury Trial Demanded)
University of South Carolina and
David W. Voros, in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
The plaintiff, complaining of the Defendants, would respectfully show to the Court:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff, Jaime Susanne Misenheimer, is a citizen and resident of Richland County,
South Carolina.
2. Defendant, University of South Carolina (UofSC), is an agency of the State of
South Carolina with its primary campus located in Richland County, South Carolina.
3. Defendant, David W. Voros, resides, upon information and belief, in Lexington
County, South Carolina. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant Voros was a Professor of Art
for UofSC.
4. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the common
law of South Carolina.
5. Plaintiff appropriately filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission, received her Notice of Right to
Sue and this action is timely.
2
6. Jurisdiction and venue are proper, because the parties have sufficient connections
to this circuit, and the events giving rise to this action occurred in Richland County, South
Carolina.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiff is a professional artist. Plaintiff is also an experienced art educator, having
taught numerous undergraduate and graduate level courses. Further, Plaintiff has taught workshops
in drawing, painting, figure structure, color and composition, and fine arts.
8. Plaintiff met Defendant Voros after moving from Oklahoma to South Carolina in
2004.
9. Plaintiff began her undergraduate studies at the University of South Carolina in
2006.
10. From Fall 2014 through Summer 2017, Plaintiff was employed by UofSC as an
Instructor in the Studio Art Program’s painting concentration area, which is part of the UofSC
School of Visual Art and Design (SVAD).
11. Throughout her employment with UofSC, Plaintiff performed her job duties in a
competent, if not more than competent, manner.
12. During all relevant times, Defendant Voros, a tenured professor in SVAD, was the
coordinator of the painting area within SVAD’s Studio Art program at UofSC.
13. Defendant Voros hired Plaintiff in fall 2014 to teach courses and workshops within
the painting area of the Studio Art program.
14. In Spring 2015, Defendant Voros hired Plaintiff to serve as his replacement while
he went on sabbatical. Plaintiff taught Defendant Voros’ undergraduate and graduate-level courses
that semester.
3
15. Plaintiff took a break from teaching during the spring 2016 semester to care for her
spouse who was battling stage 4 cancer. Plaintiff’s spouse died in February 2016.
16. Plaintiff attended Discovery Day at UofSC on April 21, 2016 and visited with
several colleagues and students while there. Plaintiff saw Defendant Voros at McMaster College;
however, he responded to Plaintiff’s greeting in a hurried manner and followed Alexandra Stasko
through McMaster College. Defendant Voros had hired Stasko, who was not a painting student, to
serve as a lab technician in the painting area for Pam Bowers, a Senior Instructor for UofSC, for
the Spring 2016 semester. There were several current graduate students who were qualified but
were not considered for that position.
17. Plaintiff returned to teach at UofSC during the Summer 2016 semester. Defendant
Voros spent Summer 2016 in Italy as a part of a study abroad program. Upon information and
belief, Stasko joined Defendant Voros in Italy.
18. On July 26, 2016, Andrew Graciano, SVAD’s Associate Director and Director of
Graduate Studies, asked Plaintiff if she was interested in teaching an independent study to a
graduate student, and Plaintiff informed him that she was interested.
19. Plaintiff became a member of SVAD’s graduate faculty by appointment. Her
appointment was from 2016 through 2019.
20. On August 18, 2016, Defendant Voros asked Plaintiff via email to start his four
cross-listed courses and hand out the syllabi for him, as he had not returned from Italy yet. Plaintiff
agreed to assist him.
21. On or around August 22, 2016, after Defendant Voros’ return from Italy,
Defendant Voros entered Plaintiff’s office, shut the door, and asked her about the graduate student
in the Independent Study. Defendant Voros told Plaintiff that he had a lot of trouble with the
4
graduate student in Italy and stated that she was crazy. Defendant Voros told Plaintiff that the
student was not going to be able to take any courses with him that semester. Defendant Voros
asked Plaintiff to give the graduate student a bad grade for the course, and claimed that he needed
Plaintiff to give her a bad grade to support his dispute with the student over a bad grade he had
previously given her. Plaintiff did not agree, and Defendant Voros left her office. After this
incident, Plaintiff began having panic attacks and was prescribed anti-anxiety medication.
22. Upon information and belief, the graduate student filed a Title IX complaint against
Defendant Voros with UofSC for sex discrimination and sexual harassment in or around August
2016, in which she complained of inappropriate sexual behavior from Defendant Voros. Upon
information and belief, the student’s complaint included that Defendant Voros exchanged
employment benefits to female faculty and/or graduate students in exchange for sexual favors, and
that Defendant Voros and Stasko were engaging in an inappropriate relationship. Defendant
UofSC issued a no-contact order to Defendant Voros as a result of the Title IX complaint.
