Richland One Settles With Its Own Board Member
Ericka Hursey’s remaining state-court claims have settled after a federal judge rejected her First Amendment claim. A separate ethics complaint against former commissioner Cheryl Hinton-Harris was dismissed for lack of probable cause.
By Javar Juarez | CUBN | September 30, 2026
COLUMBIA, S.C. — Richland County School District One has settled litigation brought by one of its own sitting commissioners, closing a case that began with Ericka Hursey’s removal from the principalship of Lower Richland High School and continued through state and federal court.
A Richland County court order filed September 28, 2026, confirms the settlement in Ericka Hursey v. Richland School District One et al. Judge Daniel Coble signed the order September 23. It states, “This matter has SETTLED per confirmation by the parties,” and marks the case as ended.
The order does not disclose a settlement amount, identify who will fund any payment, or reproduce the agreement.
It contains no findings establishing the disputed allegations.
Although the document is titled “Judgment in a Civil Case,” it records the parties’ settlement rather than awarding a stated sum after a finding of liability.
The litigation did not end with a sweeping courtroom victory for either side.
Hursey’s federal First Amendment claim had already failed.
Her remaining state-law claims were returned to Richland County, where they later settled.
The dispute also unfolded alongside a separate ethics proceeding against former commissioner Cheryl Hinton-Harris, a central figure in Hursey’s allegations.
According to portions of an order reviewed for this report, the South Carolina State Ethics Commission investigated Robin Smith’s November 6, 2024 complaint and dismissed it in an order signed February 11, 2026, finding no probable cause to believe Harris violated the Ethics Act.
The commission enforces state ethics requirements, including Rules of Conduct governing public officials.
This dismissal was separate from Hursey’s civil lawsuit.
The September settlement vote
The September 22 board agenda included item 15.01, “Legal Discussion Regarding Settlement of Pending Litigation.”
Board Chair Robert Lominack stated that Hursey had recused herself because she had a personal interest in the outcome.
Lominack said Hursey had not participated in the discussion, would not participate in the public discussion or vote, and had left the room.
Commissioner Jamie Devine moved to authorize litigation counsel to settle the pending matter under the terms discussed in executive session. Commissioner Richard Moore seconded the motion.
The motion passed 4–1, with Commissioner Barbara Weston voting against it.
How the dispute began
Hursey’s June 20, 2023 complaint described a long career in education, including multiple teaching and administrative positions within Richland One.
She alleged that former Superintendent Craig Witherspoon asked her to become principal of Lower Richland High School in January 2018.
Her allegations centered on a deteriorating relationship with Harris, then the commissioner representing the Lower Richland area, and the district’s response to Hursey’s June 2, 2022 graduation speech.
Hursey alleged that Harris intervened in school operations in response to parent requests and complaints, bypassed the normal chain of command, and behaved as though she supervised the principal. Hursey said this undermined her authority and interfered with her work.
The complaint described a meeting during the 2019–2020 school year in which Witherspoon allegedly raised a rumor that Hursey and Harris did not get along.
Hursey claimed she denied having a personal problem with Harris and offered to meet with Harris and Witherspoon.
Hursey also alleged that she periodically raised concerns about Harris’s conduct.
One example involved an April 2022 concert planned for the Lower Richland High School campus, which Hursey characterized as another instance of Harris bypassing appropriate procedures.
Those assertions were contested. They were Hursey’s account of events, not findings made by the court.
The graduation speech and reassignment
Hursey alleged that the 2021–2022 school year included serious losses and disruptions, including an administrator’s death and an off-campus shooting of a student.
She said her graduation address discussed overcoming personal and professional adversity, letting go of negative thinking and negative influences, and doubts about continuing in her position.
According to her complaint, she referred to interference with her work without specifically identifying the person responsible.
Hursey maintained that the speech was appropriate for graduation and addressed matters of public concern.
She alleged that Witherspoon called her into a June 6, 2022 meeting, described the speech as inappropriate and unprofessional, and placed her on administrative leave pending an investigation.
The complaint said a June 16 letter extended that leave and that the human resources director informed her of the extension by telephone the next day.
Hursey further alleged that she heard from community members that Harris was telling people she had Hursey “suspended.” Harris and the district disputed the allegations concerning Harris’s claimed role.
On July 14, 2022, according to the complaint, Hursey was transferred from the principalship to coordinator of student hearings.
Hursey characterized that position as newly created, isolated from normal school operations, and without meaningful promotional opportunities.
She alleged that she was instructed not to visit schools even though school visits appeared in the job description. She also described isolation and “nitpickiness” during the following school year.
Hursey claimed the district offered her only continued employment in that position for 2023–2024, despite administrative vacancies for which she believed she was qualified.
She alleged that the circumstances led her to retire earlier than planned.
The four claims Hursey brought
Against the district, she alleged First Amendment retaliation, arguing that the reassignment punished her for constitutionally protected speech, and breach of contract, arguing that she had signed a May 6, 2022 contract to serve as principal for the following school year.
Against Harris, she alleged defamation through false and malicious statements to community members, and interference with contract, claiming Harris improperly caused the district to breach her principal contract.
The defamation allegations were specific and serious.
Hursey alleged that Harris said she had Hursey suspended; made statements about tasks Hursey performed or failed to perform at the school; said Hursey grew up on the “wrong side of the tracks”; accused Hursey of stealing money from the Lower Richland alumni association; and said Hursey allowed students to graduate without meeting graduation requirements.
These were statements Hursey alleged Harris made. The complaint itself establishes neither that Harris made them nor that the underlying accusations were true.
Harris denied the defamation allegations.
