Mountain State jumped on some of those statements to make its argument about why Marple was fired.
"The state reason (by the board) for the superintendent's termination is clearly pretext for some other illegitimate reason," the brief states.
The allegations involving contracts are included in a footnote following that statement.
The brief also argues the board knowingly and willing violated the Open Meetings Act, making the measures outlined in the Ethics Commission opinion moot.
If the court did decide the opinion applied, the brief states the meeting was "perfunctory."
"By placing items on the agenda that necessarily presupposed the termination of the superintendent, the remedial measures of the board amounted to nothing more than a dog and pony show intended to ceremonially ratify its violation from the November 15th meeting," the brief states.
In addition to discussing Marple's termination, the agenda for Thursday's meeting included the consideration of hiring a new superintendent and the "oath of office." The firm references these points in its brief.
The state Supreme Court gave the board until today to respond to Mountain State's suit. The board planned to respond sometime this afternoon, according to a department spokesperson.