23. Upon information and belief, Defendant UofSC has also been informed of
inappropriate behavior from Defendant Voros through complaints of other faculty members and
students.
24. On or around August 23, 2016, Plaintiff received an email from the graduate student
informing Plaintiff that she had dropped the class.
25. In September 2016, Defendant Voros told Plaintiff that he wanted to change the
courses Plaintiff would be teaching during the spring 2017 semester to allow Stasko, who did not
have any background in teaching painting or figure structure, to teach a course within the painting
area.
5
26. In or around October 2016, based upon Plaintiff’s personal observations of
Defendant Voros and Stasko, Plaintiff began to suspect Defendant Voros was seeking sexual
favors from Stasko and offering employment benefits to Stasko in exchange for sexual favors.
27. After Plaintiff opposed Defendant Voros giving employment benefits to Stasko,
Defendant Voros began targeting Plaintiff and treating her adversely.
28. In or around October 2016, a female student in Plaintiff’s ARTS 210 class told
Plaintiff that another male classmate was harassing her. The female student claimed she had gone
to Peter Chametsky, Chair of the SVAD, for help, but Chametsky responded that they needed to
“think of the guy.” Plaintiff arranged for the student to be switched to a different section and asked
Rebecca Boyd, the Student Services Coordinator for SVAD, who to contact about this harassment.
Plaintiff filed a report with the behavioral intervention team about the male classmate’s
harassment.
29. Based on Chametsky’s handling of the student’s complaint, Plaintiff did not feel
comfortable going to him about her concerns with Defendant Voros.
30. Until around October or November 2016, Plaintiff was scheduled to teach ARTS
210 and 232 for the Spring 2017 semester. However, Defendant Voros removed Plaintiff from the
ARTS 232 course and demoted her to serve as the lab technician for the painting area, a position
that is not comparable, required more work, paid less, and was considered an entry-level position.
Plaintiff opposed the demotion.
31. Plaintiff served as the painting area lab tech and taught ARTS 210 during Spring
2017 but could no longer afford health insurance benefits as a result of the demotion.
32. Defendant Voros changed the nature and structure of Plaintiff’s lab technician
position so that Plaintiff would be working directly beneath him. Historically, the position included
6
ordering supplies and keeping up the paint department; however, Defendant Voros had Plaintiff
repairing his personal artwork and doing work for his grant projects, in addition to the normal lab
tech duties. Plaintiff has specialized conservation experience to repair artwork, but this was not a
typical job duty of a lab technician.
33. Plaintiff performed substantially more work as a lab technician than Stasko during
this time, even though they were both receiving the same compensation.
34. Stasko taught two courses during spring 2017—ARTS 232, which had previously
been taught by Plaintiff, and ARTS 233, which had previously been taught by Defendant Voros.
Stasko was not qualified to teach either course. Upon information and belief, Chametsky did not
approve Stasko teaching in the department.
35. During Spring 2017, multiple students complained to Plaintiff that they did not feel
comfortable around Defendant Voros, Stasko, or J.T, a student who worked with Voros. J.T. had
previously been reported for assaulting a model.
36. In or around February 2017, Defendant Voros took Plaintiff into a closet of an
unused classroom in McMaster College, noting he wanted to show Plaintiff something. After they
entered the closet, he shut the door. In the dark, Defendant Voros came up behind her, leaned over
her, put his arm around her, and held a plastic head in front of her face. He whispered into
Plaintiff’s ear to look through a small window in the closet. Plaintiff could feel his heavy breath
on her skin, and the front of his body touching the back of her body. Plaintiff froze in fear and felt
disgusted and intimidated by Defendant Voros’ actions. Plaintiff believed Defendant Voros was
making a sexual advance toward her. Plaintiff left the closet shaking and reported the incident to
Chametsky.
7
37. After Plaintiff reported to Chametsky, Defendant Voros began to treat Plaintiff
differently.
38. Defendant Voros added to Plaintiff’s duties as a lab technician in February 2017.
Defendant Voros instructed Plaintiff to send him details regarding her hours and the activities she
handled as painting lab tech, which included assisting another instructor who was teaching courses
in the painting area. Voros did not require this of Stasko who was also working as a lab technician.
39. In or around February 2017, Defendant Voros was served with divorce papers from
his then wife, Pam Bowers, who was also employed with the SVAD. As a part of the divorce
procedures, Plaintiff provided an affidavit with information about the behavior Plaintiff had
witnessed between Voros and Stasko.
40. Also, in or around February 2017, Defendant Voros stated that he was going to start
a figure sculpture program and he thought Plaintiff and Stasko would work well together.
Defendant Voros implied that Plaintiff needed to get along well with Stasko in order to keep her
job at UofSC.
41. Defendant Voros sent emails to Plaintiff and copied faculty members, in which
Defendant Voros falsely accused Plaintiff of poor performance. Upon information and belief,