Hursey sought compensation for claimed economic and reputational harm, emotional distress, and other damages. Her requested relief included punitive damages where legally available, attorney fees and costs associated with her federal claim, and reinstatement or compensation for future lost earnings.
The complaint did not demand a specific total dollar amount.
What the district and Harris admitted—and disputed
Richland One and Harris filed their answer on August 18, 2023.
They admitted several basic facts: Hursey had signed a principal contract, Witherspoon met with her about the speech, she was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation, and she was subsequently reassigned.
They denied that those events established unlawful retaliation, breach of contract, defamation, or improper interference by Harris.
On the concert, the defense offered a different account. It said Harris contacted Hursey and school staff on behalf of the Lower Richland Alumni Foundation to obtain available dates for the Diamond Festival concert, followed standard district practices, and submitted appropriate documentation.
The district acknowledged that Hursey raised concerns about Harris. It did not admit that Harris had improperly interfered with school operations.
The district also rejected Hursey’s description of the student-hearings position.
It said the job was an existing administrative role at the Student Support office in a district building. It said Hursey was told to decrease school visits and devote more time to student disciplinary hearings, rather than being prohibited from visiting schools.
The response drew a distinction concerning discipline. Hursey alleged she had no substantial or significant disciplinary actions during her tenure.
The district disputed that characterization and stated that she had been subject to disciplinary actions, without specifying them in its court filing.
Separately, the district acknowledged that it did not formally discipline Hursey over her graduation speech.
The district admitted the principal contract but denied that reassignment breached it.
Harris denied communicating false statements and denied improperly causing a contract breach.
The district and Harris listed 28 legal reasons they argued Hursey’s claims should fail or any compensation should be limited.
They argued that legal protections shielded them from liability, that Hursey suffered no harm for which compensation was owed, that filing deadlines barred her claims, and that she failed to limit her losses.
They also raised “unclean hands,” arguing that her own conduct should count against her, but provided no specific supporting facts in that defense.
These were their arguments, not the judge’s findings.
A September 25, 2023 defense filing provided additional explanation.
The defendants said Hursey’s administrative leave was paid, that concerns about her judgment prompted the reassignment, and that she received her full salary after reassignment.
They maintained that Witherspoon reassigned her under district policy in the district’s best interests. They also argued there was no evidence Harris participated in the reassignment decision and that Harris individually lacked authority to act on a contract.
On defamation, the defense disputed whether Hursey could establish a defamatory statement and additionally maintained that alleged statements concerning her employment were substantially true.
One lawsuit, two court systems
Hursey first filed the lawsuit in Richland County. On August 14, 2023, the district and Harris moved it to federal court because she alleged a violation of her constitutional right to free speech. This was the same lawsuit continuing in a different court, not a second case.
On May 29, 2025, U.S. District Judge Sherri A. Lydon ruled against Hursey on her First Amendment claim without a trial.
The decisive issue was whether Hursey delivered the graduation speech as a private citizen or as part of her official responsibilities as principal.
The court concluded that she spoke in her official capacity.
It cited the setting, her role addressing the students and families she led, and her acknowledgment during a deposition that she was acting as principal when delivering the commencement speech.
The court explained that having discretion over the speech’s content did not change the official context.
It ruled that the First Amendment did not protect the speech for purposes of this employment-retaliation claim.
That ruling resolved the federal claim. It did not determine whether Harris made the alleged statements, whether the district breached Hursey’s contract, or whether Harris interfered with that contract.
Hursey had requested that the remaining claims return to state court if the federal claim failed. The defendants asked the judge to keep them in federal court to avoid duplicating the courts’ work.
The judge declined and returned the remaining state-law claims to Richland County.
The accompanying federal judgment stated that Hursey would receive nothing from the district on the First Amendment claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice.
The September 2026 settlement therefore followed a federal defeat on one claim while the state-law claims remained unresolved by that federal decision.
The lawsuit began before Hursey joined the board. By the September 2026 settlement, she was serving as the district’s elected District 4 commissioner. Richland One’s board directory lists her as secretary-treasurer, with a term expiring in 2028.
That sequence raises a public accountability question: How did the district negotiate and approve a settlement with a sitting member of its own governing body?
What the public still does not know
The court order says the case settled, but it does not explain what Hursey received or who pays the settlement and legal bills.
An earlier confidentiality order protected some evidence; it did not automatically make the settlement terms confidential.
The district should release the agreement so residents can see what each side agreed to and whether any terms limit what can be made public.
Barbara Weston cast the only vote against settlement. Chair Robert Lominack announced that Hursey stepped aside because she had a personal interest in the outcome. The records reviewed do not show whether her recusal was also recorded in writing.
Why the timing matters
Richland One is preparing for its five-year Cognia reaccreditation review. Its family survey opened September 21, 2026. The board approved the settlement the next day.
That timing deserves an explanation. The district had already defeated Hursey’s federal free-speech claim, but other claims remained. The board should explain what risks and costs justified settling those claims—and whether reaccreditation preparations or Hursey’s position on the board influenced its decision.
The outcomes should also be clear: Hursey lost her federal claim, and her remaining claims settled without a ruling on whether they were true.
Separately, the State Ethics Commission investigated the complaint against Harris and dismissed it after finding no probable cause to believe she violated the Ethics Act.
As the district asks families for feedback on its performance, its leaders should be willing to answer questions about their own decisions.
Residents deserve to see the settlement terms, understand the costs, and hear why the board believed this agreement served the schools and students it represents.
Javar Juarez is Publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Columbia Urban Broadcast Network (CUBN), an independent investigative news outlet based in Columbia, South Carolina, and a member of the South Carolina Press Association. He is also President of the Capital City Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute.
