I wonder if there was a settlement conference that didn’t go so well.

I read this item….

Suit alleges illegal destruction of state e-mails

By Jo Mannies

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

01/09/2008

…The suit includes allegations about a meeting convened last summer by Blunt’s general counsel at the time, Henry Herschel. At the meeting, the suit contends, Herschel told lawyers for all departments under the governor that e-mails about state business “would not have to be turned over in response to Sunshine Law requests if they were destroyed and not retained.”

The suit also contends that Blunt’s chief of staff at the time, Ed Martin, ordered all staff members to make sure they were deleting e-mails. Martin and other top Blunt aides also are accused of orchestrating the destruction of the state’s computer backup system for such e-mails.

…then found this:

0816-CV00118 – SCOTT ECKERSLEY V MATTHEW ROY BLUNT ET AL

I called the office of the filing attorney in Springfield, but he was out. Then I contacted a few other sources and found out that the lawsuit was on file at the Jackson County Court Annex in Independence. I decided to drive there to get a copy.

When I arrived at the Courthouse I found the civil records office and handed the clerk the case number. I described the case, then she smiled and said, “You could have just asked for it by name, we have copies ready right here.” Evidently they were selling like hotcakes.

The entirety of the filing is worse than the impression one gets from the limited news reports. In my effort to get this posted in a timely manner I’ve deferred my own commentary.  

The text of the filing follows (pagination has been removed):

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE

0816-CV00118

Case No.

——–

DIVISION 02

FILED-CIRCUIT COURT

JACKSON CO, MO – IN

2008. JAN – 9 PM 12:57

SCOTT ECKERSLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW ROY BLUNT,

Service by Federal Express to:

General Counsel, Lowell Pearson Room 216

State Capitol Building Jefferson City, M065102

and

EDWARD R. MARTIN, JR.

Service by Federal Express to:

General Counsel, Lowell Pearson Room 216

State Capitol Building Jefferson City, M065102

and

HENRY T. HERSCHEL,

Service by Federal Express to:

General Counsel, Lowell Pearson Room 216

State Capitol Building Jefferson City, M065102

and

RICHARD AUBUCHON,

Service by Federal Express to:

General Counsel, Lowell Pearson Room 216

State Capitol Building Jefferson City, M065102

and

RICHARD CHRISMER,

Service by Federal Express to:

General Counsel, Lowell Pearson Room 216

State Capitol Building Jefferson City, M065102

Defendants.

PETITION FOR DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF

COME NOW Plaintiff Scott Eckersley, by and through his attorneys, and for his causes of action against Defendants, and each of them, alleges and states as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Scott Eckersley is a former governmental employee, having served the Governor of the State of Missouri initially as a Special Policy Advisor and then as Deputy General Counsel. Scott Eckersley is a resident of Boone County,

Missouri.

2. Defendant Matthew Roy Blunt is the duly elected and currently serving Governor of the State of Missouri and either expressly authorized, participated in, controlled, planned and/or subsequently ratified all of the unlawful acts of his agents and employees, the remaining defendants in this action. Defendant Blunt is a resident of Greene County, Missouri and is sued in his official capacity and/or individually.

3. Defendant Edward R. Martin, Jr. is the former Chief of Staff to Defendant Blunt. At all time relevant to this petition, Defendant Martin was acting in his capacity as the Chief of Staff to Defendant Blunt and, in that capacity, Defendant Martin orchestrated, planned, controlled, carried out, authorized, participated in, and/or ratified the unlawful acts set out in this petition. Defendant Martin is a resident of the City of St. Louis, Missouri and is sued in his official capacity and/or individually.

4. Defendant Henry 1. Herschel is the former General Counsel to Defendant Blunt. Defendant Herschel orchestrated, planned, controlled, carried out, participated in, authorized and/or ratified the unlawful acts set out in this petition. Defendant Herschel is a resident of Cole County, Missouri and is sued in his official capacity and/or individually.