Defendant Voros falsely accused Plaintiff of poor performance to harm Plaintiff’s reputation and
interfere with her ability to teach courses within the SVAD.
42. In March 2017, Plaintiff made complaints to Chametsky on several occasions about
Defendant Voros’ behavior toward Plaintiff and students, including inappropriate sexual conduct
and retaliatory behavior, as he was becoming increasingly hostile. Plaintiff’s complaints included
that: Defendant Voros instructed her to provide a graduate student with a bad grade; that Defendant
Voros removed Plaintiff from the ARTS 232 course and provided the course to a less qualified
8
employee; and Plaintiff believed Defendant Voros was providing employment benefits in
exchange for sexual favors.
43. Chametsky did not take action against Defendant Voros in response to Plaintiff’s
complaints. He encouraged Plaintiff to report the issue to the office of Equal Opportunity Programs
(EOP).
44. In addition to Plaintiff’s personal complaints, Plaintiff complained to Chametsky
regarding various issues involving improper sexual conduct directed at students in March 2017.
One of the subjects of these complaints involved J.T., whom Plaintiff believed to be close to
Defendant Voros. A female student and SVAD model reported that J.T. had touched her in a sexual
manner without her consent.
45. Plaintiff also complained to Chametsky that Defendant Voros created an
inappropriate situation involving a nude male model and a female student, in which Defendant
Voros told the nude male model to stare into her eyes and make her uncomfortable. The situation
resulted in the nude male model making various sexually inappropriate comments to the student.
46. Chametsky pressured Plaintiff to report all of these incidents to EOP, even though
Plaintiff told him she was not comfortable doing so. Chametsky did not personally take any action
to address Plaintiff’s concerns.
47. In or around March 2017, Plaintiff and a student gave witness statements to the
UofSC Police Department concerning Defendant Voros’ behavior, students’ fear toward
Defendant Voros, and J.T.’s behavior toward women. The police department told Plaintiff that
UofSC police officers would patrol the second floor of the art building on days Plaintiff was
working; however, they did not follow through with this plan. The police department later stated
they could not have someone patrol until there was a crime committed.
9
48. In early April 2017, Defendant Voros emailed Plaintiff and copied Chametsky,
indicating he was concerned because Plaintiff had not done any work. This was false.
49. On or around April 10, 2017, Plaintiff finalized her EOP complaint against
Defendant Voros concerning the graduate student that was enrolled in her independent study
course. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Voros entered Plaintiff’s classroom while she was lecturing
and intimidated her. This was in violation of an EOP issued no-contact order.
50. Plaintiff reported the situation and violation to EOP. EOP re-issued a no-contact
order to Defendant Voros on April 13, 2017.
51. A graduate student informed Plaintiff in May 2017 that Defendant Voros had
indicated Plaintiff may not be teaching in the fall 2017 semester. Voros asked the graduate student
to teach Plaintiff’s course and asked the graduate student to keep the information to herself.
52. During the summer 2017 semester, Plaintiff taught one course, ARTS 210.
Additionally, Plaintiff was scheduled to teach ARTS 210 and ARTS 230 during the fall 2017
semester. Defendant Voros was in Italy during the summer of 2017.
53. Plaintiff noticed that the painting department was not ready for the upcoming fall
semester in late July 2017. Plaintiff contacted Chametsky and Kim Gore, the SVAD Business
Manager, noting that if there were hours available, Plaintiff could get the department ready for the
fall semester. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received approval and began preparing the department
for fall 2017.
54. On or around August 14, 2017, four days before the fall semester began, Chametsky
informed Plaintiff that she was being removed from the ARTS 210 course, and Defendant Voros
would be teaching the course, because Defendant Voros’ courses did not have sufficient
enrollment.
10
55. Plaintiff was also informed that she would only be paid based on the number of
students in her ARTS 230 course. Because this was not economically feasible for Plaintiff, she
was not able to teach Fall 2017. Plaintiff later learned that Khaldoune Bencheikh, a less-qualified
male, had been hired to teach an ARTS 210 section. Stasko taught ARTS 232 and ARTS 233
during the Fall 2017 semester.
56. In or around January 2018, Defendant Voros threatened to sue Plaintiff for “making
up stories about him and J.T” in an email to Bowers.
57. Upon information and belief, in March 2018, Defendant Voros took a class away
from a female graduate student and gave it to J.T.
58. In Spring 2018, Assistant Professor Dawn Hunter indicated she was interested in
having Plaintiff teach a drawing course in the drawing program, and Plaintiff informed Hunter that
she was interested in the opportunity. Hunter helped Plaintiff find two studio courses to teach in
the fall 2018 semester that Defendant Voros did not have control over.
59. In July 2018, Plaintiff learned that Chametsky told Bowers, an employee at UofSC,
that Plaintiff lost her Fall 2017 ARTS 210 course because Defendant Voros reported her for
incompetence.
60. During Summer 2018, Plaintiff learned Defendant Voros had been sued for sex
