Third Amended Complaint - John Does v. Kelly, NHCS, Et Al

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

COUNTY OF NEW HANOVER FILE NO: 19 CVS 2745
JOHN DOES 1 to 13, inclusive, all )

individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated; )
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
) THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
v. )
) Filed Pursuant to N.C. Rules of Civil
THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY ) Procedure, Rule 15(a)
BOARD OF EDUCATION; MICHAEL )
EARL KELLY; JAMES RICKIE “RICK” ) Jury Trial Demanded
HOLLIDAY, in his former official )
capacity; TIMOTHY SCOTT MARKLEY, ) Putative Class Action
in his former official capacity; and MIKE )
ROES 1 to 10, inclusive; )
)
Defendants. )
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, by and through their undersigned counsel, and for their claims
against the Defendants, and each of them, as well as on behalf of all others similarly situated, upon
information and belief, investigation of their counsel, publicly available information and
discovery, state and allege the following facts:
INTRODUCTION
This case is not about the renaming of a football stadium nor of volleyball courts. It is not
about memories of a respected administrator, who unbeknownst to most, admitted to a sexual
relationship with a 16-year-old student in text messages on the eve of his taking his life. Instead,
this case is about the victims and the abuse, exploitation and even rape of New Hanover County
School students at the hands of a serial child molester for over 25 years and what the New Hanover
County Board of Education intends to do about it.

Since February of 2018, a total of five teachers and administrators within New Hanover
County Schools have been arrested and charged with felony sex crimes against students.1 And,
while that would normally shock the conscience of most communities, sadly for ours, it is just the
tip of the iceberg. According to information learned during discovery in this case, another dozen
school employees either resigned their positions or were terminated or dismissed over allegations
surrounding student sexual misconduct with students for the period between 1999 and 2018. This
pattern must stop.
It is estimated that in the United States, nearly 1 in 10 students will experience some form
of sexual misconduct at the hands of an educator or school employee by the time they graduate
high school.2 In 2014, there were 361 such accounts of sexual misconduct and exploitation
reported in the press, with more than half of these occurring here in the South.3 Many more go
unreported. One in three offenders are believed to have multiple victims, and according to a
Government Accountability Office study, a teacher-predator can have as many as 73 victims.4
1
These include the arrests of Coach Ron Strickland, who was most recently arrested and charged
with two counts of sex crimes on April 9, 2021; David Bostian, who was arrested on April 2, 2021
and charged with two counts of sex crimes and who later killed himself that same day; Peter Frank,
arrested on January 24, 2020 and who remains in jail awaiting trial on 29 charges in Bladen County
which is set to begin August 16, 2021; Nicholas Oates, arrested on July 7, 2018 and charged with
24 counts, and who later died from natural causes while awaiting trial in jail; and Michael Kelly,
arrested on February 6, 2018 and convicted of 59 counts of felony sex offenses on June 25, 2019.
2
U.S. Department of Education (2004). Educator sexual misconduct: A synthesis of existing
literature. Washington, DC: Office of the Under Secretary, available at: https://b5d21c76-e7fd-
4492-8f9b-624f293450fc.filesusr.com/ugd/b75d1b_6f770bd362df4a7785ed9c740c4280dd.pdf
(last visited March 19, 2021).
3
Stop Educator Sexual Abuse Misconduct and Exploitation ("SESAME"), www.sesamenet.org
(last visited March 19, 2021).
4
Government Accountability Office. (2010). K–12 education: Selected cases of public and private
schools that hired or retained individuals with histories of sexual misconduct. United States
Government Accountability Office, GAO-11-200, available at https://b5d21c76-e7fd-4492-8f9b-
624f293450fc.filesusr.com/ugd/b75d1b_6f770bd362df4a7785ed9c740c4280dd.pdf, (last visited
March 19, 2021).
2
The impact of such abuse on our students and children is devastating. Sexual abuse and
exploitation often result in permanent and debilitating physical and emotional injuries that require
a lifetime of treatment. Research shows that children who have been victims of sexual abuse are
more likely to experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), depression, behavioral
problems, sexualized behaviors and poor self-esteem than their peers.5 They are more likely to
abuse alcohol and other substances.6
A young man who is sexually abused is 3.73 times more likely than his peers to require
mental health services and more than twice as likely to suffer from PTSD or another psychotic,
anxiety or personality disorder.7 He is 3.41 times more likely to abuse alcohol and 3.13 times
more likely to abuse drugs.8
Childhood sexual abuse also increases the risk of long-term psychosocial, psychiatric and
physical health outcomes including an increased risk of developing a Conversion Disorder,
Borderline Personality Disorder, anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychosis, self-harm, eating
disorders, pain, fibromyalgia, adult sexual revictimization, somatoform disorders, suicide
5
Skinner, M., Hong, S., Herrenkohl, T. Brown, E., Lee, J., & Jung, H. (2016). Longitudinal effects
of early childhood maltreatment on co-occurring substance misuse and mental health problems in
adulthood: The role of adolescent alcohol use and depression. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and
Drugs, 77(3), 464-472.
6
Id.
7
Cutajar, M., Mullen, P., Ogloff, J., Thomas, S., Wells, D., & Spataro, J. (2010). Psychopathology
in a large cohort of sexually abused children followed up to 43 years. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34,
813-822.
8
Id.
3
attempts, substance abuse, sex with multiple partners, HIV, obesity and Schizophrenia.9 Men with
a history of sexual abuse are twice as likely to attempt suicide at least once in their lives.10
Childhood sexual abuse can also affect brain development, producing actual differences in
brain anatomy and function that carry lifelong consequences.11 When trauma is experienced, the
hypothalamus, adrenal gland, and pituitary glands are activated together in what is known as the
hypothalamic pituitary adrenal (“HPA”) stress response, or HPA axis. Research shows that there
is an association between early adversity or trauma and atypical development of the HPA axis,
which increases the risk for subsequent psychopathology.12 Research using neuroimaging has
found evidence of HPA changes and visual support for structural and functional brain differences
observed after trauma.13 For example, brain scans show that abuse during childhood and recurring
depression were linked to similar reductions in the surface area of the insular cortex – a part of the
brain believed to help regulate emotion and self-awareness.14 Abuse during childhood may cause
physical changes to the human brain that in turn may render adults more vulnerable to depression
and a host of other co-morbidities.15
9
Hailes, H., Yu, Danese, & Fazel, S. (2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: an
umbrella review. Lancet Psychiatry, 6, 830-839.
10
Dube, S., Anda F., Whitfield, C., Brown, D., Felitti, V., Dong, M., & Giles, W. (2005). Long-
Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 28 (5).
11
Edwards, D. (2018). Childhood Sexual Abuse and Brain Development: A Discussion of
Associated Structural Changes and Negative Psychological Outcomes. Child Abuse Review, 27, 3;
Hailes, H., Yu, Danese, & Fazel, S. (2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: an
umbrella review. Lancet Psychiatry, 6, 830-839.
12
McCrory, E., De Brito, S., & Viding, E. (2010). Research Review: The neurobiology and
genetics of maltreatment and adversity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(10).
13
Id.
14
Child Abuse, Recurrent Depression Linked to Similar Changes in Brain - Medscape - Apr 16,
2019.
15
Id.
4
In this case, a local high school science teacher, MICHAEL EARL KELLY (“KELLY”),
sexually abused and exploited an unknown number of young men at two Wilmington high schools
for more than a quarter of a century. These schools include Laney High School and Isaac Bear
Early College High School (“IBECHS”). On June 25, 2019, KELLY pled guilty to 59 counts of
felony sex crimes that he perpetrated against young boys who were his students. And, although
the criminal case against him was built on charges involving 15 young men, now ranging from 18
years of age to their thirties, many more remain in the shadows, afraid to come out, and just hoping
that they will not have to relive the trauma that KELLY left behind. For others, that trauma has
already destroyed lives – including the lives of their loved ones.
It is time for the New Hanover County Board of Education to admit its role in this tragic
case and the very real and devastating consequences of having turned a blind eye to KELLY’s
abuse of his students. Judgment day has come – either NHCBOE accepts its duties to protect its
students from predators like KELLY or else it has to acknowledge its complicity with KELLY’s
actions.
THE PARTIES PLAINTIFF
1. At all times relevant to the factual allegations of this Complaint, Plaintiffs were
residents and citizens of New Hanover County.
2. At all relevant times, Plaintiffs were minor students of Defendant KELLY at the
time that the incidents complained of herein occurred, attending the following schools in New
Hanover County:
Plaintiff School Years Attended
John Doe 1 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2014-2017
5
John Doe 7 E.A. Laney High School 2000-2004
3. While enrolled in high school, Plaintiffs were required to attend one or more of
KELLY’s science classes and/or to similarly interact with him.
4. At the present time, Plaintiffs JOHN DOES 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 remain residents
and citizens of New Hanover County, North Carolina.
5. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 3 is currently a resident and citizen of Wake County, North
Carolina.
6. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 7 is currently a resident and citizen of Boulder County,
Colorado.
7. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 8 is currently a resident and citizen of Orange County, North
Carolina.
8. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 10 is currently a resident and citizen of Fairfax County,
Virginia.
6
9. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 11 is currently a resident and citizen of Clark County, Nevada.
10. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 13 is currently a resident and citizen of Pender County, North
Carolina.
11. Due to the sensitivity of the allegations involved herein, the trauma already caused
these young men, and the intense media and public interest associated with this litigation, all 13
Plaintiffs have chosen to use a pseudonym to protect their identities from disclosure in the media
and among the community.16 Disclosure of the Plaintiffs’ true names at this point could cause
additional trauma, as several have reported attempted suicides and even more report suicidal
ideation as a result of KELLY’s abuse... In addition, disclosure of their identifies would have a
chilling effect on the participation of the putative class in this proceeding.
THE PARTIES DEFENDANT
12. Defendant THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
(“NHCBOE”) is the official county organization responsible for managing the County’s 45
elementary, middle and high schools, known collectively as the New Hanover County Schools.
13. At all times relevant hereto as further alleged herein, Defendant NHCBOE was the
employer for Defendant KELLY, Defendant JAMES RICKIE “RICK” HOLLIDAY
(“HOLLIDAY”), and Defendant TIMOTHY SCOTT MARKLEY (“MARKLEY”).
14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant KELLY was a resident and citizen of New
Hanover County, North Carolina.
16
Since the filing of this action in 2019, Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ attorneys have agreed to share
the identities of those Plaintiffs appearing under a ‘John Doe’ pseudonym pursuant to the parties’
Protective Order, in order to prevent disclosure of these identifies to anyone outside of this
litigation.
7
15. Defendant KELLY is presently incarcerated in the North Carolina Department of
Public Safety’s Pasquotank Correctional Institution in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, where he is
serving a sentence of up to 31 years for crimes he committed as described herein. According to
Vine, the national victim notification network, KELLY’s anticipated release date is September 30,
2035.
16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant HOLLIDAY is and was a citizen and
resident of New Hanover County, North Carolina.
17. Prior to July 1, 2019, and for some 37 years, Defendant HOLLIDAY held a number
of positions with the Defendant NHCBOE, including most recently as the Deputy Superintendent
of Schools.
a. On or about July 1, 1982, Defendant HOLLIDAY began his career with
New Hanover County Schools as a high school teacher and coach at Laney
High School.
b. In July of 1988, Defendant HOLLIDAY was promoted to Assistant
Principal at Laney High School, where he would have been at the time of
KELLY’s hire.
c. In 1996, Defendant HOLLIDAY became the principal of Williston Middle
School, but then returned as Principal of Laney High School in July of 1998,
where he supervised Defendant KELLY.
d. In July of 2004, HOLLIDAY assumed the title of Executive Director of
Institutional Services for New Hanover County Schools.
e. In 2007, HOLLIDAY became the Assistant Superintendent of Student
Support Services.
8
f. From September 2013 until his resignation on July 1, 2019, HOLLIDAY
served as Deputy Superintendent.
18. In his position as Deputy Superintendent, HOLLIDAY was part of the
“administration” of New Hanover County Schools, along with Defendant MARKLEY.
19. Defendant HOLLIDAY is sued in his former official capacity.
20. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MARKLEY is, and was, a resident of New
Hanover County, North Carolina.
21. Defendant MARKLEY is the former Superintendent of the New Hanover County
Schools, a position he held from 2010 until March 6, 2020, when he resigned, effective
immediately. That resignation occurred on the heels of an arrest of Roland Grise Middle School
band director Peter Michael Frank, who was eventually indicted on 29 felony counts of having
taken indecent liberties with students, among other crimes.
22. Defendant MARKLEY is also sued in his former official capacity.
23. In his position, Defendant MARKLEY oversaw executive level functions of the
entire school system which included the responsibility to supervise Defendant HOLLIDAY as
Deputy Superintendent. In fact, at all times while Defendant KELLY was a teacher at IBECHS,
Defendant HOLLIDAY reported directly to Defendant MARKLEY or his predecessors.
24. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant MARKLEY was obligated to follow the
rules, policies and procedures of New Hanover County Schools, as well as pertinent state and
federal regulations. Among many things, those regulations require that officials within the school
district report certain acts occurring on school grounds. As the supervisor of Deputy
Superintendent HOLLIDAY, MARKLEY was ultimately responsible for ensuring that
HOLLIDAY performed his job consistent with state and federal laws.
9
25. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
partnership, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as MIKE ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, are
unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants ROES 1 through 10 are in some manner responsible for Plaintiffs’ injuries
and losses and are named in accordance with the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-166. Plaintiffs
will amend their complaint to show the true names and capacities of such fictitiously named
Defendants as they are ascertained and their roles confirmed.
26. Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants KELLY, HOLLIDAY, MARKLEY
and ROES 1 through 10, and each of them, were the agents, contractors, and/or employees of
NHCBOE, and the acts and omissions herein alleged were done by them, through such capacity
and within the scope of their authority, and that such conduct was ratified by Defendant
NHCBOE’s agents, and that each of them is jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs. As such,
each Defendant named in this Complaint is legally responsible for the acts of the others causing
permanent harm and irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs and others within the New Hanover County
Schools system.
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
27. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-75.4, jurisdiction is proper over each Defendant as
all are residents of the State of North Carolina and the acts and omissions alleged herein occurred
in the state.
28. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 1-77(2) and 1-82, venue is proper in this Court as
Plaintiffs are residents of New Hanover County or else have consented to this venue, and because
all or nearly all of the wrongful acts giving rise to this Complaint occurred here.
10
29. Plaintiffs have satisfied, met or performed all conditions precedent to the filing of
this action, including filing this action within the time frame allowed by any applicable limitation
periods.
30. Defendant NHCBOE has waived any claim of governmental or sovereign immunity
by purchasing insurance to cover these claims, as have the former public official Defendants, e.g.,
MARKLEY and HOLLIDAY.
THE RELEVANT STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS, TOLLING