5. Defendant Richard Aubuchon is the Acting Commissioner of Administration and former General Counsel of the Office of Administration of Missouri (“OA”). OA serves as the administrative office for the Governor of the State of Missouri and specifically for Defendant Blunt. In that regard OA provides Defendant Blunt and his staff, including Defendants Blunt, Martin, Herschel and Chrismer, with computer and email services and is responsible for the maintenance of computer and email systems and services and the retention of emails and other computer-based communications for the period of time required by the Sunshine Law, Chapter 610 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, and document retention policies of the Secretary of State of Missouri and/or specific policies followed by the Governor’s Office. Defendant Aubuchon orchestrated, planned, controlled, carried out, participated in, authorized and/or ratified the unlawful acts set out in this petition. Defendant Aubuchon is a resident of Cole County, Missouri and is sued in his official capacity and/or individually.

6. Defendant Richard Chrismer is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications to Defendant Blunt. Defendant Chrismer orchestrated, planned, controlled, carried out, participated in, authorized and/or ratified the unlawful acts set out in this petition. Defendant Chrismer is a resident of Boone County Missouri, and is sued in his official capacity and/or individually.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

7. This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to Article V of the Missouri Constitution.

8. Venue is proper in this court because Plaintiff Eckersley was first injured by defendants’ publication of defamatory material in Jackson County, Missouri.

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL COUNTS

9. Defendant Blunt, acting through his agents, hired Plaintiff Scott Eckersley to serve as a Special Policy Advisor to Defendant Blunt on or about February 1, 2006.

10. As a Special Policy Advisor to Defendant Blunt, Plaintiff reported directly to Defendant Martin and performed special assignments for Defendant Martin.

11. Defendant Martin assigned Plaintiff Eckersley responsibility for determining who was at fault for a $56 million error in the State of Missouri’s official interpretation of the minimum wage law in March, 2007.

12. Defendant Martin directed that Plaintiff Eckersley recommend whom the Governor’s Office should fire as a result of the error.

13. Plaintiff Eckersley identified the responsible party as the Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations.

14. Defendant Martin expressed a reluctance to fire the Director for political reasons.

15. Martin instead substituted the general counsel of the Department, a fifteen-year employee of the Department, because she had served under Governor Bob Holden, a Democrat, and her husband worked for Attorney General Nixon, also a Democrat and a likely opponent of Defendant Blunt in the 2008 election for governor.

16. As a result of Plaintiff Eckersley’s work in discovering the error in the minimum wage interpretation, Defendant Blunt, and or his agents or employees acting with his authority, promoted Plaintiff Eckersley to the position of Deputy General Counsel.

17. As a Deputy General Counsel Plaintiff Eckersley’s duties were such that he often worked 12 to 14 hours per day, sometimes returning to work only two to three hours after leaving.

18. Because of his long hours, Plaintiff Eckersley had his private email account forwarded to his state computer to review in off hours.

19. In his new job, Plaintiff Eckersley reported by organization chart directly to Defendant Herschel and in actual practice reported directly to both Defendants Herschel and Martin.

20. Plaintiff Eckersley also on occasion was called upon to provide information or work directly to Defendant Blunt. On such occasions, defendant Blunt expressed praise and positive feedback to Eckersley for his work and effort.

21. Plaintiff Eckersley also continued to receive praise and positive feedback for his work and effort in his new position from others in the Governor’s office.

22. Defendant Martin expressed gratitude for and pleasure with Plaintiff Eckersley’s work both orally and in writing consistently.

23. As late as two to three weeks prior to Plaintiff Eckersley’s termination as an employee of the Governor, Defendant Martin frequently praised Eckerlsey’s work, once commenting he was capable of performing the duties of a General Counsel.

24. As part of his responsibilities as a Deputy General Counsel, Plaintiff Eckersley was assigned, among his many duties, to provide recommendations concerning the application of the Sunshine Law to matters involving the Office of the Governor.

25. Defendant Martin identified Eckersley to the staff of the Office of the Governor as the person in charge of Sunshine Law requests.

26. When a Sunshine Law request came to the Office of the Governor, Plaintiff would write a responsive letter to the person requesting the information indicating that the request had been received and that it would require some time for the Office of the Governor to determine whether there were any documents that met the request.

27. Plaintiff Eckersley would then circulate a memorandum to the staff of the Office of the Governor indicating the nature of the request and seeking responsive documents.

28. If responsive documents were discovered, Plaintiff Eckersley would review them to determine whether an exemption to the Sunshine Law would possibly prevent disclosure to the requester.