discrimination and sexual harassment.
61. Before Plaintiff completed her paperwork to teach during the Fall 2018 semester,
she expressed concerns regarding Defendant Voros and possible harassment to the new SVAD
Chair, Laura Kissel, and to Hunter. Plaintiff informed them of anxiety she was feeling about
Defendant Voros and that she felt UofSC did not previously protect her from Defendant Voros’
retaliation. Plaintiff inquired as to what safeguards were available to help protect her. Kissel
11
informed her that she would not be working directly with Defendant Voros, and Hunter informed
her that she would not be teaching in the painting area or classrooms. Hunter indicated that Plaintiff
may want to speak with other officials at UofSC regarding her concerns.
62. Plaintiff taught two courses for the Fall 2018 semester, ARTS 107 Color and
Composition and ARTS 111 Intro to Drawing. Both classes were taught in McMaster College.
Additionally, the Chair and Director of Graduate Studies approved Plaintiff to teach an unpaid
independent study course in graduate level painting, ARTS 795, to a graduate student who
specifically requested Plaintiff as her instructor.
63. Upon information and belief, during the fall 2018 semester, Defendant Voros
removed female instructors from courses and replaced them with less qualified male instructors.
64. After the start of fall 2018, Plaintiff tried not to have any direct interaction with
Defendant Voros. However, Plaintiff would still see Defendant Voros on campus.
65. When Plaintiff brought concerns to Kissel’s attention, Kissel told Plaintiff to place
crystals on her desk to make her feel safe. Upon Plaintiff’s information and belief, this comment
was made based on Plaintiff being Native American.
66. On or around Wednesday, September 12, 2018, Plaintiff received a message from
Bowers, who worked at UofSC, informing her that Defendant Voros made threats concerning
Plaintiff earlier that day. Defendant Voros wrote, “I’m going to get her,” and that Plaintiff was a
liar who would be going to jail. Defendant Voros referred to Plaintiff using profanity.
67. Plaintiff emailed Kissel and copied a number of officials at UofSC whom she
thought needed to be made aware of the situation and threats from Defendant Voros and requested
help. Kissel reported the situation to EOP, and a complaint was filed with EOP regarding Plaintiff’s
treatment from Defendant Voros.
12
68. In response to her complaint, Kissel asked Plaintiff what she thought UofSC could
do to help her feel safe. She highlighted that UofSC was adding lights to the faculty parking lot;
however, Plaintiff was never provided a faculty parking permit.
69. On or about October 25, 2018, Defendant Voros revved his truck engine at Plaintiff
while she was in the faculty parking lot in an intimidating manner.
70. During Spring 2019, Plaintiff continued to teach courses arranged by Hunter.
Defendant Voros continued to refuse to let Plaintiff teach within the painting department.
71. In Spring 2019, Plaintiff walked into a resource room with Bowers to look for books
for a project. Defendant Voros came in and told Plaintiff she needed to leave because only painting
faculty were allowed. Plaintiff had previously seen several other individuals who were not painting
faculty utilize the resource room, including J.T. At this time, the trash can of the resource room
was full of empty beer bottles.
72. Defendant UofSC failed to take action against Defendant Voros and allowed
Defendant Voros to continue working for Defendant UofSC, despite complaints from Plaintiff and
others, which ultimately forced Plaintiff to resign from her employment with Defendant UofSC on
or around May 10, 2019.
73. Upon information and belief, Defendant UofSC continues to employ Defendant
Voros. Further, Defendant Voros, Stasko, and J.T. are scheduled to teach courses for the Fall 2020
semester at UofSC.
FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANTS VOROS AND UofSC
(Defamation)
74. Where not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff realleges the foregoing.
13
75. Defendant UofSC, through its employees and representatives, including but not
limited to Chametsky and Boyd, accused Plaintiff of slacking on her work, lying, and being unfit
in her professional field. Such accusations have a defamatory meaning about Plaintiff and are false.
76. Further, Defendant Voros, accused Plaintiff of slacking on her work, lying, being
incompetent, and being unfit in her professional field. Such accusations have a defamatory
meaning about Plaintiff and are false.
77. Defendants UofSC and Voros knew that such allegations surrounding Plaintiff were
false. Defendants further recklessly disregarded the truth in taking action against Plaintiff’s career.
78. The accusations of Defendants, including, but not limited to, accusing Plaintiff of
being unfit for and incompetent in her profession, and actions associated therewith have defamed
the Plaintiff by word and act.
79. Such statements were false, known to be false, and maliciously published by
Defendants to members of the University administration, members of the community, and
Plaintiff’s peers and colleagues. Such publications were made with malice, mean-spirit, and
without justification.
80. Further, such statements are defamatory per se as they accuse Plaintiff of being
unfit to participate in her professional field.
81. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered severe economic losses and reputational loss both