AND REVIVAL OF PAST CLAIMS
31. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant KELLY’s sexual assaults of the Plaintiffs
occurred while they were minor children. The statute of limitations is tolled until the minor
children attain the age of majority.
32. Furthermore, all claims asserted herein by the named Plaintiffs and all claims
asserted for the putative class members have been rendered timely by operation of law, specifically
N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 1-52 and Session Laws 2019-245, sec. 4(b) (“Effective from January 1,
2020, until December 31, 2021, this section revives any civil action for child sexual abuse
otherwise time-barred under G.S. 1-52 as it existed immediately before the enactment of this act.”)
33. NHCBOE held KELLY out as an upstanding teacher, role model, and father-figure
for students, even naming him Teacher of the Year in 2016.
34. At IBECHS, KELLY appeared to both students and parents to be involved in the
administration and function of the school. At both IBECHS and Laney, he was highly regarded
among the school’s leadership and other key faculty. KELLY used this prestige and institutional
respect to gain unlawful access to minor boys, some of whom were his students and others who
were not.
11
35. Defendant NHCBOE knew that by failing to take appropriate actions regarding
allegations of misconduct by KELLY, that it was, in effect, misrepresenting the safety of its
schools to students, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class and their parents.
36. Defendant NHCBOE thus omitted sharing material information with students and
their parents concerning allegations about KELLY which only misled students and their parents,
including Plaintiffs and the putative Class, about their safety with KELLY.
37. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs and the putative Class were not aware of the
allegations that were received by administrators in NHCBOE.
38. If Plaintiffs and the putative Class had been told what NHCBOE knew about
KELLY, Plaintiffs and the putative Class would not have had contact with KELLY.
39. Plaintiffs and the putative Class were prejudiced by their reliance on these material
misrepresentations and omissions and were prevented from discovering their sexual abuse and
from bringing this lawsuit.
40. As part of Defendants’ wrongful concealment of KELLY’s past sexual abuse of
minor students and propensity to abuse his minor students, NHCBOE undertook a variety of
actions that had the effect of making KELLY’s conduct harder to detect and only ensured that
additional students, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class, with whom KELLY came into
contact would be sexually abused, including, but not limited to:
a. Allowing KELLY to remain in a position of authority and trust with
unfettered access to minor students after Defendants knew or should have
known that he engaged in sexual misconduct.
b. Holding KELLY out to Plaintiffs, to the putative Class and to the public at
large as a trustworthy person worthy of respect and praise who was able to
12
have unsupervised access to minor students, including by naming KELLY
Teacher of the Year in 2016.
c. Allowing KELLY to have contact with students after school hours and both
on and off the school’s campus.
d. Actively concealing from students, their parents, law enforcement, and the
public at large KELLY’s sexual misconduct, abuse and exploitation of his
minor students.
e. Failing to properly investigate or gather additional facts about KELLY,
such as prior allegations and investigations relating to KELLY’s sexual
misconduct.
f. Failing to put in place measures and policies that would have prevented acts
of sexual misconduct, such as by prohibiting KELLY and other teachers
and staff from any contact with minor students after school hours or off
campus or prohibiting KELLY from using the boys’ restroom with his
students.
g. Failing to enforce the policies that it had with respect to teachers spending
time outside of classes with students.
h. Failing to train teachers, staff, agents, and employees to recognize and
report sexual abuse of students and/or creating an environment wherein
employees do not report sexual abuse allegations against teachers for fear
of retaliation or other consequences.
13
41. At the time the sexual misconduct occurred, KELLY concealed the existence of
harm to Plaintiffs and the putative Class by making material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and
the putative Class, including, but not limited to:
a. Misrepresenting to minor students that his acts and conduct were normal,
acceptable and fun behavior for students and him to engage in, such as by
making a game out of exposing genitals to others and earning points for
doing so and using popular social media applications, such as Snapchat, to
send pictures and videos of each other’s genitals.
b. Misrepresenting that his actions were for the purpose of mentoring with and
bonding with his minor students.
42. These material misrepresentations were false because KELLY sexually abused his
minor students for his own sexual gratification.
43. When KELLY made these misrepresentations, he planned, knew, and intended that
they would deceive.
44. Plaintiffs and the putative Class reasonably relied on KELLY’s misrepresentations
to their detriment. If they had known that KELLY was a sexual predator and not a trustworthy
role model, they would never have allowed the conduct to continue and/or would have reported it.
45. Plaintiffs and the putative Class were in fact deceived.
46. Plaintiffs and the putative Class were prejudiced by their reliance on these material
misrepresentations and were prevented from recognizing KELLY’s behavior as abusive and from
bringing this lawsuit.
47. KELLY carried out this predatory behavior as an employee, agent, and/or
representative of the NHCBOE and in the course and scope of his employment. Defendant
14
NHCBOE is therefore vicariously liable for KELLY’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
48. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions constitute fraudulent concealment.
49. The statute of limitations for each of Plaintiffs’ and the putative Class’ cause of
action was thus equitably tolled, and Defendants are equitably estopped from asserting the statute
of limitations as a defense.
50. Further, KELLY’s sexual abuse of students continued throughout his nearly 26
years of employment with NHCBOE, and the statute of limitations was tolled based on the
continuing violations doctrine.
THE BOARD’S COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE STUDENTS WITH A SAFE AND

POSITIVE LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
51. Education is considered the great equalizer of society. In addition to providing an
opportunity of a brighter future for each student beyond their past, our educational institutions
should serve to build, strengthen, and sustain our societal future. In the pursuit of educational
aspirations, which should be without limit, no child should encounter sexual abuse at the hands of
a teacher. Sexual harassment and abuse are serious forms of misconduct which critically
undermine the integrity of student-teacher, student-student, and employment relationships and the
very fabric of our community. Even more detrimental, KELLY would often seek out already
marginalized and vulnerable students, further depriving them of a productive life of value and
worth.
52. In North Carolina, primary and secondary education is compulsory and, as such,
the responsibility that local county boards of education have in protecting our children is immense.
While under their care and supervision, educators and staff stand in loco parentis for our children,
whose safety and welfare extend beyond a textbook, fire drills, active shooters and school lunches.
15
53. Defendant NHCBOE acknowledges that role and that it carries this burden. In its
mission statement published on the New Hanover County Schools’ website, the Board of
Education states:
The mission of New Hanover County Schools, in collaboration with

parents and the community, is to strive to provide children with an
opportunity for a superior education in a safe and positive learning
environment where they are prepared with the skills to succeed.
This language is also contained in the system’s Policy Manual, as Policy No. 1100. (Emphasis
added.)
54. The policy describes our local school system’s goals: to provide and maintain a
safe, respectful, and secure learning environment for its students and to recruit and retain highly
qualified employees that implement and support district goals to ensure academic excellence for
all students, among other things.
55. These goals were recently acknowledged and affirmed by Dr. Charles Foust,
Superintendent of New Hanover County Schools. In an April 12, 2021 statement to reporters
following the arrest of Coach Ron Strickland, he said:
I honestly believe, and our district believes, that every child deserves
a safe environment, and we are going to hold all educators
accountable to ensure that every child is safe. All parents should be
able to drop their children off, whether they ride in the bus, ride in
the car, walk to school, ride a bike — however they get to school —
and the way that they drop them off is the way that we should be
able to send them back to them.
56. The statement followed an earlier email to reporters, in which Foust reminded
parents and students that:
[we are] committed to doing everything we can to keep children

safe. . . . Identification of abuse is the first step to strengthening our
prevention efforts. We will report and investigate all allegations.
Each student should feel that they are safe when they come to school
and we hold all of our educators accountable to upholding that
16
standard. The district will not tolerate inappropriate conduct with a
student.
57. These well-crafted PR statements, however, mean nothing to the Plaintiffs and
other Class Members, whom the Defendants utterly failed in protecting them from the predatory
actions of a serial child molester. Rather, they further enabled his actions.
58. During KELLY’s employment with New Hanover County Schools, Defendant
NHCBOE failed to prioritize the prevention and detection of sexual misconduct by teachers within
the district and it did not take steps to ensure a safe and positive learning environment for our
children. In its absence, the Defendants created an atmosphere of acceptance and tolerance toward
such suspected abuse.
59. Well-publicized and effective grievance procedures to handle complaints of sex
discrimination, including acts of sexual harassment, are critical to the prevention of sexual
misconduct. But policies alone are inadequate. Policies without enforcement are of no
consequence.
60. During 1991, NHCBOE created its first Sexual Harassment policy. In 1993, the
district amended the policy, identified as File 1720, which prohibited employees from being
“romantically involved” with any student enrolled in New Hanover County Schools and which
required employees with knowledge of such relationships to report them.
61. Any form of sexual misconduct was deemed to constitute sexual harassment under
the policy and was required to be reported to the principal or counselor at each school.
62. Twelve years later, NHCBOE adopted a new policy regarding discrimination,
harassment, and bullying, now denoted as File 8307. As part of Policy 8307, the Superintendent
was charged with designating an employee to participate in training offered by the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction regarding these policies and state requirements. The
17
Superintendent was to publish the name, addresses and phone number of the district’s Title IX
Coordinator, among others, “in a manner intended to ensure that employees, applicants, students,
parents and other individuals who participate in the school system’s program are aware of the
coordinators.”
63. That 2005 amendment came more than four years after the U.S. Department of
Education’s January 2001 issuance of a Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of
Student by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties. That guidance was communicated
to every school superintendent across the country and required each superintendent to designate a
complaint officer, known as a Title IX compliance officer or coordinator, who was to complete
investigations and file required written reports whenever any form of sexual harassment was
reported to a responsible employee.
64. For the time period of 1996-2004, the New Hanover County Board of Education
cannot confirm the existence of any Title IX compliance officer or coordinator within the district.
It is also unclear who, if anyone, actually enforced the district’s compliance with Policy 1720/8370
during this period. New Hanover County Schools certainly did not take its obligations seriously.
65. In 2004, HOLLIDAY was appointed to serve as the Title IX coordinator for the
district even though he lacked any training, skills, experience or even knowledge of Title IX. But
that lack of experience did not concern NHCBOE’s board members. It was if they had appointed
HOLLIDAY to a position he was not qualified to hold. Furthermore, HOLLIDAY had already
established through his inaction and lack of concern towards student and parent allegations at
Laney High School relating to Kelly as well as others that he was incapable of handling,
investigating and evaluating complaints, whether they arose under Title IX or otherwise.
18
66. In July 2004, HOLLIDAY also assumed the title of Executive Director of
Institutional Services for New Hanover County Schools. In 2007, he then became the Assistant
Superintendent for Student Support Services, which presented a conflict of interest with his Title
IX responsibilities, given his concurrent responsibilities of overseeing student discipline. Yet no
one within the district recognized that conflict, and HOLLIDAY continued to perform both jobs.
67. In 2008, NHCBOE adopted a policy, File 6442 “Student and Employee
Relationships,” which stated in part that, “The Board believes that all employees have a
responsibility to provide students with an atmosphere conducive to learning.” The policy
prohibited employees from dating, courting or entering into a romantic or sexual relationship with
any student enrolled in the school system regardless of the student’s age. The policy made it clear
that the existence of student-teacher relationships ran counter to a student’s fundamental right to
an education and right to be free from harassment.
68. In 2010, NHCBOE established Policy 6445 “Prohibition Against Discrimination,
Harassment and Bullying by Officials, Employees, Volunteers and Visitors.” Around that time,
concerns were surfacing among members of the NHCBOE related to the handling of sexual abuse
allegations within the district and the level of seriousness with which the district was treating the
topic.
69. As the district’s Title IX coordinator, HOLLIDAY was the chief compliance officer
or coordinator for the district regarding Title IX. He had the obligation to ensure compliance with
the statute, and develop a Title IX plan, as well as oversee the district’s investigations and
resolution of Title IX claims.
19
70. Despite the fact that the district was encountering a number of complaints and
dismissals of teachers specifically related to sexual abuse of students, HOLLIDAY did not initiate
any complaints whatsoever related to Title IX between the years of 2004 and 2012.
71. Between 2012 and 2018, HOLLIDAY initiated a total of four reports related to
sexual misconduct in his role as Title IX compliance officer and coordinator. These included
allegations relating to teachers and other employees’ conduct and behavior with students.
72. Interestingly, between 1999 and 2018, there were at least 13 New Hanover County
School employees that either resigned, were terminated, or were dismissed for sexual assault
incidents affecting students at New Hanover County Schools. There were at least an additional 7
individuals who were reported to NHCBOE during that same time frame for allegations of sexual
misconduct.
73. Despite the obvious lack of diligence by HOLLIDAY in fulfilling his Title IX
responsibilities as well as investigating complaints of sexual abuse falling outside of Title IX,
NHCBOE continued to retain HOLLIDAY.
74. Then, in 2020, the Office of Civil Rights (“OCR”) for the U.S. Department of
Education, acting in response to a complaint filed by the father of a student who was sexually
assaulted by another student in 2015, expressed concerns regarding the handling of a complaint
within the district. Specifically, OCR found that although HOLLIDAY had served as the Title IX
coordinator for over 11 years prior to the incident, he had no “particular experience in resolving
sexual assault complaints before handling” that 2015 assault. The district further had provided
little to no training to investigators or adjudicators on topics such as interviewing techniques,
evaluating evidence, or determining credibility. OCR further found that HOLLIDAY had failed
20
to ever develop a Title IX policy for the district noting that training for administrators and
educators consisted of only a few slides.
75. Even HOLLIDAY’s direct reports and staff at the time expressed being unfamiliar
with, and lacking an understanding of, Title IX’s requirements, investigations and reporting
responsibilities. They equally lacked a similar understanding of the process by which the district
was to investigate allegations of teacher sexual abuse or exploitation of students outside of Title
IX.
76. It is unclear as to whether HOLLIDAY ever sought to gain an understanding of
Title IX. According to documents produced by the NHCBOE in discovery, HOLLIDAY attended
approximately three trainings during the time he served as the Title IX coordinator where any
discussion of Title IX occurred, and the three he did attend, only had incidental coverage of Title
IX, the most recent being related to HB2 and transgender restrooms. In short, all of the Defendants
in this action failed to prioritize their Title IX and other statutory and common law obligations and
failed to take the topic of sexual misconduct by teachers seriously.
77. More telling of the district’s view of the importance of HOLLIDAY’s role as Title
IX coordinator is that HOLLIDAY was not even listed in the school system’s phone directory as
being the Title IX coordinator or the source for principals to contact with inquiries they had relating
to sexual misconduct by teachers in their schools. It was as if the district had no such person at
all.
78. In 2013, HOLLIDAY stepped into the role of Assistant Deputy Superintendent of
New Hanover County Schools. He continued to retain the title of the district’s Title IX coordinator.
And, in that position, HOLLIDAY reported to the Superintendent of New Hanover Schools,
MARKLEY.
21
79. Defendant NHCBOE employs, supervises, and delegates responsibilities to the
New Hanover County Superintendent. The New Hanover Board of Education is an independent
body and not subject to direction and control by the Superintendent. The New Hanover Board of
Education establishes policies of the Board of Education and New Hanover County Schools. The
Superintendent or his designee is required to evaluate the effectiveness of policies, including those
involving harassment, and share evaluations periodically with the board. This includes evaluating
the district’s policies relating to sexual harassment and how it deals with complaints of teacher-
on-student abuse.
80. As Superintendent, MARKLEY also served as the “ex-officio” Secretary of the
Board of Education and thereby, as an officer of the Board. As such, actions or omissions
committed by Markley are directly imputed to NHCBOE, independent of their other direct
liability.
81. Despite the existence of policies within New Hanover County Schools, educators
and staff of New Hanover County Schools were not adequately trained on sexual misconduct
policies, Title IX, grooming, reporting, and/or investigating allegations of teacher-on-student
abuse.
22
KELLY’S EMPLOYMENT HISTORY WITH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SCHOOLS
82. In 1992, Defendant KELLY was hired by NHCBOE to teach science classes at
Laney High School. This is where he met JOHN DOES 7, 9, and 11 and began his predatory
behavior on students.
83. Defendant remained at Laney High School until 2006, when he transferred to
IBECHS. IBECHS is located adjacent to the campus of the University of North Carolina at
Wilmington.
84. IBECHS is a partnership between the New Hanover County Schools and the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Students attending the school typically spend their
first two years in required high school courses and then transition to the college during their last
two years, where they can earn upwards of 60 college credits prior to high school graduation. As
an added incentive, these credits are offered free of charge to the students.
85. KELLY was an IBECHS teacher until February 2018, when he was arrested on
charges following the inadvertent discovery of pornographic images and video on a 14-year-old
student’s cell phone.
THE NIGHT OF KELLY’S ARREST AND HIS SENTENCING
86. On February 6, 2018, law enforcement officers from both the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office went to the home of Michael Kelly
and his wife on Winter Moss Lane in Wilmington.
87. There, investigators spoke to him regarding allegations that he had taken indecent
liberties with minor children who were among his students at IBECHS.
88. During the interview, according to the investigators’ notes, KELLY disclosed that
he had been investigated on two occasions by New Hanover County Schools after complaints had
23
been filed against him alleging sexual misconduct. KELLY freely and knowingly gave the
interview to detectives suspecting that he may very well be arrested based upon the information
that the detectives shared with KELLY.
89. The first investigation that KELLY described arose from an incident at Laney High
School in 2006 and involved a student assistant of KELLY’s. KELLY reported that the boy’s
parent tried to attack him and that the school’s administration conducted the investigation and
cleared him of the accusations.
90. The second investigation involved a student at IBECHS and concerned allegations
that KELLY had exposed himself to a student during KELLY’s first year at IBECHS, which would
have been the 2006-2007 school year.
91. These investigations were never reported to law enforcement. At KELLY’s
sentencing on June 25, 2019, New Hanover County Assistant District Attorney Connie Jordan
stated, in open court:
24
State of North Carolina v. Michael Earl Kelly, June 25, 2019, Transcript, at page 81, lines
4-18.
92. On June 25, 2019, some 16 months after his arrest, Defendant KELLY pled guilty
to 59 felony sex crimes before the Honorable John Nobles, including: 27 counts of indecent
liberties with a child; 17 counts of indecent liberties with a student; 10 counts of solicitation to
commit a felony; 2 counts of third-degree sexual exploitation of a minor; 1 count of solicitation to
commit a felony; 1 count of a statutory sex offense with a child; and 1 count of first-degree sexual
exploitation of a minor.
93. Defendant KELLY was sentenced to as many as 31 years for the commission of the
crimes, all involving victims who had been among KELLY’s students. At the time of the
underlying charges, some victims were as young as 13 years of age and in the 9th grade.
25
94. Over his almost 26-year career within New Hanover County Schools, Defendant
KELLY came into direct contact with literally thousands of young men and women in his classes.
95. It is unknown just how many of these may have been harassed, abused, assaulted,
exploited and otherwise victimized by KELLY over the years. However, what is known and what
is undisputed is that Defendant KELLY recruited and groomed young male students to participate
in a wide variety of inappropriate sexual activities. These included, upon information and belief,
among other things: KELLY performing oral sex on a young child while the act was videotaped;
KELLY soliciting other children for oral and anal sex; KELLY displaying, viewing and enjoying
pornographic images and videos on his school computer while in his office and/or on his phone
and mobile devices; teaching students how to get around “filters” installed on student laptops so
that students could view adult content on their own; playing a game that involved exposing his
genitals; using text/chat applications that would permit students and KELLY to share images of
their genitals and other pornographic images privately; engaging in other physical sexual contact
with students, sometimes in public areas; touching his students’ genitals; groping their buttocks,
placing his genitals on various parts of his students’ bodies; performing and/or receiving oral sex
on or by his students; masturbating in front of his students; issuing invitations to meet him at his
house and other locations for sexual encounters; drugging and raping some at least one victim,
among other things.
96. Over the span of two decades, KELLY’s acts occurred both on and off school
grounds in the presence of KELLY’s male students. KELLY’s acts also occurred during normal
school hours and after hours as KELLY was successful in convincing some students to spend time
with him outside of assigned class hours and school, a practice which had been made known to
school administrators. Upon information and belief, these off-campus meetings occurred at
26
locations such as the Burger King near Laney High School, in the School of Education building at
UNCW, other buildings at UNCW, in hotel rooms at science fairs and at other locations.
97. At all times relevant hereto, all of the Plaintiffs were minors under North Carolina
law and incapable of giving consent to such inappropriate conduct. In addition, KELLY
occasionally used alcohol or drugs to subdue his victims, rendering them involuntarily intoxicated
and incapable of consent.
98. Defendant KELLY used his position as the students’ teacher to prey upon his
students’ innocence and that of likely dozens of other male students over the years he taught in the
New Hanover County Schools.
KNOWLEDGE OF KELLY’S SEXUALLY INAPPROPRIATE