29. Plaintiff Eckersley would then inform the requester by letter that the documents were either being produced or notify the requester that some such documents were potentially exempt from Sunshine Law disclosure.

30. In July, 2007, Jill Lahue, the General Counsel of the Department of Public Safety COPS”), contacted Plaintiff Eckersley and informed him that Defendant Chrismer had sent several controversial emails to the Highway Patrol and DPS regarding the Taum Sauk dam rupture investigation.

31. LaHue reported that the emails had been “sunshined” and would produce a

negative story.

32. After the emails were produced, the Kansas City Star ran a negative story based upon the content of the emails.

33. At the direction of Defendant Martin, Defendant Herschel called a meeting of all department general counsels in August, 2007 to discuss the potential fallout that was expected from the Chrismer emails.

34. At the meeting, Defendant Herschel stated that they could not be caught with their pants down again.

35. At this meeting, there was no dispute or question that such email were public records under the Sunshine Law.

36. Instead, in order to avoid negative press, Defendant Herschel instructed the general counsels that email would not have to be turned over in response to Sunshine Law requests if they were destroyed and not retained.

37. Defendant Herschel therefore instructed the assembled general counsels that all email should be deleted to ensure they did not have to provide such damaging evidence to the news media or the public in the future.

38. At the time the instruction to delete email was given, there were outstanding requests under the Sunshine law, and such deletion of email was in the manner of evidentiary spoliation.

39. Several attendees of the meeting protested that email was a public record which was preserved on back up whether or not the individual user deleted the item.

40. Defendant Herschel did not respond to or address these concerns, and closed the meeting confirming his direction to delete emails and deny Sunshine requests based on this deletion.

41. On or around this same time Defendant Martin instructed those in the Governor’s office to make sure they deleted their email in both the inbox and the trash files to ensure they did not have to be turned over to the press or the public in response to Sunshine requests.

42. Defendant Martin for several weeks continued to emphasize the need to delete all such email in order to deny Sunshine requests for such information.

43. Defendant Martin also instructed Defendant Herschel to emphasize this same need to destroy email communications.

44. Defendant Martin also requested the Office of General Counsel follow up to ensure that all such emails were destroyed and/or deleted with the intent to withhold such documents from the press and public.

45. Defendants, and each of them, also discussed the benefit of sending sensitive or potentially damaging communications via Blackberry text message on the belief that such text messages were not retained and would not have to be turned over to the press or the public.

46. On or about September 3, 2007, Tony Messenger, an editorial writer for the Springfield News Leader, made a specific request for emails sent from the Office of the Governor by Defendant Martin to political supporters of the Governor and/or persons who had expressed a pro-life abortion position.

47. The requested email records related to Martin seeking support for the Governor’s attempt to remove Attorney General Nixon as the attorney representing the State of Missouri in litigation challenging recently passed legislation affecting access to abortions.

48. According to the usual practice, Plaintiff Eckersley considered the request and sent a letter indicating to Mr. Messenger that he was investigating the request.

49. Plaintiff Eckersley met with Defendant Martin in regard to the Sunshine request filed by Messenger seeking to identify what responsive material existed.

50. Before Eckersley could identify what was being sought, Martin told him he had already deleted everything.

51. When Eckersley persisted in identifying what was being sought under the Sunshine Law, Martin laughed and told him Defendant Chrismer was the person in the Governor’s office who had those emails.

52. Despite having identified the individual who had the material being sought, Defendant Martin instructed Eckersley to terminate the investigation and inform Mr. Messenger that no such material was available.

53. Upon receipt of Plaintiff Eckersley’s letter, Mr. Messenger cited Plaintiff Eckersley’s letter and chastised Defendant Martin for failing to produce the email, as Mr. Messenger had obtained a copy of one such email from another source already.

54. As the person responsible for Sunshine Law requests, Eckersley began additional research and gathered material to provide to Defendants to show how the Sunshine Law and the record retention policies treated email communications.

55. Eckersley also contacted the Secretary of State’s office regarding record retention policies and procedures.

56. Plaintiff Eckersley thereafter informed Defendants Martin, Chrismer and/or Herschel that emails were stored for a period of several years after deletion by the individual user and were available even if deleted by that user.