professionally and personally; Defendants caused and is liable to Plaintiff for the same.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the defamation alleged herein, Defendants have
caused and are liable for severe and continuing injury to Plaintiff’s reputation, loss of wages and
benefits, diminished earning capacity and future benefits, humiliation, embarrassment, pain and
14
suffering, severe stress and anxiety, loss of sleep, and other losses. Plaintiff is also entitled to pre-
judgment interests; as well as attorney’s fees, pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 15-77-300.
FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT USC
(Negligent Supervision and Retention)
83. Where not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff realleges the foregoing.
84. Defendant UofSC owed Plaintiff a legal duty to act with due care in supervising
their professors and other employees. That duty arose out of Plaintiff’s protected property interests
in her employment through the University.
85. Defendant UofSC was grossly negligent in supervising Defendant Voros, allowing
him to intentionally harm Plaintiff through sexual harassment and to create a hostile environment
in which no reasonable individual could feel safe while acting as an agent of Defendant UofSC
where Defendant Voros was an employee.
86. Defendant UofSC had reason to know Defendant Voros required excessive
supervision given the complaints made by faculty and students against Defendant Voros and
Defendant UofSC’s knowledge of Defendant Voros’ past conduct, which included being visibly
intoxicated, threatening other employees, former lawsuits highlighting his misconduct, consistent
complaints from employees and students, and his history of violence.
87. Defendant UofSC’s negligence was reckless, willful, and wanton, amounting to
gross negligence and the failure to act with even the slightest care. Further, Defendant UofSC’s
only suggestion to remedy the situation was to issue a no-contact order, which Defendant Voros
violated, and to add lights to the faculty parking lot, to which Plaintiff was not even given a pass
to access.
15
88. Further, Defendant UofSC retained Defendant Voros as a professor and gave him
hiring responsibilities, even after multiple complaints about his sexual misconduct and
inappropriate behavior with students.
89. Plaintiff suffered the dignitary and pecuniary damages detailed below as a direct
and proximate result of the Defendant UofSC’s gross negligence.
90. Those damages include dignitary losses, such as reputational loss, loss of goodwill,
pain and suffering, shock, humiliation, and economic losses such as, back pay, front pay, back
benefits, front benefits, and loss of earning capacity. The Plaintiff is further entitled to an award
of attorney’s fees and costs under South Carolina Law, and pre and post-judgment interest.
FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)
91. Plaintiff realleges the foregoing where not inconsistent herewith.
92. Plaintiff, a female, is a member of a sex-based protected class.
93. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on her sex from
Defendant Voros during her employment with Defendant UofSC.
94. Such harassment affected tangible aspects of Plaintiff’s compensation, terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment.
95. Defendant UofSC knew or should have known of the harassment and took no
effective remedial action.
96. Such unwanted sexual conduct created an intimidating and hostile work
environment and was subjectively viewed by Plaintiff to be abusive.
97. The conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of
employment and create an abusive atmosphere.
16
98. Moreover, Defendant UofSC treated Plaintiff disparately with respect to the terms
and conditions of her employment in comparison to similarly situated male employees and in
comparison to similarly situated female employees who engaged in sexual behavior with
Defendant Voros in exchange for employment benefits. Particularly, Plaintiff was removed from
teaching courses for which she was qualified and replaced by less qualified, male counterparts.
99. Subsequently, Plaintiff lost multiple courses, the wages from teaching these
courses, and had to work in entry-level positions for which she was overqualified.
100. The sexually hostile work environment and disparate treatment described above
amounts to unlawful gender discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and amendments thereto, and is the proximate cause of the Plaintiff’s
loss of earnings, loss of prospective earnings and benefits, embarrassment, humiliation, mental
anguish, and mental suffering for which the Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual damages as
well as punitive damages for the willful intentional acts of the defendant through its agents and
employees, as determined by a jury, and for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action.
FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Race Discrimination in Violation of Title VII)
102. Plaintiff is a Native American Indian and a member of the Choctaw Nation of
Oklahoma.
103. Defendant has treated Plaintiff in a disparate manner in comparison to similarly
situated white employees and has established a pattern of providing preferential treatment to white
employees as compared to other races. To wit: Plaintiff’s courses were taken away from her and
17
given to less qualified white employees; Plaintiff was forced out of her position and replaced by