CONDUCT BY HOLLIDAY AND OTHERS
99. KELLY’s sentencing revealed that celebrated administrators within New Hanover
County Schools should have been alerted to KELLY’s illicit behavior, but they were asleep at their
jobs or otherwise incompetent. They were not trained on what their legal responsibilities were or
how they were to conduct proper investigations of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct and
sexual abuse committed by teachers against students. They were not provided with resources in
how to confront and deal with such situations. They were not trained in how to identify grooming
by predators. And, if they did not know, they could not train their principals or other faculty in
how to handle such situations. As a direct and proximate result, the Defendants, and each of them,
missed the handwriting on the wall.
100. As is typical with sexual predators, KELLY exhibited a pattern of behavior and a
course of conduct with all his victims, including Plaintiffs and Class Members, which should have
been apparent to administrators within New Hanover County Schools.
27
101. For example, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege as far back as
1993 that school administrators at Laney High School were made aware of inappropriate conduct
in class by KELLY and refused to take any action.
102. Specifically, in or about 1993, a student in one of KELLY’s Chemistry classes at
Laney High School verbally objected to KELLY’s use of inappropriate sexual innuendo in front
of the class. As KELLY was discussing certain sexual acts with his wife, the student objected.
KELLY threw the student out of class, sending him to speak with someone in the front office.
103. The student told an assistant principal that KELLY had made inappropriate
commentary and explicitly described intimate sexual activity between KELLY and his wife.
104. Later, the student was in the boys’ restroom when KELLY entered and stood beside
him at the urinal. KELLY flipped his tie over his shoulder and made a comment about trying not
to urinate on the tie. When KELLY finished, KELLY apologized for the incident in class and for
his behavior.
105. Then, between 1998 and 2001, another student reported inappropriate behavior by
KELLY as well as sexual harassment and a physical assault by the then-band director, Richard
Priode.
106. The student and her family provided written notice of their concerns to
HOLLIDAY as well as then-Deputy Superintendent Norman Shearin and then-Superintendent
John Morris, in addition to other administrators and board members.
107. During the 2000-2001 school year, KELLY became acquainted with JOHN DOE
7, who would become a student in one of KELLY’s science classes. Initially, KELLY encouraged
JOHN DOE 7 to “hang out” with him after classes ended and to come see him during KELLY’s
office hours at Laney High School.
28
108. As time went by, KELLY began to talk to JOHN DOE 7 about topics of a sexual
nature, including enjoying pornography. KELLY would often show pornographic images to
JOHN DOE 7 that were stored on, or which could be accessed on, KELLY’s desktop computer.
KELLY also would pull up a pornographic video to watch with JOHN DOE 7 while in his office.
109. Uncomfortable about having his teacher show him pornographic images and films,
JOHN DOE 7 went to then-Laney principal Defendant HOLLIDAY and complained.
110. JOHN DOE 7 went to HOLLIDAY’s office and told him what had occurred with
KELLY. But rather than show any genuine expression of concern, HOLLIDAY acted as if JOHN
DOE 7’s complaints were misplaced. Although HOLLIDAY took notes during the meeting on a
yellow legal pad, at the conclusion of the meeting, HOLLIDAY ripped a sheet of paper from the
pad and threw it onto the table behind him, stating something similar to the effect that he did not
have time for this.
111. Following that meeting, nothing changed with respect to how KELLY treated
JOHN DOE 7. KELLY simply continued with his grooming of JOHN DOE 7. However, another
teacher – who was serving as JOHN DOE 7’s driver’s education teacher – started to lock him in
the closet during his class for an unknown reason.
112. During class, every day, the teacher, who was known to be close to HOLLIDAY,
sent the student to the closet. Upon learning this, the mother of JOHN DOE 7, went and
complained to HOLLIDAY about the issue.
113. Within a matter of days, JOHN DOE 7 was allowed to complete the requisites for
the class with another teacher.
114. At the same time, though, KELLY continued to expose JOHN DOE 7 to porn, in
an attempt to normalize his behavior. As a result of that repeated exposure and because his
29
previous attempt to protest KELLY’s behavior to HOLLIDAY only resulted in punishment to the
student, JOHN DOE 7 believed that any further complaints about KELLY would be futile and
gave up on reporting KELLY’s misconduct.
115. Outside of school, at or about the same time, KELLY began to invite JOHN DOE
7 to the YMCA on Market Street. JOHN DOE 7 believed that KELLY was attempting to step into
his life to serve as a father figure and mentor, a role that he was missing in his life at the time.
Indeed, KELLY was challenging the student academically and showing an interest in the boy.
Although JOHN DOE 7 did not realize it at the time, KELLY was merely grooming JOHN DOE
7 for further abuse and exploitation.
116. After the two would finish their exercise at the YMCA, KELLY invited JOHN
DOE 7 to sit in the sauna with him. The first time this occurred, JOHN DOE 7 wore “board shorts”
into the sauna, and KELLY ridiculed him. KELLY told him that men should not sit in the sauna
unless they were naked. KELLY continued to ridicule JOHN DOE 7 about his shorts as well as
those worn by other men until JOHN DOE 7 agreed to sit with KELLY in the sauna while wearing
nothing.
117. On occasion, KELLY would expose his genitals to JOHN DOE 7 and rub them in
front of the minor student to the point that KELLY became aroused. KELLY also pressured JOHN
DOE 7 to touch KELLY’s penis.
118. Concerned about the amount of time that KELLY was spending with her son, which
was amounting to approximately two to three times weekly, JOHN DOE 7’s mother decided to
speak to HOLLIDAY, to ask him whether she should be concerned about the amount of time
KELLY was devoting to her son and about him taking her son to the YMCA. Repeatedly,
30
HOLLIDAY assured her that there were no concerns. JOHN DOE 7’s mother had no idea of the
level of grooming her son was undergoing, nor of KELLY’s conduct inside the sauna.
119. To JOHN DOE 7’s knowledge and that of his mother, HOLLIDAY never
conducted any form of investigation into the matter. He did not interview other witnesses.
HOLLIDAY did not discuss the issue with KELLY. HOLLIDAY never sought to review internet
sites accessed by KELLY on his school computer though he had done so with other faculty and
coaches at the time. Nor did HOLLIDAY attempt to reach out to the YMCA for confirmation that
the student had been accompanying KELLY to the club. Any of those things, any of them, would
have revealed that the reasons for the boy’s protest to HOLLIDAY and his mom’s concerns were
valid and should prompt further investigation.
120. Shortly after JOHN DOE 7 and his mother lodged their concerns with HOLLIDAY,
KELLY set his sights on another student at Laney High School. This time, KELLY began to follow
an openly gay male student into the boys’ restroom at Laney High School to “cruise” him. If the
young man went to a urinal, KELLY would follow him and stand in the urinal beside him. KELLY
would then attempt to look at the boy’s penis while displaying his own and “adjusting himself,”
making direct eye contact with the student while touching himself in a sexually suggestive way.
121. Although the young man tried to avoid KELLY whenever he could, KELLY was
persistent and would stand outside his classroom door during breaks to observe times the student
would enter the restroom. Frustrated by KELLY’s repeated attempts and because the student
recognized KELLY’s predatory behavior for what it was, the student went to HOLLIDAY and
told him what KELLY was attempting to do and asked him to make KELLY stop.
31
122. Like HOLLIDAY had done with JOHN DOE 7, HOLLIDAY took minimal notes
regarding the incident, and did not appear to even record the student’s name. However, after that
meeting with HOLLIDAY, KELLY no longer bothered the young man, and the cruising stopped.
123. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that again, during the same
timeframe, another Laney High School student and his family reported inappropriate sexual
conduct, inappropriate language, intimidation, and retaliation by KELLY against the student.
a. First, the mother made numerous verbal complaints to KELLY and
HOLLIDAY, among others. She complained about KELLY’s abhorrent
sexual behavior ranging from off-color sex jokes and statements in class to
showing students pornographic images.
b. After her verbal complaints were ignored, she then issued a formal written
complaint on a New Hanover County Schools Parent/Public Concerns about
School Personnel form. In this complaint, the mother requested an
investigation and a meeting with the Superintendent.
c. Once again, there was no response and no action taken by HOLLIDAY or
anyone else at New Hanover County Schools or by the NHCBOE against
KELLY. Instead, HOLLIDAY failed to maintain a copy of the written
complaint and has publicly denied the complaint was lodged. Thankfully,
the parent kept a copy of the written complaint form. Since the filing of
this action, a copy of the mother’s written complaint has been located within
files at the Central Office and produced during discovery.
32
124. During all of this time, from his hiring in 1992 until at least 2006, KELLY was
allowed to remain in control of his class at Laney High School and to continue having access to
students despite alarming complaints by multiple sources as to improper behavior by KELLY.
125. Upon information and belief, at all times that HOLLIDAY received verbal and
written concerns regarding KELLY, neither HOLLIDAY nor anyone else within the district even
investigated the allegations concern KELLY’s misconduct. And, no one ever restricted KELLY,
in any way, from his contact with students or his ability to be with students outside of class hours.
126. Finally, during the 2005-2006 year, the mother of JOHN DOE 11, a Laney High
School student, went to a Laney High School principal at the time regarding her concerns about
KELLY’s conduct with her son. During that year, JOHN DOE 11 had become unusually close to
KELLY. One day, JOHN DOE 11 brought home a permission slip for her to approve of him going
with KELLY on a field trip. She was told that there would be no other students participating in
the field trip and that KELLY would be alone with her son for the entire weekend out of town.
The two were to share a hotel room.
127. Concerned that KELLY was trying to take advantage of her son, the mother
contacted the front office staff to inquire whether the trip was legitimate because she was
concerned that KELLY was trying to “come on” to her son. She then learned that there was no
planned filed trip and that the permission slip was fraudulent.
128. The mom was then asked to come to the school for a meeting with the school
principal. Both the mother and JOHN DOE 11 went in to see the principal. KELLY was also
brought into the meeting. After the mother of JOHN DOE 11 told KELLY that she was on to him
and knew his story, the principal ejected the mother and son from his office.
33
129. As a result of that incident, the next day, JOHN DOE 11 was removed from
KELLY’s Chemistry class and placed with another teacher. School administrators never followed
up with either JOHN DOE 11 or his mother regarding the status of the interviews.
130. Had the principal even attempted to interview JOHN DOE 11 about the incident,
he would have discovered that KELLY had purportedly had a relationship with JOHN DOE 11’s
high school boyfriend.
131. Had the principal even attempted to interview the boyfriend about KELLY’s
actions, he would have learned that KELLY had also attempted to have sex with that student.
132. Had HOLLIDAY documented the concerns he had heard from 1993, from JOHN
DOE 7, from JOHN DOE 7’s mom, and from the student that KELLY cruised in the restroom, the
principal would have known that there had been a long and documented past of KELLY’s abuse.
133. But that did not happen. In fact, during transition meetings between HOLLIDAY
and his staff and that of the incoming principal, HOLLIDAY never disclosed his experience with
students and parents complaining about KELLY’s sexual misconduct.
134. During the spring of 2006, KELLY was then transferred from his teaching position
at Laney High School to IBECHS.
135. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore allege, that one of the reasons
KELLY accepted the transfer to IBECHS in 2006 was to hide concerns associated with a growing
number of complaints from parents and students regarding his misconduct at Laney.
136. However, once at IBECHS, KELLY’s position at IBECHS only provided him with
greater access to vulnerable male students.
137. Once at IBECHS, KELLY resumed cruising in the boys’ restroom and continued
to expose himself to students there.
34
138. When KELLY tried to expose himself to one student, the student declined to look
towards KELLY as the student knew from accounts of other students that KELLY was trying to
flash his penis to him.
139. Then, while on a field trip with KELLY, KELLY and the boy were riding an
elevator together when KELLY poked the boy in the boy’s buttocks as if KELLY had an erection.
140. At the time, the student did not go to the administration for fear that KELLY would
take it out on the boy’s grades and undermine his success at IBECHS. At the time, the student did
not go to the administration for fear that KELLY would take it out on the boy’s grades and
undermine his success at IBECHS. However, in 2010, just prior to graduation, the student was
asked about whether KELLY had done anything inappropriate or whether the student knew
anything about a “bat game.”
141. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the student was asked about KELLY’s
conduct because another student’s mother had reported the incident in the restroom and on the
elevator to administrators.
142. In addition, other students were called in to be interviewed, including but not
limited to JOHN DOE 2, who remembers being asked very confusing questions by the school
principal at IBECHS.
143. On the evening of his arrest, KELLY mentioned the investigation that was
performed by the principal at that time. The principal concluded the interviews of students, and
Kelly himself, and then discussed the information with staff in HOLLIDAY’s office about the
behavior she had investigated. Despite the information she was given, some of it confirming that
KELLY had attempted to play the “game” with the boy in the restroom and the elevator incident,
the principal did not report the conduct to law enforcement.
35
144. Based upon the questions she asked and the manner in which she asked them, some
students reported that they simply did not understand what information she was exactly trying to
obtain. Upon information and belief, the principal had no training in how to interview witnesses
in sexual assault cases nor how to investigate allegations of sexual assault by a teacher.
HOLLIDAY, in his position as Title IX coordinator, and as Assistant Superintendent, had not
provided such training to his principals. That all came later.
145. The principal’s investigation concluded with notes from the Program Director of
IBECHS, notes form another teacher close to KELLY, and summaries of her interviews with
multiple students and parents. The information was placed into an employee file17 which was kept
at IBECHS and remained available for future principals to review.
146. During KELLY’s sentencing, KELLY claimed, through his attorney, that he had
been cleared following an investigation of his behavior regarding that complaint.
147. Despite numerous complaints by parents, students and some staff over 25 years
within New Hanover County Schools, administrators acting on behalf of the NHCBOE overlooked