57. On information and belief, Defendants Blunt, Martin, Aubuchon, Chrismer and/or Herschel ordered that these back-up email computer tapes be destroyed.

58. Plaintiff Eckersley also informed Defendants Martin, Chrismer and/or Herschel that the public email policy adopted by then Secretary of State Matthew Roy Blunt made emails available under the Sunshine Law.

59. Eckersley also provided defendant Herschel with a copy of the Governor’s office policy on record retention.

60. Plaintiff Eckersley continued to advise and insist that several of the Defendants were misinforming the press, and that the practice being enforced violated the Sunshine Law.

61. Because of his attempts to ensure the accurate and proper application of the Sunshine Law, Defendant Martin ordered that Plaintiff Eckersley not be assigned to the matter any longer.

62. Defendants Martin, Herschel and/or Chrismer told Eckersley not to send out anything further to anyone regarding the offices duties for the Sunshine law.

63. Plaintiff Eckersley finalized his draft of a memorandum setting out his understanding of the law and suggesting a way to deal with the press.

64. Because of his advice regarding the Sunshine Law and its application to email and electronic documents, Defendants took additional action against Eckersley, including but not limited to:

a. Defendant Chrismer specifically told Herschel to instruct Eckersley not to send anything in writing related to obligations under the Sunshine law or record retention policies of the Governor’s office.

b. By email, Defendant Martin directed Defendant Chrismer to direct Defendant Herschel to stop allowing Plaintiff Eckersley to review any Sunshine Law request.

65. On or around this time, Defendant Blunt responded to a Sf. Louis Post-Dispatch inquiry about emails saying that the Governor’s Office had no email policy.

66. Plaintiff Eckersley thereafter laid a copy of the policy, which Plaintiff Eckersley had highlighted, on Defendant Herschel’s chair, indicating that Defendant Blunt had misinformed the media.

67. Rather than correct the error, Defendant Herschel decided to respond to all press inquiries on the email matter with a “no comment” response.

68. After the misstatement regarding the Governor’s Office’s policy on record retention of email, Eckersley again informed Martin, Herschel, Chrismer and other officials within the administration that the information provided to the Governor on this matter was incorrect.

69. On Friday, September 21, 2007 Herschel became agitated and berated Eckersley for speaking to a political contact which defendant Martin had instructed Eckersley to deal with.

70. Based upon his knowledge of the following ongoing issues, Plaintiff Eckersley sought assurances about his job from Martin:

a. The pattern and practice of the Office of the Governor to find a person to fire in the event of negative publicity, ostensibly to give the appearance that mistakes would not be tolerated in the administration and that the error was not the fault of the Governor or his staff;

b. Eckersley being ignored and/or retaliated against for his stance on email and electronic documents under the Sunshine Law and the Governor’s Office policy; and

c. The growing media attention related to the email issue.

71. Defendant Martin assured Plaintiff Eckersley that everything would be fine.

72. On Saturday, September 22, 2007, Defendant Martin again assured Plaintiff Eckersley that things could be worked out via two text messages.

73. On Sunday, September 23, 2007, Eckersley attempted to access his email and learned that he had been locked out of his state computer.

74. On Monday, September 24, 2007 between 6:45 to 7:00 A.M. Deputy Chief of Staff Chuck Pryor called Plaintiff Eckersley and informed him not to report to work until Defendant Martin returned from his vacation on the following Wednesday.

75. Eckersley again contacted Defendant Martin who confirmed that it would all be worked out on Wednesday.

76. Eckersley attempted to work from home, and discovered that his state computer access continued to be frozen.

77. Eckersly contacted Defendant Martin yet again, who once again confirmed that it would all be worked out on Wednesday.

78. On Wednesday, September 26, 2007, Defendant Martin met with Eckersley and in a profanity-laced tirade questioned Plaintiff Eckersley’s loyalty to Defendant Blunt.

79. Martin also questioned whether Eckersley was dating anyone in the office.

80. Martin then accused Eckersley of participating in illegal drug use.

81. Defendant Martin based his alleged drug use questioning on an email from Plaintiff Eckersley to Deputy Chief of Staff John Russell suggesting that they go smoke pipes after a particularly hard day. The reference to tobacco pipes was a joke to Russell who had considered purchasing a tobacco pipe.