white employees; and Plaintiff was subjected to harsh and derogatory comments based on her race.
104. Such treatment was carried out and condoned by Defendant UofSC’s white
employees, including Kissel and Defendant Voros.
105. The actions taken by Defendant, as described herein, violate Plaintiff’s rights under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991, as amended.
106. As a direct and proximate result of the violations of her civil rights under Title VII
by Defendant, Plaintiff suffered a loss of pay and sustained permanent impairment of her earning
capacity. Plaintiff is also entitled to an award of actual damages for the acts of Defendant through
its agents and employees, and for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action.
FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Title VII Retaliation)
108. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she complained about Defendant
Voros’ sexual, discriminatory, and retaliatory behavior toward Plaintiff and other female
employees and students. Further, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by complaining about J.T.
and his sexual harassment toward other female graduate students, which Defendant Voros
encouraged and harbored.
109. Plaintiff was demoted, denied the opportunity to teach courses she was scheduled
to teach, falsely accused of incompetence in her profession, and ultimately forced to resign from
her position because she engaged in such protected activity in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act.
18
110. Defendant UofSC is lawful to Plaintiff for its willful and wrongful retaliation
against Plaintiff for protected actions she took against unfair, egregious and justifiably perceived
sexual harassment and sexual discrimination.
111. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant UofSC’s actions, Plaintiff has
suffered and Defendant UofSC is liable to Plaintiff for back pay, front pay, loss of benefits,
prospective benefits, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and reputational harm; as well as the
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action. Plaintiff also seeks pre-judgment
interest on all damages sought.
FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of Title IX)
113. Defendant UofSC is an educational institution that receives federal funds, and as
such, is subject to Title IX.
114. Plaintiff, a female, is a member of a sex-based protected class.
115. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment based on her sex from
Defendant Voros during her employment with Defendant UofSC.
116. Such harassment affected tangible aspects of Plaintiff’s compensation, terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment.
117. Appropriate persons, including Defendant UofSC and its officials, had actual
knowledge of the harassment and took no effective remedial action.
118. Such unwanted sexual conduct created an intimidating and hostile work
environment and was subjectively viewed by Plaintiff to be abusive.
19
119. Defendant UofSC created and/or subjected Plaintiff to a hostile educational
environment in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681(a)
(Title IX).
120. Defendant UofSC and its officials had actual knowledge of the sexual harassment
of Plaintiff created by its failure to investigate and discipline Plaintiff’s harasser in a timely manner
and consistent with its own policy and federal and state law.
121. Defendant UofSC’s failure to promptly and appropriately respond to the alleged
sexual harassment, resulted in Plaintiff, on the basis of her sex, being subjected to discrimination,
and being constructively discharged from her position with the University, in violation of Title IX.
122. Defendant UofSC failed to take immediate, effective remedial steps to resolve the
complaints of sexual harassment and instead acted with deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff.
123. Defendant UofSC persisted in its actions and inaction even after it had actual
knowledge of the harm suffered by Plaintiff.
124. Defendant UofSC engaged in a pattern and practice of behavior designed to
discourage and dissuade students and employees who had been sexually assaulted from seeking
prosecution and protection and from seeking to have sexual assaults from being fully investigated.
125. This policy and/or practice constituted disparate treatment of females and had a
disparate impact on female students and employees.
126. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant UofSC’s actions, Plaintiff has
suffered and Defendant UofSC is liable to Plaintiff for back pay, front pay, loss of benefits,
prospective benefits, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and reputational harm; as well as the
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this action. Plaintiff also seeks pre-judgment
interest on all damages sought.
20
FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Title IX Retaliation)
128. Defendant UofSC faculty and staff harassed Plaintiff for reporting her harassment
to the school and made conscious efforts to interfere with her reporting.
129. Plaintiff reported this harassment to UofSC officials, who declined to intervene to
stop it. This ultimately resulted in Plaintiff’s constructive discharge from her employment.
130. The actions taken against the Plaintiff and the actions which have resulted in her
disparate treatment and damages are the result of the planned and concerted effort to retaliate
against the Plaintiff for the charges she filed against the Defendants for harassment and