repeated allegations of misconduct by KELLY, and as a result, KELLY was neither disciplined
nor terminated from employment within the district, as he should have been. As a result of their
actions and failure to act, KELLY’s sexual misconduct was never reported to law enforcement so
that an investigation could be handled professionally and reasonably.
148. Through their knowledge of complaints regarding KELLY’s conduct toward
students over the years, and by not removing him from a position where he would have access to
young men, the Defendants not only failed the community, but they have failed parents of the
17
Employee files are distinct from an employee’s official personnel file maintained by the
Central Office of New Hanover County Schools.
36
students they serve and most importantly, they have failed the students they were obligated to
protect.
149. Through the Defendants’ negligence in investigating, retaining, supervising,
training KELLY and failing to report his sexual misconduct, these Defendants subjected young
men to KELLY’s wrongdoing.
150. Had these Defendants acted as reasonably prudent individuals and as reasonably
prudent administrators within the NHCBOE, they would have conducted an adequate investigation
into the allegations against KELLY.
151. Furthermore, given the number of complaints, and given the similarities about the
inappropriate conduct, repeated complaints should have caused even greater alarm among
administrators.
152. Presumably, such an investigation would have been reported to authorities, who
would have taken action like that which was ultimately taken in February 2018, resulting in
KELLY’s arrest. If such an investigation by Defendants had been undertaken, Defendant KELLY
would have been terminated from employment, an act which would have saved multiple students
from being victimized at the hands of a sexual predator.
153. Instead, the Defendants, their principals, their employees, agents, and/or
representatives permitted KELLY’s wrongful actions to go unchecked.
154. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer a lifetime of mental
anguish, emotional distress, shame, humiliation, mental pain and suffering, depression, post-
traumatic stress, loss of future earning capacity, self-mutilation, suicide attempts and the
destruction of healthy, loving relationships.
37
KELLY’S SEXUAL ABUSE AND EXPLOITATION OF MALE STUDENTS
155. KELLY’s actions are a textbook example of a child predator at work. KELLY
sought out opportunities to target his potential victims and to groom them whenever possible.
Although child predators often use fear, isolation, power and silence as tools to reduce potential
objections to their illicit sexual advances, the employment of “grooming” is perhaps the most
effective and deceptive tool they have. That involves gradually and methodically building trust
with a child – and even the adults around them – in order to gain increased access to their future
victims. And it can take many forms – by displaying favoritism toward victims, granting them
special privileges and/or assuming a “caring” role toward the child’s interests. Also, grooming
desensitizes potential victims to sexual behaviors and topics, “normalizing” what would otherwise
be aberrant sexual interactions between the predator and his prey.
156. Grooming provides predators, like it did KELLY, significant advantages, such as
reducing the likelihood of disclosure of the abuse, reducing the likelihood of the child of being
believed, reducing potential detection by others, and convincing the child to become a cooperative
participant. At each step in the process, the predator also uses his or her ability to charm and be
likeable; it is the most effective way to get a child to trust them, and also the easiest way for adults
to be unassuming at first, and possibly even support the molester during allegations.
157. In KELLY’s case, he almost always engaged his victims by positioning himself as
someone who his victims could confide in – even as a substitute parent. He made himself open to
any question, any discussion, and often steered those discussions to include sexualized topics, such
as sexual practices, penis sizes, and pornography, among other things. KELLY made his victims
feel special, paid them attention, rewarded them with praise, made them feel that they were among
his favorites and cloaked himself with self-accolades about “The Great Mike Kelly,” which was
38
supported by teaching abilities, his being named Teacher of the Year, of being liked by
administrators, and being “untouchable.” In fact, to some victims, KELLY made it known that he
was close to MARKLEY and HOLLIDAY, implying that he was ‘untouchable’ when it came to
complaints. And, indeed, HOLLIDAY served as a reference for KELLY’s Teacher of the Year
award in 2016.
KELLY’S ABUSE OF JOHN DOE 1
158. JOHN DOE 1 first met KELLY at a new student orientation at IBECHS in 2014.
Like with many of his other IBECHS victims, KELLY used the meeting to introduce himself to
both incoming students and their families. There, he could observe his potential victims and their
interactions with their families. KELLY was especially fond of boys who lived in single parent
homes, as well as those who had a lack of significant parental involvement in their lives, as they
were easiest for him to victimize.
159. After entering IBECHS in the fall of 2014 and continuing until 2017, JOHN DOE
1 attended classes at IBECHS and UNCW. KELLY served as JOHN DOE 1’s homeroom and
Chemistry teacher during his first two years there.
160. As part of the grooming of JOHN DOE 1, KELLY would frequently offer to answer
any personal questions the boy might have regarding JOHN DOE 1’s relationship with his then-
girlfriend. This included questions the student may have had regarding sex. By doing so, KELLY
wanted JOHN DOE 1 to believe that he could talk to KELLY about anything.
161. KELLY would often initiate conversations with JOHN DOE 1 individually as well
as with other students about pornography, porn stars and penis sizes. Sometimes, KELLY would
discuss the penis size of other students in JOHN DOE 1’s class with JOHN DOE 1. In class,
KELLY would often joke about sex with JOHN DOE 1 and other students, even to the point of
39
using “gutter language,” “secretive whispers,” and gestures. Indeed, KELLY often acted as if he
were a student more so than JOHN DOE 1’s teacher, preferring to call JOHN DOE 1 and other
students “friend.”
162. Over time, KELLY began to show JOHN DOE 1 images of KELLY’s penis as well
as that of other students that KELLY had taught, some current and some former. KELLY would
even flash JOHN DOE 1 his penis while in class as well as in a lounge area before school.
163. KELLY would also sexually harass JOHN DOE 1 in class. For example, KELLY
would sometimes position his crotch behind JOHN DOE 1’s head in class and so that when
KELLY would mention the boy’s name, and he would turn around to see KELLY, he would find
KELLY’s crotch at mouth level.
164. At 14 and 15 years of age, JOHN DOE 1 was incapable of recognizing that he was
being groomed by KELLY.
165. At IBECHS, KELLY made repeated use of the boy’s restroom, where he would
often stand in a urinal beside his male students. On occasion, KELLY followed JOHN DOE 1
into the restroom, stood beside him, took out his penis and touched JOHN DOE 1 on the back with
it.
166. KELLY also solicited JOHN DOE 1’s participation in making a gay pornographic
film, saying that JOHN DOE 1 could earn money for doing that. KELLY told the boy that he had
connections in the porn industry.
167. During this time, KELLY also described a “Halloween contest” that he had
participated in which involved a man dressing up his penis using an egg carton. KELLY related
that he put a moustache and cape on his penis and took photos of it to show to others. KELLY
40
said that he had played this game with other students and encouraged JOHN DOE 1 to join the
“game.”
168. All of these acts occurred while on the campus of IBECHS.
169. As a direct and proximate result of KELLY’s abuse, JOHN DOE 1 dropped out of
school in his third year of high school because he could no longer trust teachers and could not
avoid KELLY’s ongoing harassment.
170. As a direct and proximate result of KELLY’s misconduct and exploitation of JOHN
DOE 1, he suffers from severe anxiety related to the abuse. He has resulted to “cutting,” a practice
where individuals often use a razor or other sharp object to cut themselves in an effort to release
endorphins, known to make a person feel better about themselves. The practice can be life
threatening.
171. As a result of KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE 1, he also suffers
from persistent depression. JOHN DOE 1’s injuries and the emotional pain he suffers could have
been avoided had the Defendants fulfilled their duties toward him and the other students within
New Hanover County Schools.
172. As a direct and proximate result of NHCS’ failure to take action based upon earlier
allegations involving KELLY and their failure to prevent him from having such pervasive and
inappropriate contact with his students, JOHN DOE 1 was deeply traumatized by what happened
to him, has suffered great upset and injury and has sustained severe emotional distress, mental
anguish, mental injury, humiliation, embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily injury such that the
NHCBOE is liable to JOHN DOE 1 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
41
173. Like JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2 was a minor at the time he attended IBECHS.
174. Prior to applying to be accepted in the inaugural class at IBECHS, JOHN DOE 2
heard about the early college high school model and was intrigued about the exceptional
opportunities associated with the program, including the option of completing college-level
coursework for free during the last two years of high school.
175. Just like with JOHN DOE 1, KELLY introduced himself to JOHN DOE 2 at the
orientation for new students prior to the start of classes.
176. Once school started, KELLY would often ask JOHN DOE 2 about his family life,
including asking about the struggles the family faced. KELLY made JOHN DOE 2 believe that
he could trust KELLY with anything. KELLY drew close to the boy trying to present himself as
a type of ‘father figure’ to the student. And KELLY held himself out as someone who would not
judge JOHN DOE 2 for any of his actions.
177. As with all the other Plaintiffs and KELLY victims, KELLY frequently engaged in
inappropriate discussions about sex and penises with JOHN DOE 2. KELLY would openly talk
about sexual topics in class. For example, JOHN DOE 2 remembers a class discussion in which
KELLY proposed a hypothetical question – “Can oral sex get you pregnant?” and then KELLY
proceeded to discuss the digestive tract and the reproductive system, explaining that there was “no
connection” to performing oral sex and getting pregnant.
178. KELLY also discussed his personal grooming habits around his genitals and gave
tips to his male students on how to groom themselves. Initially, these discussions were limited to
just small groups of male students, but later, after he felt more comfortable and had groomed even
more students, KELLY expanded the discussions to include more students.
42
179. KELLY encouraged JOHN DOE 2 and others to talk openly about their sexual
habits and practices with him. When students asked questions about masturbation, KELLY would
tell them that he had been paid to perform masturbation in pornographic movies.
180. KELLY also exposed JOHN DOE 2 to pornographic images of penises, including
not only his own, but those of other former and current students.
181. KELLY suggested that JOHN DOE 2 and others watch the film “Waiting,” which
describes playing a “game” where males flashed their penises to one another in various forms.
Prior to KELLY, JOHN DOE 2 had never heard of the “game” or “Waiting.” Soon after
mentioning the movie though, KELLY began to play the “game” with some of his students,
including JOHN DOE 2.
182. To avoid detection and reduce the risk that students would tell, KELLY would
“thank” the students for “inviting him” to play “their game.” Blaming victims for initiating the
behavior that later leads to abuse or exploitation is a classic behavior of child predators. It is called
“gaslighting” and is used by abusers to confuse their victims. At the time of KELLY’s abuse and
exploitation of JOHN DOE 2, he could not recognize how KELLY was manipulating him and the
other students.
183. Over the four years that JOHN DOE 2 was at IBECHS, including his time in classes
at UNCW, KELLY played the “game” with JOHN DOE 2 in excess of 100 times.
184. Toward the end of JOHN DOE 2’s senior year at IBECHS, while he was taking
college courses at IBECHS, JOHN DOE 2 was asked by the principal of IBECHS whether
anything inappropriate had ever occurred at the school. The questions were “nebulous,” almost
confusing, and JOHN DOE 2 did not connect the dots that the questions were in connection to
allegations concerning KELLY’s misconduct.
43
185. As this was occurring, KELLY approached JOHN DOE 2 and told him something
to the effect that “[KELLY was] trusting [him] with this. If it gets out, it will ruin my career. I
wouldn’t be able to help anyone like I helped you.”
186. As a direct and proximate result of KELLY’s misconduct and exploitation of JOHN
DOE 2, he currently suffers from anxiety related to the abuse. He has also resulted to “cutting,”
and engages in self-destructive behavior, such as drinking, to deal with the anxiety. In addition,
JOHN DOE 2 is concerned and fearful that, if he were to ever have children of his own one day,
that he could never protect them from predators like KELLY.
187. Like with the other JOHN DOES, JOHN DOE 2’s injuries and the emotional pain
he suffers could have been avoided had the Defendants fulfilled their duties toward him and the
other students within New Hanover County Schools.
concerns involving KELLY and their failure to prevent him from having such pervasive and
189. JOHN DOE 3 was also a student who enrolled in IBECHS’ inaugural class from
2006 through 2010.
190. As with the other Plaintiffs, KELLY met JOHN DOE 3 prior to the start of classes
at the school’s orientation. From there, KELLY became familiar with JOHN DOE 3 and his family
life.
44
191. KELLY repeated much of his same predatory behavior with JOHN DOE 3 –
showing the boy his penis, which was sometimes erect, showing the boy pornographic images and
videos of KELLY’s penis as well as those of other students, and inviting JOHN DOE 3 to join in
playing the “game.” Sometimes, while playing in the “game,” KELLY touched the boy’s penis.
192. KELLY’s actions occurred both on the campus of IBECHS as well as on the
campus of UNCW, including in the classrooms, in the lab, in the locker room and in the gym.
193. On one occasion, while JOHN DOE 3 was helping KELLY clean up from lab,
KELLY disappeared down the hall to a common area within the UNCW building where the
Chemistry lab met. When JOHN DOE 3 went to look for him, JOHN DOE 3 discovered KELLY
leaning with his face against a wall, his pants pulled down, his buttocks facing the student and with
KELLY pulling his buttocks apart to reveal his anus.
194. KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE 3 continued through all four years
that the student was enrolled at IBECHS.
195. Like with the others, JOHN DOE 3’s injuries and the emotional pain could have
been avoided had the Defendants fulfilled their duties toward him and the other students within
New Hanover County Schools. Specifically, JOHN DOE 3 deals with anger, aggression,
frustration and feelings of betrayal associated with the abuse and exploitation perpetrated by
KELLY.
196. After leaving IBECHS, JOHN DOE 3 enrolled in other colleges, only to suffer
setbacks academically that were caused by trying to come to terms with KELLY’s abuse.
197. Further, as a direct and proximate cause of KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of
JOHN DOE 3 over the years, he engages in self-harm as a means of coping with the impact of the
abuse. In addition, he has recurrent dreams where he relives the abuse.
