C/O Hendershot Cowart P.C. Attorneys
Adrenaline Dance Studio vs Bower Power Athletics
Details of the terms in which Ms. Botello was terminated from her position as head cheer coach.
On May 1st, 2025, a system flag was discovered by the owner notifying of multiple client account deletions. Without the owner’s knowledge and without authorization, Ms. Botello had erased proprietary client data from the database. All evidence of the clients existence deleted including contact details, financial records and other historical data. These clients were all previously members of Ms. Botello’s cheer team as well as new members who had signed up for the upcoming team tryouts. The terms of Ms. Botello’s non-compete had been discussed in detail during the resignation process, including the restriction of taking clients of Adrenaline Dance Studio. Ms. Botello had voiced some tactics for how to get around these terms. To which Mrs. Heaton had ultimately advised seeking an attorney.
Therefore, when Mrs. Heaton noticed the deletions, she quickly deduced what was happening and addressed it with Ms. Botello. When questioned, Ms. Botello could not provide any proof that these clients had requested their accounts to be deleted. Nor could she provide any explanation for why she had proceeded with this action without following proper protocol and first notifying the owner.
When Ms. Botello failed to provide an adequate explanation, and knowing that her actions had potential criminal ramifications, Mrs. Heaton notified Ms. Botello that her employment was terminated, effective immediately. Mrs. Heaton notified all of Ms. Botello’s classes that there would be a change of instructor stepping in. A coach had already been hired for the Angels team, since Ms. Botello had previously given her letter of resignation. Parents were notified that the replacement coach would be taking over that Monday.
Ms. Botello used a loophole in the wording of her agreement to exploit an opportunity for her gain. An agreement she knowingly and willfully entered into, not once, but twice. Which is an act of bad faith. She is currently in violation of her non-compete, both by the geographical restriction which states she must operate at least 15 miles away, but also, by communicating with studio clients, taking studio clients and posting misleading information about facts surrounding this situation on her website, as well as social media, engaging in slander both verbal and digital.
As a result, Mrs. Heaton received threatening hate mail from members of a group who supported a chat entitled “justice for Morgan” and endured commentary of a “mob like” mentality, riled up by a few known leaders, dictating mis-information without complete factual context. Despite Mrs. Heatons attempts to correct and respectfully redirect, and because of growing hostility from the group, Mrs. Heaton ultimately decided to allow the parents to “break contract” in an effort to appease a group who for some had no intention of a peaceful exit. Ms. Morgan has yet to take any accountability for her actions, nor the incurring damage as a result, both reputable and monetary.
Mrs. Heaton has petitioned an investigation examining back channel communications between Ms. Botello, clients, staff and former staff that may further support allegations, including the use of proprietary data for her own gain through various platforms, as well as measures taken by Ms. Botello which were potentially used to intercept/divert students, possible evidence of collusion with an additional former employee, perceived willful defamation from both individuals and more. Resulting loss and damage to the studio is not yet measurable.
In regards to the investigation of the “other” teacher. Several clients expressed both written and verbal concern toward this individual with whom a correlating relationship/collusion is suspected. This individual on numerous occasions belittled the owner, other staff members and parents in front of students and clients. When discovered, this matter was addressed with this staff member both directly and in writing. It was received initially with deflection and contempt. The owner took special care to ensure both the parents and the staff member had a voice and acted accordingly. The teachers behavior was a potential detriment not only to the studio as a whole, but to the staff member that was undermined by the misrepresented context. Over time it became clear that she was unable to work cohesively with her co-worker. They simply seemed to “Butt heads” so to speak. Advice was given, Meetings were called, emails were sent, issues were addressed and resolved.
One parent expressed discontent over this teachers handling of her special needs child in class. Both sides were listened to and a plan of action was set in motion, taking the needs of the child into consideration as it was the most important underlying factor.
It has since come to light that this teacher continues to make slanderous statements with the intent to cause reputable harm. A witness has affirmed that they were given documentation of a suspicious nature by these former staff members. It is important to note that this teacher was offered a prestigious position at Power Dance Collective, by Ms. Botello weeks after Ms. Botello’s termination. With many of those students following suit.
Case Status: ACTIVE / Pending Law Suit – Claim allowed through 5/1/2027