82. Defendant Martin conducted no investigation of alleged drug use of Mr. Eckersley or of the Governor’s Deputy Chief of Staff to whom the comment was made.

83. Eckersley advised Martin the drug use allegation was ridiculous, and offered to immediately go with Martin and be tested to confirm he had not used drugs.

84. Ignoring the offer to prove no such drug use had occurred, Martin instead accused Plaintiff Eckersley of accessing group sex websites on his state computer.

85. Eckersley offered Martin open access to confirm that he had done no such thing.

86. After being berated for some time the meeting concluded with Martin instructing Eckersley to come back on Friday, September 28.

87. Eckersley left the meeting, hoping that Martin would calm down and be able to discuss the matter in a professional and adult manner on Friday.

88. On Friday, September 28,2007 Eckersley again met with Martin.

89. Martin continued his pattern of erupting in angry cursing and accusing Eckersley of accessing group sex websites from his office computer.

90. After another extended profanity laced tirade, Martin informed Eckersley he was being fired for allegedly accessing group sex sites on his state computer, and for doing work for his family.

91. Defendant Martin placed these reasons for the termination of Plaintiff Eckersley in a letter addressed to Plaintiff Eckersley.

92. Defendant Martin based his group sex reason for termination on an email that had been forwarded to Plaintiff Eckersley’s state computer from his private account, but which had never been opened.

93. In regard to doing work for his family, Plaintiff Eckersley asked for permission to provide legal advice to his father’s company. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff believes that other attorney working for the State of Missouri have done outside legal work.

94. Defendant Herschel granted permission for Plaintiff Eckersley to provide legal advice as requested provided such legal advice did not interfere with Plaintiff Eckersley performing his duties to the Governor.

95. Plaintiff Eckersley did not work on these outside legal matters when he had work to do for the Governor’s office, primarily working on such matters in off hours or weekends. On information and belief, other attorneys have been permitted to work on outside legal matters.

96. The total time devoted by the Plaintiff to the permitted outside legal matters was de minimus and was never discussed further until after Defendants decided to terminate Plaintiff Eckersley’s employment.

97. Following his termination, on information and belief, Defendants accessed Plaintiff Eckersley’s state email account in an attempt to find evidence to support their firing of Plaintiff Eckersley after the fact.

98. On information and belief, defendants and/or each of them also accessed Plaintiff Eckersley’s private email account, without permission or authorization, attempting to find additional evidence to support their firing of Plaintiff Eckersley after the fact and/or to monitor his activity after being fired, and/or to find any information that might be embarrassing to Plaintiff Eckersley.

99. After Eckersley was fired, Defendants Aubuchon and Chrismer, at the direction of and/or with the full knowledge of Defendants Blunt, Martin and Herschel, prepared packets for the media containing information designed to injure, defame and smear Plaintiff Eckersley by asserting his participation in among other things, group sex and illegal drug use.

100. Defendant Aubuchon, at the direction of and/or with the full knowledge of Defendants Blunt, Martin, Chrismer and Herschel likewise falsely alleged that Eckersley:

a. Was a liar, who had been untruthful to his boss and to his co-workers;

b. Had performance related problems;

c. Was subpart in his job producing poor and/or deficient work product;

d. Was habitually tardy and could not complete work assignments on time;

e. Was unable to deal with authority;

f.Could not work with others; and

g.He improperly used influence and his position for the private benefit himself and/or of family members.

101. These packets of defamatory information were sent on or about October 26, 2007 to and received by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch; the Springfield News Leader; the Kansas City Star, and the Associated Press.

102. Defendants, and each of them, sent the media packets and defamatory material contained therein with the intent that it be published all over the State, including in Jackson County Missouri, and such material was published all over the State, including in Eastern Jackson County, Missouri, including Independence.

103. Defendants, and each of them, sent the media packets with the intent and purpose that every man, woman and child in the nation, and specifically in the State of Missouri believe that the information contained therein was true, factual, and accurate.

104. Defendants, and each of them, sent the media packets with the intent and purpose that each such man, woman or child falsely believe that Eckersley was a sexual deviant, liar, user of illegal drugs, a subpar worker who produced inferior and late work, and who could not get along with either his superiors or his co workers.

