Ex-Midlands school board member has been involved in multiple lawsuits. Here’s a summary

Former Lexington-Richland 5 school board member Ken Loveless is back in court with a federal lawsuit filed against several former board members who served the Chapin-Irmo area school district at the same time he did.

Loveless, who lost his 2022 re-election bid by 16 votes, is suing former board members Michael Cates, Beth Hutchison and Ed White, along with former school district attorney Michael Montgomery. Loveless alleges the four and several others engaged in a conspiracy to violate his First Amendment rights by stopping his oversight of a school construction project.

This isn’t the first time Loveless has been involved in the civil court process, including multiple lawsuits related to his time on the Lexington-Richland 5 school board.

Here’s a look at the Lexington County contractor’s various legal challenges, and what, if any, resolutions have been reached.

State ethics charges

Loveless’ latest lawsuit claims a conspiracy was behind a 2021 ethics complaint that ultimately led to him facing four charges of violating the S.C. Ethics Act over his relationship with the construction firm building an elementary school in the Lexington-Richland 5 district. The S.C. Ethics Commission in March found Loveless had violated the act in three of those instances and fined the former board member $6,000. Loveless is currently appealing that decision, denying that he did anything improper. Commissioners found that a fourth charge could not be proven.

Facebook lawsuits

As a school board member, Loveless filed defamation lawsuits against two Lexington-Richland 5 constituents after they had criticized him on Facebook. Leslie Stiles is a district parent who once ran a Facebook group for school district residents called Deep Dive Into D5. Kevin Scully is the husband of a Lexington-Richland 5 school teacher.

In December, a Richland County judge dismissed Loveless’ suit against Stiles, ruling it was unlikely to succeed under federal law and Supreme Court precedent that protects free speech and criticism of public officials. Judge Jean Toal also allowed Stiles’ counterclaims against Loveless to proceed. Stiles says Loveless acted to chill her free speech rights. The suit against Scully remains active, even after Scully himself won a seat on the Lexington-Richland 5 school board in November.

Former superintendent lawsuit

When Superintendent Christina Melton suddenly resigned her post in June 2021, former district superintendent Stephen Hefner filed a complaint with Lexington-Richland 5’s accrediting agency challenging the terms of then-interim superintendent Akil Ross’ hiring. That complaint didn’t result in any action from the accreditors, but the Lexington-Richland 5 school board responded by filing a lawsuit claiming Hefner was “interfering” in district affairs, with Loveless publicly demanding an apology from Hefner.

The school board pursued the lawsuit for almost a year, spending $9,000 in the process, until the board voted to drop the suit in September 2022. But Hefner has continued his countersuit against the school district, including expanding his claim in March to include Loveless, board member Catherine Huddle, former board member Jan Hammond and Jaramillo Accounting Group for allegedly conspiring to defame Hefner in Jaramillo’s audit of the school district. The current Lexington-Richland 5 school board voted to end its relationship with Jaramillo May 8, citing Hefner’s lawsuit.

Open meetings lawsuit

When Melton resigned in June 2021 after repeatedly butting heads with Loveless and others on the board, the school board agreed to a settlement agreement with the outgoing superintendent behind closed doors, agreeing to pay her $226,368 to end her contract early. Since the board initially accepted the settlement without a public vote, Paul Osmundson, the senior editor of The State Media Co., filed suit in August 2021 challenging the agreement under the state’s Freedom of Information Act. In October, Judge Allison Lee dismissed that lawsuit, finding that a hearing on the suit had not been scheduled in a timely manner. The State is appealing that ruling.

Ex-wife’s lover sued

Loveless’ recent history in the courtroom has unearthed a longer history of lawsuits. One defense attorney in Loveless’ defamation cases filed a court document alleging that in 1993, Loveless filed suit against a man he claimed “intentionally, maliciously, unlawfully, and wantonly commenced an active effort to gain the affection of (Loveless’) wife,” leading to the breakdown of their marriage.

Loveless sued for being “wrongfully deprived of the love, comfort, advice, company, society and support” of his then-spouse. A divorce court had previously ruled in favor of Loveless’ wife, finding that Loveless had been unfaithful, the motion said. The defendant in the 1993 lawsuit went on to claim “if anyone alienated (Loveless)‘s wife’s affections it was (Loveless) through his abusive and irrational behavior, and any mental distress or other damages that he may have suffered were occasioned by his own behavior.” Court filings show the dispute was later settled out of court.

Cell phone company sued, assault charge dropped

In 2013, Loveless filed suit against cellphone company Sprint, claiming its Cayce store had falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and slandered him after a dispute with store employees over a cellphone battery. When Loveless went into the store a year earlier for a replacement battery for his phone, he was told the store had no record of him turning in his old battery. Loveless then became angry, swore and attempted to leave with a battery, according to a deposition in his lawsuit.

A store employee warned him he was shoplifting (which Loveless claimed was slanderous), and attempted to stop him from leaving the store (which Loveless claimed constituted false imprisonment). Loveless then threw the battery and struck another customer in the head, according to a police statement from the victim that led to a simple assault charge against Loveless (who claimed this was malicious prosecution on the part of Sprint). That charge was later dropped, and Loveless dropped the suit later in 2014.