discrimination. This further discriminates against the Plaintiff, as does the withholding of positive
references to which Plaintiff was promised and the arbitrary request for Plaintiff to alter her work
in an effort to sabotage the value of Plaintiff’s degrees.
131. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the willful, wrongful and bad faith
retaliation against the Plaintiff for protected actions she took opposing unfair and egregious
harassment. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual damages as well as reasonable attorney’s fees
and for the cost of this action.
FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT VOROS
(Tortious Interference of Contractual Relations)
133. A valid employment contract existed between Plaintiff and Defendant UofSC, and
Defendant Voros was aware of her employment with Defendant UofSC.
21
134. Defendant Voros intentionally and improperly interfered with Plaintiff’s
contractual relations with Defendant UofSC by harassing Plaintiff in her workplace, reducing the
number of courses taught by Plaintiff, demoting Plaintiff, accusing Plaintiff of poor performance,
and disrupting her courses and professional relationship with Defendant UofSC. Defendant Voros’
actions disrupted courses Plaintiff taught at the University and ultimately forced Plaintiff to resign
from her employment with Defendant UofSC.
135. As a result of Defendant Voros’ tortious interference with Plaintiff’s contractual
relations with Defendant UofSC, Defendant Voros proximately caused Plaintiff nominal and
actual damages in loss of employment, loss of future earning capacity, humiliation,
embarrassment, mental anguish, and severe reputational loss. Defendant Voros is also liable for
proximately caused punitive damages for their willful and malicious conduct in connection with
the tortious interference of a contract alleged here in as to deter others from future similar acts.
FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT VOROS
(Breach of Contract)
137. Plaintiff was employed pursuant to a Policies and Procedures Manual.
138. Relevant policies from the Policies and Procedures Manual do not contain a
conspicuous disclaimer as required by S.C. Code Ann. § 41-1-110.
139. Plaintiff viewed the non-disclaimed University policies as contractual in nature and
she conformed to its requirements just as she reasonably expected Defendant to do the same.
140. The policies contained mandatory contractual language that was breached with
respect to Plaintiff’s employment and termination.
22
141. The following breaches of Defendant’s policies have occurred for which Defendant
is liable.
a. Defendant UofSC allowed Defendant Voros to harass Plaintiff in violation
of Policy Number EOP 1.02. This policy states, “the University of South Carolina
prohibits sexual harassment and does not condone or tolerate sexual harassment
among all members of the university community,” and “members of the university
community shall not engage in sexual harassment of other members of the
university community.”
b. Defendant UofSC allowed Defendant Voros to harass Plaintiff in violation
of Policy Number EOP 1.03. This policy states, “The University of South Carolina
prohibits unlawful discrimination and harassment.”
c. Defendant UofSC allowed Defendant Voros to engage in sexual misconduct
and stalking in violation of Police Number EOP 1.05. This policy states, “The
University of South Carolina strictly prohibits stalking, intimate partner violence
or any other kind of sexual misconduct,” and defines prohibited conduct as, “Any
form of stalking, sexual misconduct or intimate partner violence as defined in this
policy. The use of alcohol and other drugs in conjunction with an incident of sexual
assault and/or acts of interpersonal violence does not mitigate accountability for the
commission of these acts or diminish the seriousness of the offense.” Defendant
also forced Plaintiff out of her position in retaliation for her complaints about
Defendant Voros in further violation of Policy Number EOP 1.05. The policy
further states related to retaliation that “appropriate sanctions/disciplinary actions
shall be taken against any person who is found to have violated this policy.”
23
Defendant UofSC has not taken disciplinary action against Defendant Voros in
response to reports of his retaliatory behavior.
142. This contract was breached by Defendant UofSC when it failed to take appropriate
caution in response to Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment and bullying. This contract was further
breached when Defendant forced Plaintiff out of her position in retaliation for Plaintiff’s
complaints.
143. The same amounts to an unlawful breach of contract for which the Defendant
UofSC is liable.
144. Plaintiff has suffered damages arising from the above-reference breach of contract
which include lost wages, diminished earning capacity, lost benefits, and the costs and fees of this
action.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jaime Misenheimer prays for judgment against Defendants,
jointly and severally, in amounts equal to the sum of her actual damages, including embarrassment
and suffering, as well as punitive damages, in amounts to be determined by a jury, together with
an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action, and for any such other and further
relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper.
(SIGNATURE BLOCK ON NEXT PAGE)
24
CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC
BY: s/Samantha E. Albrecht