45
concerns involving KELLY and their failure to prevent him from having such pervasive contact
with his students, JOHN DOE 3 was deeply traumatized by what happened to him, has suffered
great upset and injury and has sustained severe emotional distress, mental anguish, mental injury,
humiliation, embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily injury such that the NHCBOE is liable to
JOHN DOE 3 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
199. JOHN DOE 4 was enrolled at IBECHS from 2014 through 2018.
200. Like many of KELLY’s other victims, JOHN DOE 4 first came to know KELLY
during the orientation held before the start of his first year at IBECHS.
201. Throughout his enrollment at IBECHS, KELLY often engaged in sexually
provocative and explicit conversations with JOHN DOE 4 which, among other things, included
vivid descriptions of Defendant KELLY’s sexual practices with his wife as well as discussions of
the size of his penis and that of JOHN DOE 4.
202. On multiple occasions and while teaching class, KELLY would display graphic
images of penises to certain male students in class. In addition, especially after standing up from
his desk, JOHN DOE 4 observed that KELLY made no effort to hide his erections that were visible
through his pants.
203. At some point in the first month of JOHN DOE 4’s freshman year, KELLY asked
for JOHN DOE 4’s cell phone number and immediately began texting with the student. KELLY
also told him about KELLY’s account on Snapchat, and the two began exchanging messages on
the platform. KELLY began sharing pictures and jokes with a strong sexual reference with JOHN
DOE 4.
46
204. Over the course of the years while JOHN DOE 4 was a student at IBECHS, KELLY
texted with the student frequently, before class, during school days, after school, on weekends and
during the summer. In some of those texts, KELLY made inappropriate references to various parts
of the boy’s body.
205. While JOHN DOE 4 did not accept KELLY’s advances, nonetheless KELLY did
not stop his continuous harassment and grooming of JOHN DOE 4. One day, KELLY sent JOHN
DOE 4 links to an adult porn website and told him that he should record a video of himself
masturbating and send the video to the website.
206. Knowing that the student lived in a single parent household, KELLY began efforts
to drive a wedge between JOHN DOE 4 and his parent by telling the student that his parent was
manipulative and a “helicopter.” This was very frustrating and confusing to the student who loved
and admired his parent. He just did not know that this was KELLY’s way of increasing efforts to
groom the young man.
207. As a direct and proximate cause of KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE
4, he suffers from anxiety, impulsivity, and is sometimes self-destructive. Although he does not
engage in cutting or abuse substances to treat his symptoms, he does engage in dangerous high-
risk activities that could be life-threatening.
concerns involving KELLY and their failure to prevent him from having such pervasive and
47
209. JOHN DOE 5 was a minor student when he was enrolled at IBECHS between 2010
and 2014.
210. KELLY served as JOHN DOE 5’s homeroom and science teacher for the 9th and
10th grades. Over the course of the young man’s first two years there, KELLY drew close to
JOHN DOE 5, to the point that the two of them often had lunch together. Sometimes, they would
be joined by other students, all of whom were favorites of KELLY.
211. Like with other Plaintiffs and Class Members, KELLY would discuss topics of a
sexual nature with JOHN DOE 5, including KELLY’s penis size as well as the sexual practices
that he and his wife enjoyed. He would also make comments about other students’ ethnicity as
well as comment about their bodies to JOHN DOE 5. Furthermore, KELLY made it a point to ask
questions of JOHN DOE 5 that were of an intimate nature.
212. In class, KELLY would attempt to normalize discussions of sexual topics with his
students by making homosexual references and incorporating homosexual references into the
subjects he was teaching. As a result, students became accustomed and normed to KELLY’s use
of sexualized topics in his teaching.
213. On one occasion in 2012, JOHN DOE 5 stayed behind in KELLY’s classroom at
the end of the school day while the buses were loading. KELLY initiated a sexually explicit
conversation with JOHN DOE 5, which resulted in KELLY asking the student to pull up a
pornographic video that KELLY wanted to see.
214. When the student attempted to pull the video up on his phone, KELLY stopped the
student and asked that he come over to KELLY’s desk, where his school computer was located,
and access the internet site that housed the video.
48
215. JOHN DOE 5 recalls that the school’s filter flagged the site for inappropriate
content and that a proxy window appeared blocking access to the site on KELLY’s computer.
KELLY then bypassed the filter and watched the video with the boy.
217. JOHN DOE 6 attended IBECHS from 2016 to 2020.
218. KELLY instantly was drawn to JOHN DOE 6 and invited him to be part of a group
of male students who would dress up in suits and ties and wear them to school to demonstrate their
“excellence.” KELLY would often tell the group that “guys have to stick together,” and he
discouraged the group from getting close to any female teachers.
219. KELLY was highly regarded at IBECHS, which was evident by the way everyone,
including administrators, treated him.
220. Privately, KELLY encouraged the boys in his group to be open with discussing
subjects that they could not talk about with other adults.
221. KELLY would spend time with JOHN DOE 6 both individually and in his small
group. This included having the boy visit him before class and during lunch as well as having
JOHN DOE 6 join him and others, including occasionally his wife, for dinner. KELLY also
offered the boy rides – sometimes to school, sometimes home from school, and even to work.
49
These are all signs that someone, especially a teacher, may be attempting to groom students for
sexual abuse. However, because New Hanover County Schools did not offer adequate training in
how to identify grooming for its administrators, staff or even students, KELLY’s behavior
KELLY’s behavior went undetected.
222. KELLY also invited the boy to join his group on Snapchat. KELLY often would
exchange photos of his own penis as well as those of other former and current students with
members of his group. KELLY used the Snapchat group as a way also of receiving photos and
videos from his students of their penises.
223. As the year progressed, KELLY would tease and even dare his students to send
more pictures. At times, KELLY would even send the group messages during early morning hours
(e.g., 2 a.m.) offering them $50 if they would perform in a pornography video for him.
224. During the school day, KELLY often flashed students his penis while in the boys’
restroom, as well as sometimes during class itself, while other students were distracted by their
work.
225. When the 2016-2017 school year ended, while the student was still a minor, and
just 15 years old, KELLY asked JOHN DOE 6 to allow him to perform oral sex on JOHN DOE 6
while being filmed. KELLY had keys to various buildings on UNCW’s campus and told JOHN
DOE 6 that they could film the act in a building where not many others would be around.
226. The plan involved KELLY and the student going into a men’s restroom, where
KELLY would perform oral sex on the boy in a bathroom stall. KELLY offered to pay the child
$50 in exchange for his participation and for filming the session with a camera given to him by
KELLY.
50
227. To conceal his identity, KELLY wore a toboggan during the filming, which was to
continue until the boy reached orgasm.
228. Following the incident, KELLY sat on a couch outside the restroom with JOHN
DOE 6 and watched the video. However, KELLY was not pleased with the quality of the video
and told JOHN DOE 6 that they would need to repeat it another time.
229. JOHN DOE 6 wanted to leave and go to his next appointment for the day, but
KELLY insisted on going to another building, where he also had keys, and trying again. There,
KELLY repeated the scene. Afterwards, JOHN DOE 6 remembers that an administrator came by
the area and ran into KELLY, who then proceeded to have a conversation with him while JOHN
DOE 6 was waiting in the classroom.
230. Upon information and belief, KELLY is believed to have later shown the video to
others, including not only students, but also other gentlemen, without JOHN DOE 6’s consent or
knowledge.
6, he suffers from PTSD, major depressive disorder and severe anxiety that is accompanied by
panic attacks. These conditions interfere with JOHN DOE 6’s health and his ability to develop
meaningful social relationships with others.
concerns involving KELLY and their failure to prevent him from having such pervasive,
inappropriate and criminal contact with his students, JOHN DOE 6 was deeply traumatized by
what happened to him, has suffered great upset and injury and has sustained severe emotional
distress, mental anguish, mental injury, humiliation, embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily
injury such that the NHCBOE is liable to JOHN DOE 6 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
51
233. JOHN DOE 7 was a minor student enrolled from roughly 2000 to 2004 at Laney
High School, where KELLY served as his Chemistry and AP Chemistry teacher.
234. As with other Plaintiffs, KELLY engaged in inappropriate discussions about sex
with JOHN DOE 7 on multiple occasions.
235. In addition, on numerous occasions, beginning in approximately 2001 and
continuing through 2003 or 2004, KELLY inappropriately exposed his genitals to JOHN DOE 7
and showed him pornographic images and video of KELLY’s own penis as well as those of others.
236. KELLY also took a personal interest in JOHN DOE 7 and, beginning in or about
JOHN DOE 7’s sophomore year, KELLY would take JOHN DOE 7 to the local YMCA, where
the two would work out and then meet in the sauna.
237. The first time this occurred, JOHN DOE 7 wore a pair of “board shorts” into the
sauna. KELLY proceeded to mock JOHN DOE 7 for wearing for wearing shorts and told him to
take them off to sit in the sauna with him.
238. As other men would enter and exit the sauna, some clothed in bathing suits and
others in towels, KELLY would make comments to JOHN DOE 7 making fun of those men –
saying it was not how men sat in the sauna.
239. On occasion, KELLY would touch himself while in the sauna as if he were
masturbating.
52
242. JOHN DOE 8 was a minor student enrolled in IBECHS from 2008 through 2009.
243. Like other Plaintiffs, JOHN DOE 8 met KELLY at an orientation session prior to
starting classes at IBECHS.
244. During his time at IBEHCS, KELLY often talked about religion. JOHN DOE 8,
however, was not religious, and was questioning his own sexuality at the time. KELLY knew this.
When KELLY was teaching, and when no one was looking, KELLY would go over to JOHN DOE
8 and whisper harassing and nasty comments in the student’s ear about his sexuality.
245. Like many of the other victims he preyed upon, KELLY also cruised the young
man in the boys’ restroom at IBECHS. KELLY was even so bold as to grope the boy’s penis and
body while the boy was at the urinal. This also carried over to similar events in other buildings at
UNCW.
246. KELLY engaged in inappropriate discussions about sex with JOHN DOE 8 on
multiple occasions. Beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2009, KELLY exposed his genitals
to JOHN DOE 8 and showed him pornographic images and video of KELLY’s own penis as well
as those of other students.
53
247. Around that time, KELLY learned that JOHN DOE 8 had been in a relationship
with someone outside of IBECHS. KELLY became afraid that JOHN DOE 8 and perhaps another
student had been discussing whether KELLY, himself, might be gay. One day, KELLY pulled
JOHN DOE 8 out of class, took him outside of the modular building that he was in on IBECHS’
campus, pushed him up against the wall, and accused him of spreading rumors that he was gay.
248. JOHN DOE 8 tried to discuss that incident with his teachers. In particular, one
teacher he approached told him that he could not have a conversation with JOHN DOE 8 about it,
and instead, suggested that JOHN DOE 8 become a “good person.”
249. Following the abuse and exploitation that year from KELLY, JOHN DOE 8 felt
that he could no longer attend IBECHS and withdrew, even despite knowing that he would giving
up the two years of free college courses that came with IBECHS enrollment.
8, he suffers from severe PTSD and anxiety, among other things. Like some of the other Plaintiffs
and Class Members, JOHN DOE 8 has participated in cutting on various occasions to alleviate
the pain he feels from the abuse and exploitation by KELLY. All of these conditions interfere
with JOHN DOE 8’s physical and mental health his ability to develop meaningful social
relationships with others.
54
252. JOHN DOE 9 was a minor student enrolled in Laney High School from 2002
through 2006. He would have attended Laney at the same time that JOHN DOE 7 was there and
just after the point that JOHN DOE 7 and his mom had made known their concerns about KELLY’s
conduct to HOLLIDAY.
253. Throughout his high school years, KELLY treated JOHN DOE 9 as if he were a
friend, and KELLY stepped into the role of being a mentor for the student.
254. Once in that role, KELLY had repeated discussions about sex with JOHN DOE 9.
Some of these discussions involved conversations about KELLY’s extramarital affairs and
KELLY’s sex life.
255. KELLY also introduced JOHN DOE 9 to the “game” and encouraged JOHN DOE
9 to expose his penis to KELLY along with other students. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 9 recounts that
this was a frequent occurrence, possibly occurring some 100+ times during the four years he was
a Laney High School student.
256. On three separate occasions, JOHN DOE 9 was seen or caught by teachers at Laney
High School while JOHN DOE 9 was exposing his penis to KELLY. Yet, none of those teachers
addressed those incidents with him, nor was he ever spoken to by any administrator at Laney High
School about them.
257. After graduating high school, KELLY kept in touch with JOHN DOE 9 and invited
him to continue playing the game individually with him via Snapchat. KELLY would use
Snapchat to send JOHN DOE 9 pictures of his own penis.
258. At the time of KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 9
was already coping with depression. However, as a direct and proximate result of KELLY’s abuse
55
and exploitation, JOHN DOE 9’s depression worsened. During high school and college, JOHN
DOE 9 attempted suicide on multiple occasions, all connected to the problems he was experiencing
in his personal relationships.
259. KELLY’s actions toward JOHN DOE 9 caused severe depression, feelings of
worthlessness, hopelessness and feeling of failure in JOHN DOE 9. He has major depressive
disorder, PTSD, and suffers from other debilitating conditions related to his abuse at the hands of
KELLY. These conditions interfere with JOHN DOE 9’s health and his ability to develop
261. JOHN DOE 10 was a minor student enrolled in IBECHS from 2010 through 2014.
262. As with other Plaintiffs, KELLY engaged in inappropriate discussions about sex
with JOHN DOE 10 on multiple occasions. One of these discussions included KELLY telling the
boy that KELLY had made porn and used porn while he was in college. KELLY told the boy that
he had found the video one night of him having sex with a woman of Asian descent. KELLY
subsequently brought the video in and showed it to JOHN DOE 10 at school. KELLY even told
JOHN DOE 10 that he paid his son’s automobile insurance by performing in porn videos of
KELLY masturbating for the camera.
56
263. One day, during school, both JOHN DOE 10 and KELLY were in the boy’s
restroom with both standing beside each other at the urinals. After KELLY finished, he went to
wash his hands. When JOHN DOE 10 finished, and turned around, KELLY’s penis was still
outside of his pants at the sink.
264. KELLY continued to expose himself to JOHN DOE 10 in various locations,
