Date: 12-13-2013

Case Style: Anna Greene-Hicks v. Cimarron Council, Inc.

Case Number: CJ-2013-453

Judge: Barbara G. Swinton

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Jack Dawson, Amy Alden, and Brycie M. Loepp

Defendant's Attorney: Albert L. Tait, Jr.

Description: Anna Greene-Hicks sued Cimarron Council, Inc., Boy Scouts of America and Boy Scouts of America, Inc. claiming:

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. §134, 137, and 139. Defendants can be served with process in Oklahoma County.

Factual Allegations

2. Plaintiff was, at all relevanttimes, a registered member ofthe Boy Scouts ofAmerica.

3. Plaintiff became an active member of the CCBSA in May of 2002 and .ince that time has complied with all conditions and obligations required of a member thereof by the bylaws, articles of incorporation, and rules and regulations of CCBSA and BSA.

4. As an adult volunteer, Plaintiff has served as Tiger Cub Scout Den Leader; Wolf Cub Scout Den Leader; Bear Cub Scout Den Leader; Webelos Cub Scout Den Leader; Popcorn “Kernel”; Cubmaster; Assistant Troop Scoutmaster; Merit Badge Counselor; District Trainer; District Cub Scout Day Camp Program Director; Cub Scout Day Camp Inspector; Woodbadge Staff - Troop Guide; Unit Commissioner; District Commissioner; Wilderness First AidICPRlFirs1 Aid Instructor (ARC); Pack Trainer; Troop Advancements; Religious Emblems Display Team Chair; Pack Friends of Scouting Chair; Cub Scout Rangemaster; Cub Scout Resident Camp Staff Member; University of Scouting Staff Member; Trainers EDGE Instructor; Cub Scout Day Camp Staff Member; Woodbadge Staff - Assistant Scoutmaster (Program); and was scheduled to be Woodbadge Staff Course Director in 2011.

5. As an adult volunteer, Plaintiff was honored with the following awards: Cub Scouter Training Award; Woodbadge Bead Recipient; District Award of Merit; Elected 10 Order of the Arrow; Silver Beaver Award, which is the highest recognition a council of the Boy Scouts can bestow on an adult volunteer leader; and Brotherhood Rank in Order of the Arrow

6. On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff received a letter dated October 6, 2010, from CCBSA. The letter summarily revoked Plaintiff’s registration with BSA and gave absolutely no factual basis for the revocation except that “[w]e have received information that has compelled us to revoke your registration.” In order to appeal her revocation to the Southern Region of the BSA, Plaintiff was required to “include [her] version of what occurred in support of her] claim that registration should not have been revoked.” See Letter from CCBSA, attached hereto as Exhibit “1.”

7. Any allegations against Plaintiff by CCBSA or BSA are false. She has done nothing wrong.

8. On November 10, 2010, in accordance with the guidelines set out in the revocation letter from CCBSA, Plaintiff appealed to the Southern Region of the BSA. In her appeal letter, Plaintiff stressed that she cannot include her version of the facts because she has Ho idea what the “compelling information” is that the CCBSA refers to in its revocation letter.

9. On November 10, 2010, Plaintiff sent a letter to Council Commissioner, Ronald Switzer, and Council President, John W. Bowers, the authors of the revocation letter, wherein Plaintiff requested that they “supply [her] with the contents of the information that [they] received that compelled the revocation” so that she would “then be able to provide [her] versi n of the facts as requested.” Neither Mr. Switzer nor Mr. Bowers ever responded to Plaintiffs request.
10. Despite several requests to CCBSA Scout Executive, Bobby Schultz, asking him to provide her with information as to the accusations against her that prompted the revoaaion, Plaintiff never received a factual basis for the revocation, which she needed so that she could defend herself.

11. Plaintiffdid the best she could to defend herself without being informed of the factual basis for the accusations against her. Nevertheless, in a letter dated April 12, 2011 the Southern Region of the BSA refused to overturn CCBSA’s decision to revoke Plaintiffs registration with the
BSA.

12. On May 12, 2011, in accordance with the guidelines set out in letter from the Southern Region of the BSA and through the undersigned law firm, Plaintiff appealed to the National Council of the BSA. In her appeal letter to the National Council of the BSA. Plaintiff once again requested the vital factual information necessary for her to defend herself.

13. The National Council of the BSA ignored Plaintiffs request for the factual information surrounding the revocation of her membership in the BSA.

14. In a letter dated April 4,2012, the National Council of the BSA upheld the action of the CCBSA and the Southern Region of the BSA and refused to reinstate Plaintiffs membership in the BSA.

15. Plaintiff has exhausted all of the remedies provided by CCBSA and EiSA.

16. Upon information and belief, Defendants, CCBSA and BSA, violated their own rules, regulations, and procedures in revoking and in failing to reinstate Plaintiffs membership in the BSA.

17. Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was revoked without due process.

18. The revocation of Plaintiff’s membership in the BSA was prompted by malice and/or collusion.

19. The revocation of Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was utterly unsupported by any evidence.

20. In addition to stripping Plaintiff of her BSA membership witi.out cause or explanation, CCBSA deprived her of her right to participate as a parent in her soils’ Boy Scout activities. The restrictions the CCBSA placed on her involvement reduced her to basically a taxi driver instead of a parent. As is shown by her many BSA positions and awards, Plaintiff had been involved in every facet of her boys’ scouting activities.

21. CCBSA even tried to coerce Plaintiff into signing an agreement limiting her participation as a parent in the Boy Scouts by putting her son’s continued participation in scouting in question.