105. At the time of sending the media packet information defendants knew and/or should have known the information contained therein was false.

106. Defendants specifically knew the information contained in the media packet regarding group sex and drug use was patently false and was known to be false by the Defendants at the time of its publication.

107. The information regarding job performance and excessive work for Plaintiff Eckersley’s father was likewise false in that Defendants had promoted Plaintiff Eckersley, had increased his responsibilities, and had suggested his suitability for assumption of the General Counsel’s duties, all immediately before the email issue arose and all after Plaintiff Eckersley had been given express permission to work on minor legal matters for this father’s business.

108. Prior to the decision being made to terminate Plaintiff Eckersley, Defendants had never informed him that his work for his father’s business was excessive or in any way interfering with his duties in the Office of the Governor. Likewise, prior to the decision to fire Plaintiff Eckersley, no written reprimands had been placed in Eckersley’s file for any of the criticisms now cited as grounds for Plaintiff’s termination.

109. Defendant Martin shortly before Eckersley’s firing considered Eckersley for promotion to the position of General Counsel to the Department of Labor.

110. Defendants each lied to and/or misinformed the media about the existence of legal advice concerning the availability of emails under the Sunshine law provided by Plaintiff Eckersley, indicating that Plaintiff Eckersley had provided no such advice.

111. On or about November 6, 2007, at the direction of and/or with the full knowledge of Defendants Blunt, Martin, Chrismer and AuBuchon, Defendant Herschel sent a letter to the Editors and News Directors in the State of Missouri, including but not limited to the news media identified in the preceding paragraphs above.

112. Defendant Herschel provided the information with the intent that it be published all over the State of Missouri, including in Eastern Jackson County, and it was so published.

113. Defendant Herschel also published this information via the internet which was intended to be and was received and published in Jackson County, Missouri.

114. Defendant Herschel falsely alleged Plaintiff Scott Eckersley was fired for among others:

a. Poor work performance;

b. Routine tardiness;

c. Insubordination; and

d. Threatening a supervisor.

115. Defendant Herschel’s actions were taken at the request of and/or the concurrence or subsequent approval of, all of the other Defendants.

116. Defendants, and each of them, sent the November 6 letter with the intent and purpose that every man, woman and child in the nation, and specifically in the State of Missouri believe that the information contained in the letter was true, factual, and accurate.

117. Defendants, and each of them, sent the November 6 letter with the intent and purpose that each such man, woman or child believe that Eckersley was a sexual deviant, liar, poor worker, habitually late by nature, insubordinate, violent, threatening, and untrustworthy.

118. Defendants, and each of them, made additional and similar false statements about Plaintiff Eckersley to the news media and to other individuals including in Jackson County, Missouri.

119. Defendant Aubuchon falsely represented to the media and other individuals that a reference in email to another Blunt staffer, Deputy Chief of Staff John Russell about smoking was a reference to drug use.

120. Defendant Aubuchon falsely represented to the media and other individuals in late October 2007 that Eckersley had used his state email account to subscribe to a group sex service.

121. Defendant Blunt on or about November 12, 2007 falsely confirmed and/or approved of the smear campaign against Scott Eckersley by representing in a public appearance in Jackson County, Missouri that the false statements about Eckersley were correct and that was the reason he was fired.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I: Defamation

122. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-121 by reference as though set out fully herein.

123. Defendants published false information asserting that Plaintiff Eckersley (a) participated in group sex, (b) used his state computer to access group sex web sites, (c) participated in illegal drug use, (d) performed poorly in his job responsibilities (e) worked on outside legal work to excess (f) was a liar who had been untruthful to his superiors and co-workers (g) was habitually tardy and could not complete work assignments on time (h) was unable to deal with those in authority (i) could not work with others and U) improperly used influence to benefit himself and/or family members

124. Defendants, and each of them, made additional and similar false statements about Plaintiff Eckersley to the news media and to other individuals including in Jackson County, Missouri.

125. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care could have known that the statements were false.

126. Defendants acted with actual malice in that the purpose of the statements was to discredit, damage and smear Plaintiff in the eyes of the media and the general public.