including the restroom, the classroom and the kitchen at IBECHS.
265. During a science class that JOHN DOE 10 was attending, KELLY sat down and
placed a book on his lap at his desk. When JOHN DOE 10 went to ask KELLY a question, KELLY
lifted the book so that JOHN DOE 10 could see his exposed penis.
266. In addition, on numerous occasions, beginning in approximately 2011 and
continuing through 2014, KELLY also showed JOHN DOE 10 pornographic images and video of
other students’ penises.
267. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 10 recounts that this was a frequent occurrence, possibly
occurring in excess of 50 times during the four years he was an IBECHS student, which also
includes the two years he studied at UNCW.
10, he will need future psychotherapy to detect and treat the emotional harm that KELLY has
caused him.
57
270. JOHN DOE 11 attended Laney High School between the years of 2004 and 2007.
271. During the summer of 2005, JOHN DOE 11 was assigned to complete a number of
“service hours” at the school. While at the school, KELLY introduced himself to the boy. When
JOHN DOE 11 finished his assignment but still had a number of hours to fulfill, KELLY offered
the student an opportunity to help him set up and prepare for the lab for his chemistry classes.
272. As KELLY’s relationship with JOHN DOE 11 developed, KELLY often talked to
him about JOHN DOE 11’s relationships, including his sexual practices. KELLY likewise
described his practices with his wife and other men.
273. Over the coming year, the two continued to draw closer together and continued
their discussions about relationships, sex and porn. KELLY would ask JOHN DOE 11 about how
often he would masturbate and what sexual positions he enjoyed with his sexual partners. KELLY
spent a considerable amount of time with JOHN DOE 11.
274. On occasion, KELLY would put gay porn on school computers and watch it with
JOHN DOE 11. KELLY told JOHN DOE 11 about an acquaintance he had in the gay porn
business and related to him the details of an affair he was having with another man, who KELLY
eventually introduced to JOHN DOE 11.
275. Over time, KELLY became more sexually aggressive, and KELLY started touching
JOHN DOE 11, to the point that KELLY would grope JOHN DOE 11’s buttocks and genitals, as
well as repeatedly put his arm around JOHN DOE 11.
58
276. KELLY bragged about his sexual conquests, including other students at Laney,
mentioning some of them by name. KELLY bragged about his sexual conquests, , including other
students at Laney, mentioning some of them by name. On a few occasions, KELLY described
certain markings that individual students had on their genitals. While changing in the boy’s locker
room, JOHN DOE 11 would see those students as they were changing and could see that KELLY
had accurately described the respective markings.
277. JOHN DOE 11 thus assumed that KELLY was aware of these markings because
KELLY had seen the students’ penises. Realizing that KELLY had been involved with other
students, JOHN DOE 11 asked KELLY if he was concerned about getting caught. However,
KELLY would tell JOHN DOE 11 that he would never get caught and that because he was active
and a large part of his church, no one would ever believe them.
278. As time went on, KELLY told JOHN DOE 11 that he was attracted to even younger
boys. JOHN DOE 11 felt increasing pressure by KELLY to have sex with him, as KELLY now
began to speak in terms of specific sex acts he would perform on JOHN DOE 11 and would allow
JOHN DOE 11 to perform on him. These included not only oral sex, but anal sex.
279. During this time, KELLY sought to involve JOHN DOE 11 in his family life,
including asking JOHN DOE 11 to babysit KELLY’s son.
280. During this time, JOHN DOE 11 was also enrolled in KELLY’s Chemistry class at
Laney. As the topics grew more advanced over the year, JOHN DOE 11 began to struggle with
the class, and KELLY became more critical of the young man’s grades.
281. One day, KELLY took JOHN DOE 11 to a nearby Burger King. While there,
KELLY took his foot and began rubbing it on JOHN DOE 11’s leg. KELLY then moved his foot
so that he could rub it on the boy’s genitals.
59
282. On another occasion, while in KELLY’s vehicle, KELLY touched and kissed the
student on his mouth. Eventually, frustrated by KELLY’s continued sexual assaults, JOHN DOE
11 kneed him in the groin one day. However, KELLY would make note of the student’s suffering
academic performance and told JOHN DOE 11 that it would be best if the young man would
consider sleeping with KELLY.
283. Shortly after that, KELLY proposed taking JOHN DOE 11 to a science fair out of
town. He told JOHN DOE 11 that they could have dinner together and then would sleep in the
same room, in the same bed and could have sex. However, in order for JOHN DOE 11 to get
permission to go on the trip, KELLY provided JOHN DOE 11 with a fake permission slip for
JOHN DOE 11’s mother to sign.
284. When JOHN DOE 11’s mother reviewed the permission slip, she became
suspicious that her son was being taken out of town by a teacher alone and reached out to the front
office at Laney to ask if the trip was legitimate. Afterwards, someone in the front office at Laney
contacted JOHN DOE 11’s mother and asked her to come to the school for a meeting with the
principal.
285. During that meeting, JOHN DOE 11’s mother discussed her concerns with the
principal and KELLY. Despite her concerns, the mother and JOHN DOE 11 were asked to leave
the office. To JOHN DOE 11 and his mother’s knowledge, nothing was ever done officially to
KELLY.
286. The next day, JOHN DOE 11 was removed from KELLY’s class, and he was
reassigned to a new teacher. At some point following that incident, KELLY told JOHN DOE 11
that he and his mom had ruined him, that they had cost him his job and his marriage. He told
JOHN DOE 11 that he had retained the services of an attorney and was considering suing the
60
family for defamation of character and would seek some $500,000 in damages. KELLY told
JOHN DOE 11 that he was forced to resign from Laney following that incident.
287. None of this was true. The student did not know that KELLY was “gaslighting”
him, attempting to shifts blame to his victim.
288. In 2007, JOHN DOE 11 tried to return to school, but found the trauma that he had
suffered at the hands of KELLY and the emotional stress of the situation, forced him to withdraw
from school.
meaningful relationships with others.
inappropriate and illegal contact with his students, JOHN DOE 11 was deeply traumatized by what
happened to him, has suffered great upset and injury and has sustained severe emotional distress,
mental anguish, mental injury, humiliation, embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily injury such
that the NHCBOE is liable to JOHN DOE 11 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
291. JOHN DOE 12 was a minor student enrolled at IBECHS and was a student of
KELLY’s from approximately 2015 to the time of his arrest in 2018.
292. As he did with the other Plaintiffs and Class Members, KELLY introduced himself
to JOHN DOE 12 at orientation prior to the start of classes at IBECHS.
61
293. KELLY served as an instructor in two of JOHN DOE 12’s classes. Often, KELLY
would invite JOHN DOE 12 to come to his class early, prior to the start of classes and hang out
with him.
294. Even after JOHN DOE 12 moved to UNCW to take courses in his junior year, he
would still visit with KELLY at IBECHS.
295. KELLY invited JOHN DOE 12 to become part of his Snapchat group, and soon,
KELLY began to engage JOHN DOE 12 in inappropriate discussions about sex, which also
included his sexual practices.
296. KELLY also invited JOHN DOE 12 to play the “game” with him and others.
297. KELLY would also talk about sex while using the boys’ restroom at the same time
as JOHN DOE 12.
298. On one occasion, KELLY showed a video that he had received from another student
at IBECHS. KELLY told JOHN DOE 12 that the student felt insecure about the size of his penis,
and KELLY wanted JOHN DOE 12 to tell him whether JOHN DOE 12 felt the student should be
insecure.
12, he suffers from PTSD with dissociation. This interferes with JOHN DOE 12’s health and his
ability to develop meaningful relationships with others.
with his students, JOHN DOE 12 was traumatized by what happened to him, has suffered great
upset and injury and has sustained emotional distress, mental anguish, mental injury, humiliation,
62
embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily injury such that the NHCBOE is liable to JOHN DOE
12 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
301. JOHN DOE 13 was a minor student enrolled at IBECHS from 2009 through
approximately 2011 who was enrolled in KELLY’s science classes at the school.
302. Similar to the other Plaintiffs, KELLY met JOHN DOE 13 at the orientation to
IBECHS prior to the start of classes.
303. Once classes began, KELLY almost immediately engaged in inappropriate
discussions about sex with JOHN DOE 13. Initially, KELLY began with jokes about sexual topics
during classroom lectures and discussions. From there, KELLY began to have individual
conversations with JOHN DOE 13 which contained a wide variety of sexualized topics.
304. Within a matter of months, KELLY had introduced JOHN DOE 13 to the “game”
and had convinced JOHN DOE 3 to participate. At the beginning, KELLY shared multiple images
of penises belonging to other men with JOHN DOE 13. These images included images that JOHN
DOE 13 believes included the penises of porn actors as well as image of other KELLY students.
305. Then, KELLY showed JOHN DOE 13 images of KELLY’s penis.
306. At one point, KELLY asked JOHN DOE 13 to send a sex video of himself and his
girlfriend at the time for KELLY’S viewing. KELLY later viewed that video in a hotel room with
another adult male, who was a friend of KELLY’s and his wife.
307. KELLY also included other students in the “game” with JOHN DOE 13 and would
often flash the boy in his classroom and in other school buildings at UNCW.
308. KELLY also showed JOHN DOE 13 other pornographic images and films to JOHN
DOE 13 using KELLY’s school computer. As he did with others, KELLY also taught JOHN
63
DOE 13 how to bypass the school’s website filters to access prohibited sites. The method included
utilizing a disk drive or other storage device, inserting it into the computer, and directing the
computer to boot from the new device.
309. KELLY also began to give rides to and from school to JOHN DOE 13, a fact that
was known to administration. Specifically, JOHN DOE 13 remembers the principal of the school
told KELLY in 2009 or 2010 to stop giving rides to JOHN DOE 13. Despite being told not to do
so, KELLY continued to offer the boy rides, dropping him off before arriving at the IBECHS
campus. At no point did anyone from the school ask JOHN DOE 13 about whether KELLY had,
in fact, stopped offering or giving the boy rides.
310. During this time, KELLY became aware that the boy had no other transportation to
and from school. KELLY would often drive the child to/from school, and then KELLY would
lure the child to his home under false pretenses. While inside, KELLY would offer to show the
boy pornography to encourage the child to masturbate alongside him.
311. KELLY increased his efforts to solicit sexual contact with the boy, pressuring the
boy to give in to KELLY’s advances. Over the course of the boy’s freshman and sophomore years,
and even continuing into his junior year, KELLY would create circumstances where KELLY could
masturbate in front of the boy. JOHN DOE 13 estimates this happened in excess of 100 times
during these years. While some of this conduct occurred in KELLY’s house or in his car, it also
occurred in KELLY’s classroom at IBECHS, the Chemistry lab classroom at UNCW and other
locations on UNCW’s campus.
312. On one occasion, KELLY had as many as three students helping him to set up and
to break down the Chemistry lab at UNCW, which he taught on Fridays. There, while no other
students were around, KELLY began to play the “game” with the three young gentlemen. As they
64
continued exposing themselves, KELLY became erect and then started to masturbate and
encourage the young men to join him.
313. To prevent the three boys from disclosing KELLY’s inappropriate and illegal
activities to others, KELLY developed what he referred to as a “circle of trust” – a system where
KELLY banned the boys from inquiring into KELLY’S activities with each other. KELLY then
proceeded to target these students individually to avoid detection and complaint by the others and
from adults.
314. As KELLY became more acquainted with JOHN DOE 13 and understood his
family’s dynamics, KELLY used the family’s situation to draw even closer to the boy. KELLY
understood that the boy saw his opportunity to attend IBECHS and earn college credits as a means
of achieving the dream of completing his college degree and finding a lucrative career. JOHN
DOE 13 felt incredible pressure to do well at IBECHS and to not burden his family with his
concerns about KELLY.
315. Once KELLY had become close to JOHN DOE 13 and after KELLY understood
that the boy had no support network that could have detected him, KELLY offered to provide
tutoring and academic support for the boy in exchange for KELLY performing oral sex on JOHN
DOE 13. KELLY also began to supply the young man with alcohol to help ease the boy’s nerves
and to induce the child into allowing KELLY to perform any number of deviant sexual acts. On
one occasion, KELLY provided JOHN DOE 13 with an alcoholic drink spiked with a drug that
rendered JOHN DOE 13 physically unable to resist KELLY’s sexual advances. As a result of
being involuntarily intoxicated, JOHN DOE 13 could not defend himself, and KELLY then raped
the student.
65
316. Following that incident, KELLY continued to put pressure on JOHN DOE 13 to
have sex with him, making sure JOHN DOE 13 understood it was clear that if he wanted to succeed
at IBECHS, he would have to allow KELLY to have sexual relations with him.
317. Over several occasions, KELLY repeated the same conduct with JOHN DOE 13,
intentionally supplying him with alcohol and substances that would render the boy defenseless, so
that KELLY could have anal intercourse with the boy.
318. At various times during JOHN DOE 13’s enrollment at IBECHS, KELLY also
included other adults in his sexual abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE 13.
319. In or around the spring of 2010, after being told by the principal to stop offering
rides to JOHN DOE 13, that same principal casually asked JOHN DOE 13 whether anything
inappropriate had ever occurred at the school. At the time, JOHN DOE 13 knew that the mother
of another child had come forward with concerns about KELLY, but JOHN DOE 13 did not
understand that the questions being asked of him related to KELLY. In fact, the student had been
the subject of another male teacher’s physical assaults at IBECHS. Not only were the questions
put to JOHN DOE 13 vague, and without any specific reference, the administrator asked the boy
her questions with her door open, while he was standing in the door within earshot of the
receptionist and others in the hallway.
320. As a direct and proximate result of KELLY’s abuse and exploitation of JOHN DOE
13, he suffers significant debilitating physical and psychological injuries. KELLY’s repeated
attempts and pressure to force JOHN DOE 13 into having sex with him, JOHN DOE 13’s teacher,
took a significant toll on JOHN 13, both physically and emotionally. This interferes with JOHN
DOE 13’s health and his ability to develop meaningful relationships with others.
66
with his students, JOHN DOE 13 was traumatized by what happened to him, has suffered great
upset and injury and has sustained emotional distress, mental anguish, mental injury, humiliation,
embarrassment, shock, fright, and bodily injury such that the NHCBOE is liable to JOHN DOE
13 for the injuries and harm suffered by him.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
322. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
pursuant to Rule 23 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure as representatives of a Class
defined as follows:
All students enrolled at Laney High School or IBECHS within New