22. Plaintiff endured seventeen (17) tortuous months between the time htr membership with the BSA was revoked and the time the appeal to the National Council of the BSA was completed.

23. Because of the actions of CCBSA and BSA, Plaintiff suffered health problems, including constant physical pain, severe emotional distress, and exhaustion.

COUNT I - INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTR

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates, as if fully set forth herein, the other allegations of this Petition and further alleges:

24. Defendants’ actions as alleged above were not only intentional but were also so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency as to be considered atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society, especially by an organization (1) that has been recognized by Congress as a patriotic organization and (2) whose Scout Law says- “A Scout is:

Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpfiil, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.”

25. Defendants, by their above-alleged actions, intentionally or recklessly c tused Plaintiff to suffermental anguish and emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, injury to herreputation, physical pain, and loss of enjoyment of life beyond that which a reasonable person cow d be expected to endure.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands Judgment against Defendants directing them to reinstate Plaintiff with fill privileges and for actual and punitive damages in excess of $“S,OOO.OO, for interest, costs, attorney fees, and other relief the Court deems equitable and just.

COUNT II- DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates, as if fully set forth herein, the other allegations of this Petition and further alleges:

26. An actual controversy and dispute has arisen by and among all the parties. Plaintiff contends:

a. That the revocation of Plaintiff’s membership in the BSA was in clear
violation of BSA’s own rules, regulations, and procedures.

b. That the BSA’s refusal to reinstate Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was in clear violation of BSA’s own rules, regulations, and procedures.

c. That Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was revoked without due process.

d. That Plaintiff is entitled to immediate reinstatement of her menn bership in the BSA and the expungement of all disciplinary action taken wrongfully against her.

e. That Defendants should be enjoined to forthwith reinstate Plaintiff to membership in the BSA with the restoration of all privileges of membership and that any records or file pertaining to Plaintiff be purged from any and all disciplinary actions including, but not limited to, her expulsion.

27. Defendants, on the other hand, ostensibly contend that:

a. Defendants followed their rules, regulations, and procedures when Defendants revoked Plaintiffs membership in BSA.

b. Defendants followed their rules, regulations, and procedures when Defendants refused to reinstate Plaintiffs membership in BS 4.

c. Plaintiff is not entitled to reinstatement in the BSA.

28. This action is brought pursuant to 12 O.S. § 165 1-57, and ajudicial determination is necessary in order to determine the rights and obligations of the parties.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment adjudging and declar.ng that (1) the revocation of Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was in clear violation of BSA’s own rules, regulations, and procedures; (2) the BSA’s refusal to reinstate Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was in clear violation of BSA’s own rules, regulations, and procedures; (3) Plaintiffs membership in the BSA was revoked without due process; (4) Defendants be required and directed to forthwith reinstate Plaintiff to membership in the BSA with the restoration of all privileges ofmembership and that any records or file pertaining to Plaintiff be purged from any and all disciplinary actions including, but not limited to, her expulsion; (5) for her costs; and (6) for such other urther relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Defendant Ciminrron Council, Inc. appeared and answered as follows:

1. Upon information and belief, the allegations set forth in paragraph 1 of the Plaintiffs Petition are admitted.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

2. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

3. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of the
Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

4. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

5. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

6. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff’s Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

7. The allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of the Plaintiffs Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

8. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

9. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

10. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

11. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of the Plaintiff’s Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

12. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

13. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of the Plaintiff’s Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

14. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

15. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

16. The allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of the Plaintiffs Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

17. The allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of the Plaintiffs Petition are specifically denied, and strict ptoof thereof is demanded.

18. The allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of the Plaintiffs Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

19. The allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of the Plaintiffs Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

20. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

21. The allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of the Plaintiff’s Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

22. The Defendants lack sufficient information as to the truth of the allegations set forth in paragraph 22 of the Plaintiffs Petition so as to be able to admit or deny those allegations, and they are therefore denied.

23. The allegations set forth in paragraph 23 of the Plaintiff’s Petition are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

COUNT 1- INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

This claim has been dismissed by the Court and no answer is required as to the allegations set forth in paragraphs 24 and 25 of the Plaintiffs Petition.

COUNT II- DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

For its Answer to this count of the Plaintiff’s Petition, the Defendants incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth here, all the preceding paragraphs of their Answer.

26. The allegations set forth in paragraph 26, including subparagraphs a. through e., are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

27. The allegations set forth in paragraph 27, including subparagraphs a. through c., are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

28. The allegations set forth in paragraph 28 are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded.

29. The Defendants deny the extent and severity of any damages or injuries claimed by the Plaintiff.

30. The Defendants deny that they breached any duty that they may have owed to the Plaintiff.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

31. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim against the Defendants.

32. The Plaintiffs claims are barred by operation of the statue of limitations.

33. Since Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, the Plaintiff cannot state a claim against the Defendants over her dismissal as an unpaid volunteer.

34. The relief sought in this case will not terminate the controversy over which the case was filed.

35. Since the Defendants are not governmental entities, the plaintiff cannot state a claim against the Defendants based on lack of due process.

36. The Defendants, Cimarron Council, Inc., Boys Scouts of America, and Boy Scouts of America, Inc., Reserve the right to amend their Answer in accordance with Tit. 12 0.S. §2015, or with the Court’s permission.

WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the Defendants, Cimarron Council, Inc., Boys Scouts of America, and Boy Scouts of America, Inc., pray that the Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Petition, that this action be dismissed with prejudice, for an award of costs and attorney fees, and for all other relief deemed equitable by the Court.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: