Teresa Slayton vs DeKalb County – Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

Viola Davis — Sat, 14 Dec 2019 22:17:48 +0000

The Court heard oral argument on the motion for summary judgment on December 6, 2019. For the following reasons noted in the complaint, it was RECOMMENDED that the motion for summary judgment be DENIED.

Teresa Slayton Disputes DeKalb County’s Statement to WSB

Viola Davis — Thu, 01 Aug 2019 23:00:27 +0000

Teresa Slayton disputes DeKalb County’s Statement

Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter citizen researchers purchased the sworn testimony of the whistleblower, Teresa Slayton, and the Chief Procurement Officer of Purchasing and Contracting, Talisa Clark, and the following information was revealed:

• The testimony provided information the public needs to see that supports evidence that disputes DeKalb County’s claims that Slayton’s termination was due to attendance, performance, etc.
• The evidence is outlined in I.-III., with page numbers and quotes. We are also attaching DeKalb County’s Human Resources Department emails showing Slayton’s Eligibility Status for Rehire and End of Temporary Employment.
• Did DeKalb County make false statements concerning claims against the whistleblower, Teresa Slayton, to discredit her name and reputation?

Read the testimony and review the emails for yourself.

I. Please read Purchasing and Contracting’s Acknowledgement Letter to Slayton, which clearly shows Slayton requested all performance and disciplinary records and DeKalb County provided personnel files with no documented performance and/or disciplinary records.
a. DeKalb County confirms that Slayton did request records, disciplinary actions, verbal/written warnings, reprimands, misconduct(s), and/or unsatisfactory performances against her.
b. Slayton requested a digital copy of all Purchasing and Contracting interdepartmental files, including former CIP managers February, drafted, six (6) months of performances management plan and appraisals, with rating summaries on employees, former CIP managers files of reprimands, misconduct(s), complaints, including any complaints filed by the employees to management, disciplinary actions and/or unsatisfactory performances;
c. Slayton requested the current Interim CIP managers files of reprimands, misconduct(s), complaints, including any complaints filed by the employee to management, disciplinary actions and/or unsatisfactory performances against the employee.

II. DeKalb County’s Personnel Files on Slayton Attendance, Performance, Evaluation, etc.
Per DeKalb County’s personnel files, released in the Open Records Requests (ORRs) for Slayton, include:
• There are no records in Slayton’s file, written or verbal, for any disciplinary actions;
• There are no attendance concerns, no write-ups/reprimands, no complaints against Slayton;
• There are no records for performance concerns, no records for poor work product, and/or poor quality of work.

Purchasing and Contracting’s Personnel File (19pages)
See page 1: shows time-limited CIP until Dec. 31, 2020
See page 3: shows Time-Limited (service no longer needed)
See page 4: shows Department of Labor reason for termination: “Time-Limited Services No Longer Needed”
See page 6: Termination letter signed by Talisa Clark, “Time-limited, no appeal rights under DeKalb Code”

Human Resources’ Personnel File (39 pages)
See page 1: shows time-limited Dec. 31, 2020
See page 2: shows Time-Limited Employee (service no longer needed)
See page 3: shows Department of Labor reason for termination: “Time-Limited Services No Longer Needed”
See page 4: Termination letter signed by Clark, “Time-limited no appeal rights under DeKalb Code”
See page 7: Time-limited

III. Part 1A, 401pg. TALISA CLARK Sworn Testimony in Deposition – Slayton Attendance, Performance, Evaluation, etc.

Per Talisa Clark’s sworn Feb. 21st, 2019 Deposition, there were no performance concerns documented in Slayton’s personnel file in Human Resources or Purchasing and Contracting and per Clark’s sworn Feb. 21st, 2019 Deposition, there were no expressed concerns about Slayton’s performance to anyone in Human Resources. Lastly, per Clark’s sworn Feb. 21st, 2019 Deposition, there weren’t any disciplinary actions or performance evaluations generated resulting from performance concerns.

(See 105-106 of 401) – 105: 17-25; (See 107 of 401) – 106:1-6 Clark testified “No” record in any form documented meeting concerning performance
(See 113-114 of 401) – 113: 4-10 Clark testified “No” performance evaluation or disciplinary action on Slayton
(See 113-114 of 401) – 113: 11-15 Clark testified “No” performance concerns documented in Slayton personnel file within H.R or P&C.
(See 113-114 of 401) – 113: 16-18 Clark testified “No” express concerns about Slayton’s performance to anyone in H.R.
(See 113-114 of 401) – 113: 25; 114: 1-3 Clark testified “No” meetings concerning Teresa
(See 113-114 of 401) – 118: 17-20 Clark testified “Not recalled” performance concerns in Mar. or Apr. 2017 meeting communicated to HR
(See 118-119 of 401) – 118: 21-25; 119: 1-2 Clark testified “No” to any disciplinary actions or performance evaluations generated resulting from performance concerns expressed in March or April 2017 meeting
(See 122-123 of 401) – 122: 7-16 Clark testified “No” concerns that Clark addressed in Apr.2017 meeting w/Butler wasn’t expressed to HR
(See 128-129 of 401) – 128: 8-10 Clark testified “No” Slayton didn’t receive a performance evaluation or a performance appraisal

(End)

Unhappy Taxpayer and Voter » Teresa Slayton

Teresa Slayton vs DeKalb County – Motion for Summary Judgment Denied

Teresa Slayton Disputes DeKalb County’s Statement to WSB

Amended Complaint – Teresa Slayton vs. DeKalb County Civil Action File No. 18-CV-3085

Teresa Slayton vs DeKalb County – Whistleblower Lawsuit Civil Action File No. 18CV3085