Hanover County Schools between August 15, 1996 and February 7, 2018:
a) with whom or on whom KELLY performed a sexual act; b) to whom
KELLY showed or sent pornographic images (including videos and
pictures) in person or via electronic means; c) to whom KELLY exposed
his genitals in person or via electronic means; d) in the presence of whom
KELLY masturbated; e) whom KELLY forced, caused, or encouraged to
engage in masturbation in KELLY’s or another’s presence or to make
and/or send images (including videos and pictures) of such masturbation to
others; f) whom KELLY forced, caused, or encouraged to expose their
genitals to him or others in person or via electronic means; g) whom
KELLY videotaped or forced, caused, or encouraged to videotape any
sexual activity; h) whom KELLY touched in a sexual manner, including,
but not limited to, touching students with his genitals and touching the
students’ genitals or buttocks; and i) whom KELLY otherwise sexually
harassed by engaging in a pattern of inappropriate verbal or physical
behavior, or repeatedly exposed to offensive sexual materials, comments,
or things, or repeatedly subjected to sexual conduct, innuendo and
advances.
323. Defendants are excluded from the Class as well as any entity in which Defendants
have a controlling interest, along with Defendants’ legal representatives, officers, directors,
assignees and successors. Also excluded from the Class is any judge to whom this action is
67
assigned, together with any relative of such judge, and the spouse and children of any such persons,
and the members of the judge’s staff and their children.
324. The Class consists of dozens of persons who are fearful, reluctant and hesitant to
participate as a named plaintiff, making joinder impracticable. The exact size of the Class and the
identities of the individual members are ascertainable through notice to all students who attended
IBECHS and Laney High School during the relevant time period.
325. The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the Class. The claims of Plaintiffs and the
Class are based on the same legal theories and arise from the same unlawful pattern of sexual abuse
of minor students by the same teacher.
326. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the Class.
The interests of the Plaintiffs are not antagonistic to the Class.
327. The common claims of Plaintiffs and the Class predominate over any questions that
may affect only individual class members. Class treatment of common issues will materially
advance the litigation.
328. Common questions of fact and law affecting members of the Class include, but are
not limited to, the following:
a. Whether Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to
protect their health and safety;
b. Whether Defendants breached their duties to Plaintiffs and Class Members;
c. Whether KELLY engaged in assault and battery, invasion of privacy, and
negligent infliction of emotional distress;
68
d. Whether KELLY’s assault and battery, invasion of privacy, or negligent
infliction of emotional distress were committed within the scope of his
employment with New Hanover County Schools;
e. Whether Defendant NHCBOE, or anyone within New Hanover County
Schools, including but not limited to MARKLEY and HOLLIDAY, had
knowledge of KELLY’s assault and battery, invasion of privacy, negligent
infliction of emotional distress, predatory behavior, sexual abuse, or
exploitation of minor students;
f. Whether Defendant NHCBOE, or anyone within New Hanover County
Schools, including MARKLEY and HOLLIDAY, facilitated KELLY’s
pattern of predatory behavior and sexual abuse of minor students, assault
and battery, and invasion of privacy;
g. Whether anyone’s conduct within New Hanover County Schools directly,
or indirectly, suppressed complaints or reports of KELLY’s conduct;
h. Whether NHCBOE or anyone within New Hanover County Schools acted
negligently in employing, retaining, supervising, investigating, or of ailing
to report or failing to report KELLY;
i. Whether NHCBOE or anyone within New Hanover County Schools acted
negligently in supervising HOLLIDAY;
j. Whether NHCBOE or anyone within New Hanover County Schools
negligently trained its employees, agents, and/or representatives in how to
recognize, report, and prevent sexual abuse of students by teachers;
k. Whether NHCBOE or anyone within New Hanover County Schools
69
breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs and the Class;
l. Whether HOLLIDAY was negligent per se in failing to report allegations
of sexual misconduct, abuse and exploitation, thereby causing the harm
complained of herein;
m. Whether NHCBOE or anyone within New Hanover County Schools,
including MARKLEY and HOLLIDAY, ratified KELLY’s conduct; and
n. Whether NHCBOE is responsible for any of other Defendants’ or other
responsible employees’ conduct under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
329. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are experienced and competent in the
prosecution of complex class action litigation.
330. Class action treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of
the controversy in that, among other things, such treatment will permit a large number of similarly
situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently,
and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions
would engender. The benefits of proceeding through the class mechanism, including providing
injured persons with a method for obtaining redress for claims that might not be practicable for
them to pursue individually, substantially outweigh any difficulties that may arise in the
management of this class action.
331. Class action treatment will also allow for the establishment of a common fund for
the Plaintiffs and the Class and will allow Class members who are too fearful, reluctant or hesitant
to participate as named plaintiffs to receive compensation from a common fund.
70
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Negligence and Gross Negligence, including Negligent and Grossly Negligent
Employment, Hiring, Investigation, Supervision, Retention, and Reporting)
Against All Defendants
332. The allegations contained in all of the foregoing paragraphs are realleged and are
incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
333. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant NHCBOE employed Defendants KELLY,
HOLLIDAY and MARKLEY.
334. Defendant NHCBOE had duties, by and through its authorized agents, servants,
employees, officers and/or directors, including among them Defendants HOLLIDAY and
MARKLEY, to:
a. Refrain from conduct exhibiting a reckless or intentional disregard for the
safety of others, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class;
b. Exhibit the highest level of care for the students’ education, safety, and
wellbeing, including a duty to supervise KELLY and to be aware of his
activities with minor students;
c. Protect their minor students and to provide a safe educational environment
for the students;
d. Disclose KELLY’s predatory behavior toward his students to parents,
students and law enforcement;
e. Not only protect boys who had already been abused by KELLY, but to do
everything within their power, and as a part of their duties and
responsibilities, to protect future victims or potential victims from
KELLY’s sexual predator activities;
f. Report KELLY’s abuses to authorities and to take action against him;
71
g. Ensure that KELLY, as the Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ assigned
teacher, used his trusted position consistent with the standards of care
appropriate for New Hanover County teachers and ensure that KELLY did
not abuse and harass students;
h. Use due care to ensure Plaintiffs’ and Class Members’ safety and freedom
from sexual assault, harassment, abuse, and molestation while students
interacted with NHCS’ employees, agents and/or representatives, including
Defendant KELLY;
i. Ensure that the chief compliance officer or coordinator required by Title IX
possessed adequate knowledge, education, experience, skills, and
competency to ensure compliance with Title IX mandates. Many of those
requirements and much of the knowledge that would be required by anyone
fulfilling that role would also be applicable to fulfilling existing common
law obligations of the senior leadership within the district, particularly as it
relates to policies and procedures relating to allegations of sexual
harassment by a teacher against a student and the supervision of
investigations by school principals and enforcement of school policies.
Despite this, however, at the time Defendant HOLLIDAY was assigned to
the responsibilities of serving as the district’s Title IX compliance officer
or coordinator, he lacked the requisite knowledge, education, experience,
skills, and competency to conduct even basic investigations of alleged
wrongdoing by teachers; and
j. Fulfill other duties to be discovered and proven at trial.
72
335. Defendant NHCBOE, by and through its authorized agents, servants, employees,
officers and/or directors, including among them Defendants HOLLIDAY and MARKLEY,
breached their duties, described above, in that they, among other things:
a. Knew or reasonably should have known that KELLY was unfit and a high-
risk child predator who posed a particular risk of sexually abusing and
exploiting minor students;
b. Knew or reasonably should have known of allegations of KELLY’s
previous incidences of sexual misconduct with minor students occurring on
and off school campus;
c. Knew or reasonably should have known that by retaining and transferring
KELLY to IBECHS rather than terminating him, Defendants were putting
the education, safety, and mental health of the minor children at IBECHS
and Laney High School whose care and education Defendants are entrusted
with at risk;
d. Ignored the information they did have regarding multiple reports of
KELLY’s sexually predatory behavior against minor students;
e. Failed to undertake reasonable investigations to uncover additional
information that was reasonably available to them;
f. Allowed KELLY to continue his position as a teacher within the New
Hanover County Schools with authority over minor students and with
complete autonomy even though they knew or should have known that
KELLY was a dangerous child predator that was sexually assaulting his
minor students, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class;
73
g. Failed to restrict KELLY’s access to students in any manner;
h. Allowed KELLY to meet with students after hours, which facilitated his
sexual assaults of minor students, including Plaintiffs;
i. Failed to terminate KELLY after receiving multiple complaints concerning
KELLY sexually assaulting minor students;
j. Failed to report the information they possessed to the proper authorities;
k. Failed to warn the minor students under their care, including Plaintiffs and
the putative Class, or their parents, that KELLY was a dangerous child
predator that enjoyed unfettered access to the minor students;
l. Failed to adequately warn and train their students in how to spot grooming
by a predator and inform them of the resources that were available to them
to report suspected abuse and/or exploitation;
m. Perpetuated an image of KELLY as an upstanding citizen and teacher that
was worthy of the utmost level of respect and praise, such as by naming him
Teacher of the Year, which in turn allowed KELLY even more unfettered
access to students; and
n. Other items that demonstrate a negligent or reckless disregard for Plaintiffs’
safety and education as will be shown at trial.
336. Defendants’ negligence in employing, investigating, supervising, retaining, and
failing to report KELLY to authorities was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiffs and
the putative Class.
337. Subsequent to Defendant KELLY’s interactions with the Plaintiffs, Defendants
NHCBOE, HOLLIDAY, and MARKLEY were further negligent by not showing adequate care or
74
concern for Plaintiffs, breaching their duty of continuing care of each Plaintiff while in the NHCS’
system, by permitting bullying and/or by not having adequate policies, procedures, and
safeguards in place to protect Plaintiffs who have been injured or damaged by molestation or
improper conduct of a sexual nature by a teacher; and in other particulars to be adduced through
further investigation, discovery, and/or at trial all of which led to the Plaintiffs’ injuries and
damages proximately caused by said negligence.
338. Furthermore, despite concerns and allegations of misconduct being made to NHCS
administrators, Defendants failed to address the violations of NHCS policies and procedures in a
manner that was reckless and grossly negligent. Specifically, Defendant HOLLIDAY, when
confronted by such concerns and allegations, did nothing further to investigate or take corrective
action against KELLY.
339. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiffs and
other Class Members suffered and continue to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, PTSD,
depression, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress including
embarrassment, anxiety, panic attacks, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation, self-mutilation,
suicidal ideation and attempted suicide, and loss of enjoyment of life; have suffered and continue
to suffer and were prevented and will continue to be prevented from performing daily activities
and obtaining the full enjoyment of life; will sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity, and/or
have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy
and counseling.
340. Plaintiffs and the putative Class are entitled to recover damages in excess of
$25,000 from Defendants as follows, including, but not limited to:
75
a. Any and all expenses for past and future care and treatment incident to
Plaintiffs’ injuries;
b. Compensation for the pain, suffering, and mental anguish of Plaintiffs; and
c. Compensation for future lost earning capacity, among other relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Supervision)
Against Defendants NHCBOE and MARKLEY
342. Defendants NHCBOE and MARKLEY had duties to supervise Defendant
HOLLIDAY in the performance of his duties and responsibilities as the Deputy Superintendent
and in his role as the Title IX Coordinator for the New Hanover County Schools.
343. These duties included, among other things, the obligation to ensure that Defendant
HOLLIDAY was following NHCBOE rules, policies and procedures, as well as state and federal
law with respect to investigating and reporting incidences of sexual assault and misconduct
occurring inside of New Hanover County Schools.
344. In addition, Defendant MARKLEY had a duty to ensure that Defendant was
managing the investigation of complaints in a reasonable manner and ensuring that resolution of
those complaints was communicated to both MARKLEY and the NHCBOE.
345. These duties exist for the purpose of protecting students from harm and preventing
sexual assaults.
346. Defendants NHCBOE and MARKLEY breached their duties to the Plaintiffs and
Class members in that, among other things, they:
76
a. Knew or reasonably should have known that HOLLIDAY was incompetent,
unfit, and repeatedly failed in his obligations to report KELLY’s sexual
misconduct;
b. Knew or reasonably should have known of multiple allegations of
KELLY’s previous incidences of sexual misconduct with minor students
occurring on and off school campus;
c. Knew or reasonably should have known that HOLLIDAY was putting the
education, safety, and mental health of the minor children at IBECHS and
Laney High School whose care and education Defendants are entrusted with
at risk when he failed to report incidences of KELLY’s sexual misconduct
to law enforcement;
d. Knew or reasonably should have known that HOLLIDAY ignored multiple
reports of KELLY’s sexually predatory and exploitive behavior against
minor students;
e. Knew or reasonably should have known that HOLLIDAY failed to report
the sexual misconduct of KELLY to law enforcement;
f. Knew or reasonably should have known that HOLLIDAY failed to warn the
minor students under the district’s care, including Plaintiffs and the putative
Class, or their parents that KELLY was a dangerous child predator who
enjoyed unfettered access to the minor students; and
g. In other ways that demonstrate a negligent disregard for supervisory
obligations that are necessary to ensure Plaintiffs’ safety and education as
will be shown at trial.
77
347. Defendants’ negligence in supervising HOLLIDAY was a substantial factor in
Plaintiffs’ injuries as well as those of the Class.
and counseling.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Failure to Train)
Against All Defendants Except KELLY
351. Defendants owed Plaintiffs and the Class duties to take reasonable measures to
provide and maintain a safe, respectful, and secure learning environment for its students, free from
78
the risk of sexual abuse by KELLY, by properly training its employees, agents, and/or
representatives, including its Title IX Coordinator, in how to recognize, report, and prevent sexual
abuse of students by teachers.
352. Defendants breached these duties in that they did not properly train their employees,
agents, and/or representatives, including its Title IX Coordinator, in how to recognize, report, and
prevent sexual abuse of students by teachers.
and counseling.
79
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
356. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that Defendants, at all
relevant times, through their written policies and procedures and their acts and omissions, fostered
a special relationship between teachers and students at IBECHS and Laney.
357. Defendants, by and through their agents, officers, directors, and school board
members, held themselves out to be counselors and authority figures to IBECHS and Laney
students, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
358. In addition, Defendant NHCBOE acting through the New Hanover County Schools
stood in loco parentis of the students at IBECHS and Laney such that the Defendants and their
authorized agents, servants, employees, officers and/or directors were to protect students with
respect to allegations of sexual misconduct by Defendant KELLY.
359. Plaintiffs and the putative Class justifiably placed great reliance and trust in the
New Hanover County Schools, especially in Defendants KELLY and HOLLIDAY.
360. Defendants fostered and encouraged such special relationships between teachers
and students within New Hanover County Schools, including the relationship between KELLY,
the Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
361. For example, Defendants fostered special relationships between KELLY and his
students when:
a. In 2016, New Hanover County Schools named KELLY Teacher of the
Year;
80
b. Defendants allowed KELLY to meet with students after school hours both
on and off campus;
c. Defendants allowed KELLY to take students off school grounds, such as to
the campus of UNC-Wilmington;
d. Defendants allowed KELLY to provide his personal cellular phone number
to students; and
e. And, in other ways to be discovered and proven at trial.
362. Plaintiffs and the putative Class reposed a special confidence in Defendants, and
Defendants, in equity and good conscious were bound to act with due consideration for the interests
of Plaintiff and the putative Class.
363. As a result of the above, a fiduciary relationship was created between Defendants
NHCBOE, through the New Hanover County Schools, and Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
364. Defendants breached their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs and the putative Class by
engaging in and/or allowing the sexual abuse as described herein.
and counseling.
81
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Assault and Battery)
Against Defendant KELLY
368. KELLY intentionally committed acts of unwanted physical contact and/or caused
imminent apprehension of such acts against Plaintiffs and putative Class members, including by
placing his genitals on and against the students’ bodies, touching student’s penises while in the
boys’ restroom and other locations, groping their genitalia or buttocks, kissing them, and/or
causing an imminent apprehension that such contacts would occur.
369. Further, based upon both their actual and constructive knowledge, Defendants
HOLLIDAY, MARKLEY and NHCBOE and their authorized agents, servants, employees,
officers and/or directors knew or should have known to a substantial certainty that allowing
KELLY to remain in the classroom, where he had continuous access to students without warning
students of KELLY’s behavior and without taking precautions, would lead to KELLY sexually
assaulting and battering his students. KELLY’s offensive actions as alleged herein, were thus
foreseeable to Defendant NHCBOE.
82
370. The physical contact that KELLY used was both harmful and offensive, and
unlawful, meaning that the students did not consent to the contact.
371. Further, such contact would be offensive to a reasonable person.
372. Additionally, KELLY carried out this predatory behavior as an employee, agent,
and/or representative of New Hanover County Schools and in the course and scope of his
employment. Defendant NHCBOE is therefore vicariously liable for Defendant’s actions under
the doctrine of respondeat superior.
and counseling.
83
375. These acts and omissions, among others, and the improper conduct by KELLY
were accompanied by a reckless, wanton, and conscious disregard and indifference to the rights
and safety of others, including Plaintiffs and the putative Class, who were all minors at the time,
all of which KELLY knew or should have known were reasonably likely to result in injury, damage
or other harm. Thus, as a result of these aggravating factors, Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to
receive an award of punitive damages from KELLY.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress)
377. Defendants’ conduct negligently inflicted severe emotional distress upon Plaintiffs
and the Class.
378. Defendants could reasonably foresee that their actions related to KELLY’s
misconduct, sexual abuse and exploitation of his male students and/or their failing to investigate,
report, document, or prevent sexual abuse of students would cause severe emotional distress to
Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
379. KELLY and HOLLIDAY each carried out their conduct as alleged herein as
employees, agents, and/or representatives of the New Hanover County Schools and in the course
and scope of their employment with Defendant NHCBOE. Thus, Defendant NHCBOE is
vicariously liable for these actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
84
and counseling.
a. Any and all expenses for the care and treatment incident to Plaintiffs’
injuries;
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Invasion of Privacy)
383. Defendant KELLY intentionally preyed on the minds and bodies of minor students
with whose care he was entrusted as described herein. As part of that abuse, KELLY would solicit
and obtain private and personal photographs of the Plaintiffs and other Class Members from
students themselves. Oftentimes, these photos would be of various parts of the bodies or contain
nude images. KELLY would then publish these images to others, including both current and
former students, as well as other gentlemen with whom KELLY maintained relationships outside
of IBECHS and Laney.
85
384. In addition, KELLY also solicited and obtained video clips of the same subject
matter and would also show and publish these images to students and other men.
385. KELLY did not have the consent of the Plaintiffs or any of the Class Members to
distribute private photos or videos of a personal nature of them to anyone. KELLY thus intruded
upon the solitude and seclusion of the Plaintiffs and Class Members in a manner that would be
highly offensive to a reasonable person.
386. On some occasions, KELLY even showed these photographs and videos that he
had to other male students during class and would comment about them. KELLY would also ask
Plaintiffs and other Class Members what they thought about the particular image.
387. KELLY published these images without the knowledge or authorization of the
Plaintiffs and putative Class Members and in violation of their rights to privacy.
388. Defendant KELLY carried out this predatory behavior as an employee, agent,
and/or representative of New Hanover County Schools and in the course and scope of his
employment with Defendant NHCBOE. Thus, Defendant NHCBOE is vicariously liable for
KELLY’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
86
and counseling.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Ratification)
392. KELLY was an agent and employee of Defendant NHCBOE in New Hanover
County Schools between 1992 and 2018.
393. KELLY was acting at all times on behalf of Defendant NHCBOE as a teacher
within New Hanover County Schools.
394. All acts or omissions alleged herein were ratified by HOLLIDAY, MARKLEY and
NHCBOE. As alleged herein, employees, officers and administrators had been informed of or had
reason to know that KELLY was or was continuing to sexually abuse minor students and refused
to take any action to stop him. Further, HOLLIDAY hid the information he was entrusted with,
possessed, or that was given to him so that KELLY could continue his employment with New
Hanover County Schools.
87
395. With knowledge of KELLY’s sexual abuse of minor students, no disciplinary
action was taken; KELLY was allowed continued unfettered access to children and was even
named Teacher of the Year in 2016.
and counseling.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Negligence Per Se – Violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-288(g)]
88
399. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-288(g) sets forth the reporting requirements that principals
and supervisors have when they gain knowledge that a sexual assault, sexual offense, or indecent
liberties with a minor has occurred on school property. According to that statute, the principal and
supervisor must report the information to law enforcement and notify the superintendent of such.
400. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-288(g) imposes a duty to report in order to promote the
safety of others; therefore, it is a safety statute.
401. At all times between 1988 and 1996, Defendant HOLLIDAY was employed by
Defendant NHCBOE as an assistant principal at Laney High School, where Defendant KELLY
was employed. During 1993, HOLLIDAY served in that capacity alongside two other assistant
principals. It is also during 1993 that a student in KELLY’s Chemistry class complained of
KELLY’s discussing his sexual practices with his wife during class and was sent to the front office
to speak with an assistant principal.
402. By the time that HOLLIDAY returned to Laney High School from another
assignment following the 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 school years, he served as Principal of Laney
High School until 2004. During this time, he received, at a minimum, four separate sets of
allegations from students as to inappropriate touching by Defendant KELLY as well as the
showing pornographic images and inappropriate sexual contact with students. These allegations
concerned conduct falling within the above law such that HOLLIDAY had a statutory duty as the
principal of Laney High School to notify law enforcement.
403. Despite these reports, upon information and belief, Defendant HOLLIDAY did not
report such actions to law enforcement, nor did Defendant HOLLIDAY undertake any discipline
of Defendant KELLY.
89
404. In addition, the principals at Laney High School in 2006 and the principal at
IBECHS in 2010 had constructive knowledge of allegations which should have given rise to an
investigation, and to coordination with senior leadership at the Central Office and law
enforcement.
405. Defendant HOLLIDAY and these principals thus had constructive knowledge of
sexual assault, sexual offense, or indecent liberties with a minor occurring on school property and
failed to report the same to law enforcement. Therefore, HOLLIDAY and these principals were
negligent as a matter of law.
406. These violations of the statute in failing to report KELLY’s sexual abuse and
indecent liberties with minors was the proximate cause of allowing KELLY’s predatory behavior
to continue and to perpetrate the same sexual abuse upon Plaintiffs and the putative Class.
407. Defendant KELLY carried out this predatory behavior as an employee, agent,
and/or representative of the New Hanover County Schools and in the course and scope of his
employment with the NHCBOE during normal school hours and using school property. As such,
Defendant NHCBOE is vicariously liable for KELLY’s actions under the doctrine of respondeat
superior.
408. Defendant HOLLIDAY and these principals carried out this predatory behavior as
an employee, agent, and/or representative of the New Hanover County Schools and in the course
and scope of their employment with NHCBOE during normal school hours and using school
property. As such, Defendant NHCBOE is vicariously liable for Defendant HOLLIDAY and
these principals’ actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior.
90
and counseling.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray unto the Court:
1. Certify the Class, name Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class, and appoint their
attorneys as Class Counsel;
2. Enter judgment against Defendants in favor of the Class for a sum in excess of
Twenty-Five Thousand and no/100 Dollars ($25,000.00), jointly and severally;
3. For a trial by jury on all issues so triable;
4. Punitive damages as allowed by law against Defendant KELLY;
5. That the costs, including expert witness fees, of this action be taxed against
Defendants;
91
6. Pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest;
7. For reasonable attorneys’ fees as allowed by law; and
8. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
This the _____ day of May, 2021. RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
___________________________
Joel R. Rhine
North Carolina State Bar No. 16028
Email: [email protected]
Martin A. Ramey
Janet R. Coleman
Ruth A. Sheehan
1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Tel: (910) 772-9960
Fax: (910) 772-9062
THE LEA/SCHULTZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
___________________________
James W. Lea
Ryan B. Schultz
Mary Charles Amerson
1612 Military Cutoff Road, Suite 300
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
92
Tel: (910) 239-5990
Fax: (910) 239-5992
Attorneys for All Plaintiffs and Class