127. Defendants intended and caused the publication of such statements and were at fault for doing so.

128. Such statements tended to expose the plaintiff to contempt, ridicule or false judgment by the public, and/or deprive the plaintiff of his reputation and damage his standing in his professional community as well as in the eyes of the media and general public.

129. Such statements were intended by the Defendants to be published to and read by the media, Plaintiff’s professional peers and the general public.

130. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damages, including but not limited to damage to his reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, mental anguish and suffering, and economic loss.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for damages as permitted by law, for his costs and attorneys fees, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper under the law and the circumstances.

Count II: Violation of RSMo § 105.055(2)

131. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-121 by reference as though set out fully herein.

132. At all times relevant to this Petition, Defendants and each of them were supervisory and/or appointing authorities of a state agency within the meaning of RSMo § 105.055.2.

133. Plaintiff Eckersley was a state employee within the meaning of section 105.055.2.

134. RSMo § 105.055 sets forth the policy of the State of Missouri that notification and identification of violation of the law should be exposed and/or encouraged.

135. Defendants, and each of them, took disciplinary action against Plaintiff Eckersley “for the disclosure of a violation of a law rule or regulation,” namely a violation of the Sunshine Law, to Defendants, and other members of the staff of Defendant Blunt.

136. The actions were taken with the approval and/or subsequent confirmation of Defendant Blunt.

137. In so doing, Defendants and each of them, violated section 105.055.2.

138. Plaintiff was thereby damaged.

139. Section 105.055.7 permits the bringing of a civil action for a violation of section 105.055.

140. Section 105.055.7 permits a court to award actual damages, the costs of litigation, and attorneys’ fees for a violation of section 105.055.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eckersley prays for his actual damages, his costs of litigation, and for reasonable attorneys’ fees for a violation of section 105.055, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper under the law and the circumstances.

Count III: Violation of RSMo § 610.028(3)

141. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-121, and 131-140 by reference as though set out fully herein.

142. At all times relevant to this Petition, Defendants and each of them were supervisory and/or appointing authorities of a public governmental body within the meaning of RSMo § 610.028(3).

143. Plaintiff Eckersley was an employee of a public governmental body within the meaning of section 610.028(3).

144. Plaintiff Eckersley reported a violation of the Sunshine Law, sections 610.010 to 610.030, to Defendants.

145. Defendants took disciplinary action against Plaintiff Eckersley in that they fired Plaintiff Eckersley for making such reports to them.

146. In so doing, Defendants violated section 610.028(3).

147. Plaintiff was thereby damaged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eckersley prays for his actual damages, his costs of litigation and for reasonable attorneys’ fees for a violation of Section 610.028(3), and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper under the law and the circumstances.

Count IV: Wrongful Discharge in Violation of Public Policy

148. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-147 by reference as though set out fully herein.

149. At all time relevant to this Petition, Defendants and each of them were supervisory and/or appointing authorities of a public governmental body within the meaning of RSMo § 610.028(3).

150. Plaintiff Eckersley was an employee of a public governmental body within the meaning of section 610.028(3).

151. Plaintiff Eckersley reported a violation of Missouri law, specifically a violation of the Sunshine Law, RSMo § 610.010 et. seq., to Defendants and each of them.

152. In response to, and in retaliation for, Plaintiff Eckersley’s report, Defendants and

each of them took disciplinary action against Plaintiff Eckersley in that they terminated his employment.

153. Defendant also violated RSMo § 105.055.2. by firing Eckersley for reporting the violation of a law.

154. The firing of Eckersley was in direct violation of two specific statutes setting forth

the express public policy of Missouri that records should be open to the public and that no action should be taken against anyone who reports a violation of the laws or regulations of the State of Missouri.

155. Defendants’ termination of Plaintiff Eckersley was wrongful and against public

policy, in that it was specifically prohibited by RSMo § 105.055.2 and § 610.028(3 ).

156. As a result, Plaintiff Eckersley suffered damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Eckersley prays for his actual damages, his costs of litigation and for reasonable attorneys’ fees for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and for such other and further relief as the Court deems proper under the law and the circumstances….

….REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW Plaintiff, by and through his counsel of record, and hereby requests a trial by jury.