This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2015, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

A former Stansbury High School assistant principal has sued Tooele County School District, accusing administrators of conspiring to fire him without cause.

Keith Davis, who became the face of a school dance dress code controversy in 2012 that generated national media attention, is seeking reinstatement in the district, as well as back pay and punitive damages.

In a lawsuit filed last month in U.S. District Court, Davis claims that his firing from the district in 2013, part of a two-person layoff to reduce personnel costs, was a "sham" designed to circumvent his due process rights.

"The individual defendants' conduct was willful and intentional, malicious, and exhibits reckless or callous indifference to Mr. Davis' constitutional rights," the Jan. 26 lawsuit states.

Davis' suit alleges longstanding trouble with district managers.

According to the former assistant principal, his troubles with the district started in 2012 when he was working as Grantsville Junior High School's principal. He approached then-district Superintendent Terry Linares about concerns that the district was inflating its graduation rate. Shortly after the conversation, Davis says he was involuntarily transferred to Stansbury High School as assistant principal.

Linares did not respond to requests for comment on Friday.

At Stansbury, Davis became entangled in a dance dress code controversy after dozens of female students were turned away from the school's homecoming dance because their dresses were too short.

The school's principal issued an apology to students and parents and the school later held a second homecoming dance to make up for the incident. But Davis continued to blame students for violating the school's policies in an email to staff that was obtained by the Tooele Transcript Bulletin.

"What is sadder is that the school and the administration are being made out to be the villains in the drama caused by poor choices made by a few girls (15-20) out of a potential 750," he wrote in the email, according to reports.

Following the dress code debacle, Davis was again transferred — to a position in the school district's special education department.

That post was subsequently eliminated in a reduction in force, or RIF, initiated by Linares.

Davis filed grievances to fight his layoff, which were denied, and was unsuccessful when he applied for vacant positions in the district.

Attorney Lauren Scholnick, who is representing Davis in the lawsuit, said public school employees can only be fired for cause, but district officials orchestrated his transfer and layoff in order to get around the terms of his contract.

"There's some evidence that they were looking to get rid of him," Scholnick said. "It was an attempt to circumvent what government employees are entitled to."

Davis' attorney argues his actions during the dress code controversy could not be used as justification for his termination, because he had already been reprimanded in the form of a demotion.

"They already meted out the punishment," she said. "They moved him out of his assistant principal position."

Scott Rogers, who replaced Linares as superintendent in 2013, disagreed with the accusations that Davis' rights had been violated.

"The board believes they followed applicable law and district policy," he said.

Rogers is named as a defendant in the lawsuit due to his role in denying Davis' employment appeal. The new superintendent said this week that the grievance he received from Davis' was filed too long after the reduction in force to be considered.

"He was treated fairly," Rogers said. "It clearly was not allowable under district policy."