Members
David A. Creech
DAVID CREECH LAW FIRM, PLLC
516 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28401
James L. Henson
CHRISTINA RIVENBARK &
ASSOCIATES
4009 Oleander Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
Co-counsel for Plaintiff John Doe 6
93

Third Amended Complaint - John Does v. Kelly, NHCS, Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Amended Complaint - John Does v. Kelly, NHCS, Et Al

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Third Amended Complaint - John Does v. Kelly, NHCS, Et Al

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

JOHN DOES 1 to 13, inclusive, all )

discovery, state and allege the following facts:

about memories of a respected administrator, who unbeknownst to most, admitted to a sexual

County Board of Education intends to do about it.

pattern must stop.

Government Accountability Office study, a teacher-predator can have as many as 73 victims.4

more likely to experience Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”), depression, behavioral

abuse alcohol and other substances.6

more likely to abuse drugs.8

physical health outcomes including an increased risk of developing a Conversion Disorder,

Borderline Personality Disorder, anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychosis, self-harm, eating

disorders, pain, fibromyalgia, adult sexual revictimization, somatoform disorders, suicide

and a host of other co-morbidities.15

already destroyed lives – including the lives of their loved ones.

THE PARTIES PLAINTIFF

residents and citizens of New Hanover County.

Plaintiff School Years Attended

John Doe 1 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2014-2017

John Doe 2 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2006-2010

John Doe 4 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2014-2018

John Doe 5 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2010-2014

John Doe 6 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2016-2020

John Doe 7 E.A. Laney High School 2000-2004

John Doe 8 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2008-2009

John Doe 9 E.A. Laney High School 2002-2006

John Doe 10 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2010-2014

John Doe 11 E.A. Laney High School 2004-2007

John Doe 12 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2015-2019

John Doe 13 Isaac Bear Early College High School 2009-2011

KELLY’s science classes and/or to similarly interact with him.

4. At the present time, Plaintiffs JOHN DOES 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 remain residents

and citizens of New Hanover County, North Carolina.

6. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 7 is currently a resident and citizen of Boulder County,

8. Plaintiff JOHN DOE 10 is currently a resident and citizen of Fairfax County,

chilling effect on the participation of the putative class in this proceeding.

THE PARTIES DEFENDANT

12. Defendant THE NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

employer for Defendant KELLY, Defendant JAMES RICKIE “RICK” HOLLIDAY

(“HOLLIDAY”), and Defendant TIMOTHY SCOTT MARKLEY (“MARKLEY”).

Hanover County, North Carolina.

serving a sentence of up to 31 years for crimes he committed as described herein. According to

resident of New Hanover County, North Carolina.

a. On or about July 1, 1982, Defendant HOLLIDAY began his career with

b. In July of 1988, Defendant HOLLIDAY was promoted to Assistant

c. In 1996, Defendant HOLLIDAY became the principal of Williston Middle

where he supervised Defendant KELLY.

d. In July of 2004, HOLLIDAY assumed the title of Executive Director of

Institutional Services for New Hanover County Schools.

e. In 2007, HOLLIDAY became the Assistant Superintendent of Student

served as Deputy Superintendent.

18. In his position as Deputy Superintendent, HOLLIDAY was part of the

“administration” of New Hanover County Schools, along with Defendant MARKLEY.

19. Defendant HOLLIDAY is sued in his former official capacity.

Hanover County, North Carolina.

taken indecent liberties with students, among other crimes.

22. Defendant MARKLEY is also sued in his former official capacity.