Samantha E. Albrecht (#102642)
Elizabeth M. Bowen (#103337)
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Post Office Box 11675
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
Phone: 803-799-9530
Fax: 803-799-9533
samantha@cbphlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
November 23, 2020

Columbia, South Carolina
25

SC Misenheimer

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

SC Misenheimer

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

ELECTRONICALLY FILED - 2020 Nov 23 3:54 PM - RICHLAND - COMMON PLEAS - CASE#2020CP4005548

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

Jaime Susanne Misenheimer,

University of South Carolina and

TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED:

CROMER BABB PORTER & HICKS, LLC

BY: s/Samantha E. Albrecht

Attorneys for Plaintiff

November 23, 2020

Jaime Susanne Misenheimer,

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

1. Plaintiff, Jaime Susanne Misenheimer, is a citizen and resident of Richland County,

2. Defendant, University of South Carolina (UofSC), is an agency of the State of

3. Defendant, David W. Voros, resides, upon information and belief, in Lexington

law of South Carolina.

5. Plaintiff appropriately filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Sue and this action is timely.

7. Plaintiff is a professional artist. Plaintiff is also an experienced art educator, having

9. Plaintiff began her undergraduate studies at the University of South Carolina in

School of Visual Art and Design (SVAD).

competent, if not more than competent, manner.

the painting area of the Studio Art program.

were not considered for that position.

belief, Stasko joined Defendant Voros in Italy.

19. Plaintiff became a member of SVAD’s graduate faculty by appointment. Her

appointment was from 2016 through 2019.

agreed to assist him.

informing Plaintiff that she had dropped the class.

Defendant Voros began targeting Plaintiff and treating her adversely.

comfortable going to him about her concerns with Defendant Voros.

Plaintiff opposed the demotion.

typical job duty of a lab technician.

approve Stasko teaching in the department.

previously been reported for assaulting a model.

witnessed between Voros and Stasko.

interfere with her ability to teach courses within the SVAD.

exchange for sexual favors.

44. In addition to Plaintiff’s personal complaints, Plaintiff complained to Chametsky

manner without her consent.

45. Plaintiff also complained to Chametsky that Defendant Voros created an

to address Plaintiff’s concerns.

order to Defendant Voros on April 13, 2017.

semester. Defendant Voros was in Italy during the summer of 2017.

for fall 2017.

during the Fall 2017 semester.

up stories about him and J.T” in an email to Bowers.

from a female graduate student and gave it to J.T.

discrimination and sexual harassment.

specifically requested Plaintiff as her instructor.

was made based on Plaintiff being Native American.

treatment from Defendant Voros.

however, Plaintiff was never provided a faculty parking permit.

while she was in the faculty parking lot in an intimidating manner.

was full of empty beer bottles.

or around May 10, 2019.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

74. Where not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff realleges the foregoing.

meaning about Plaintiff and are false.

the Plaintiff by word and act.

Defendants to members of the University administration, members of the community, and

unfit to participate in her professional field.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

83. Where not inconsistent herewith, Plaintiff realleges the foregoing.