Federal discrimination, employment application interference lawsuit filed against City, City Councilman – The Donalsonville News

Documents detailing a Federal discrimination, application interference, and failure to comply with open records reguests lawsuit, filed June 4 in the United States District Court, Middle District of Georgia, Albany Division, were served on Tuesday of this week to City of Donalsonville officials.

In the document, plaintiff Ronald Foskey, a Donalsonville resident and an applicant for the City Manager position of the City of Donalsonville, claims he did not receive proper acknowledgement of his application and alleges discrimination in the hiring process because of his age and his sexual orientation, interference in that process by Donalsonville City Councilman Mitchell Blanks, and failure by the City to comply with open records requests.

The Donalsonville News reached out to City officials, including City Councilman Blanks and City Manager Jeffrey Hatcher for comments and received the following; “On the advice of the City’s attorneys, the City of Donalsonville does not comment on pending litigation.  The City’s response will be filed in Court at the appropriate time.”

Foskey, speaking through his attorney, commented, “The lawsuit speaks for itself; it is a shame that this happened and we had to resort to litigation.”

Conditions Precedent to Suit

On or about November 30, 2023 Plaintiff timely filed a charge for the discrimination alleged in this complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). 

On or about June 3 and 4,  2024, the United States Department of Justice, and the EEOC mailed notice to Plaintiff of the termination of any further processing of this charge of employment discrimination and gave Plaintiff a right-to-sue letter, permitting plaintiff the right to institute this action within 90 days of the receipt of his Notice of Right to Sue. 

Plaintiff filed this action within 90 days of receipt of his Notice of Right to Sue.

On or about August 28, 2023, Plaintiff sent an Ante-Litem Notice to the City by mailing a copy thereof to all City Councilpersons and the City Manager by regular US Mail and Certified Mail. The Ante-Litem Notice was sent within six months of the discriminatory act.

Statement of Facts

Beginning in early 2022, the City began advertising for the employment of a city manager. 

After the advertisement did not get a response in Donalsonville, the City decided to expand its search to include advertising the job all over the State of Georgia with the Georgia Local Government Personnel Association and the Georgia Municipal Association.

The City further advertised the job outside of the state of Georgia and received applications from candidates who are not residents of the state of Georgia.

After the expanded search, Foskey, a resident of Donalsonville, decided to apply to be the city manager, as he believed his experiences could be an asset to the City of Donalsonville. As shown in supporting data by witness of his resume, Foskey’s application met or exceeded all qualifications to be city manager as published in the job advertisement.

At the time of applying for the city manager position, Foskey was 63 years old, and openly homosexual which made him a member of two protected classes under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

The day before announcing Hatcher as city manager, the City Council, at the request of Blanks, held a closed-door city council meeting wherein Jeffrey Hatcher was hired as city manager. However, Hatcher did not meet the published job qualifications, according to the published job requirements and the data listed on Hatcher’s resume.

Upon information and belief, members of the Donalsonville City Council dismissed Foskey as a candidate for city manager because of his sexual orientation and/or his age.

Further, upon information and belief, it was the actions and words of Blanks that prevented Foskey from being hired as city manager.

Additionally, upon information and belief, it was the actions and words of Blanks that caused the City to abandon its hiring process to prevent Foskey from being hired as city manager.

While investigating the City’s hiring process, Foskey, by and through counsel, sent an open records request pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq. to the City on August 28, 2023. 

The City failed to respond to the open records request within the time period provided by law.

When the City did eventually respond, it refused to provide all of the requested records, and as of the date of this Complaint, the City has yet to produce all of the requested documents.

Upon information and belief, Blanks knowingly and willingly frustrated or attempted to frustrate Foskey’s access to the public records by intentionally making the requested public records difficult to obtain or review.

COUNT ONE Title VII Discrimination

Based on the facts summarized above, Defendants, individually or collectively, refused to hire Foskey due to his age and/or his sexual orientation.

Said actions were a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq for discrimination in hiring based on Plaintiff’s sexual orientation and/ or age. As such, Plaintiff is seeking all recoverable damages for Defendants’ violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

This count is intended to cover all cause(s) of action that are available to Foskey under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

For Defendants’ violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and all other damages allowable by law and that this Court deems just.

COUNT TWO Tortious Interference

Blanks actively sought to prevent Foskey from being hired as city manager.

Blanks intentionally and wrongfully altered the City’s hiring process to prevent Foskey from being hired as city manager.

Blanks’ actions were without privilege and for the sole purpose of injuring Foskey.

Blanks’ actions directly and proximately caused the City to not enter into an employment relationship/ contract with Foskey.

Blanks’ interference cost Foskey a job that included a healthy salary, opportunity, and benefits.

Based on the foregoing, Blanks tortiously interfered with Foskey’s anticipated business relationship with the City.

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Blanks, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and all other damages allowable by law and that this Court deems just.

COUNT THREE Failure to comply with open records request

Foskey sent the Open Records Request on August 28, 2023.

The City failed to respond in the time provided by law and as of the date of this complaint has failed to fully respond to the open records request. As such, the City has violated O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.

Upon information and belief, Blanks knowingly and willingly frustrated or attempted to frustrate Foskey’s access to the records.

The City and Blanks’ actions, individually and collectively, amount to a negligent violation of O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount to be determined at trial, plus prejudgment interest, post judgment interest, attorney’s fees, and all other damages allowable by law and that this Court deems just.

Demand for trial by jury

Foskey hereby demands a trial by jury of not less than 12 unbiased and impartial people on all claims so triable, and prays for the following relief:

That the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, for their violations Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.;

That the Court enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor and against the Defendants, jointly and severally, for their violations of O.C.G.A. § O.C.G.A. § 50- 18-70 et seq.;

That the Court award to Plaintiff his attorney’s fees and costs of action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-5(k) and Brown v. Waterbury Bd. of Educ., 247 F. Supp. 3d 196 (D. Conn. 2017).

That the Plaintiff recover any and all other, different or additional damages, expenses, costs and relief (legal, equitable, declaratory or remedial) to which he may be entitled by virtue of the facts and cause(s) of action alleged above, consistent with the federal and state statutes and regulations, the federal and state common laws, and the interests of equity and justice;

Plaintiff be awarded attorney’s fees and costs of this action pursuant to Georgia law. See, O.C.G.A. §§ 13-6-11, 9-15-14, and 33-4-6;

That Plaintiff be awarded such additional or other relief as may be appropriate and just; and

Plaintiff reserves the right, if appropriate, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 or otherwise, to amend or supplement this lawsuit based on additional facts or circumstances not now reasonably apparent, or to be revealed by any discovery to be conducted herein; and/or to add any party-defendant(s) necessary to afford complete relief to Plaintiff.