EEOC issued “official notice of dismissal” stating it “will not proceed further with its investigation”
Hulsey/Dost allowed 90 days to decide whether to sue county in federal or state court: they do not

by Sue Horn

The United State Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued an official “Determination of Charge” each for the separate but similar complaints filed last October by two female Carroll County employees, Ashley Hulsey and Jacqueline Dost, against the Carroll County Board of Commissioners alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

On March 20, 2024, the EEOC informed Hulsey and Dost separately that “This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) in this charge under federal law in federal or state court, your lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of your receipt of this notice.” The 90-day window passed as of June 24, 2024 with neither Hulsey nor Dost choosing to sue the county. Hulsey is county Communications Director and Dost is county Solid Waste Director.

The county’s liability insurance company MarshMcLennan hired the law firm of Freeman Mathis & Gary (FM&G), LLP, Atlanta, GA to defend the Carroll County Board of Commissioners which is comprised of six members and one chairman. The cost of defending the county against Hulsey and Dost was covered under the county’s insurance premium that is paid for by county taxpayers. StarNews received notice bypress time (Sept. 10th) from the county attorney that the total dollar amount that FM&G billed the insurance company was not yet known.

Freeman Mathis & Gary’s defense of the commission board included a summary statement to the U.S. EEOC that Hulsey’s claims were “both factually and legally defective” and that Dost’s claims were “entirely without merit”. On January 26, 2024, FM&G submitted to the EEOC a 33-page response to Dost’s claims and a 33-page response to Hulsey’s claims. FM&G asked the EEOC to dismiss both charges with a finding of “no cause”.

On October 13, 2023, the Carroll County Board of Commissioners [CCBC] had received notice that Hulsey and Dost each filed a complaint alleging discrimination based on “retaliation, sex, and involve issues of harassment, terms/conditions” that occurred on or about October 4, 2023. Hulsey’s complaint listed 59 charges. Dost’s complaint listed 44 charges. Most of the complaint details/incidents, although separate, were similar. The complaints were against the board for doing “nothing to prevent or correct the gender discrimination and retaliation to which Mr. Reynolds [District 5 Commissioner Ernie Reynolds] and other men at CCBC have subjected us to.”

Hulsey’s and Dost’s complaints contained the same verbatim statement summing up what the female employees allege they were “subjected to” which is the following: “Since I spoke up about the gender disparities, Mr. Reynolds and other Commissioners and employees have retaliatorily ostracized me, isolated me, and cast me out. I believe that Mr. Reynolds wants to get rid of me and have my employment terminated.”

Dost and Hulsey both alleged that one commissioner, Reynolds, “publicly called out the fact that” they had received raises higher than other employees because they were women. But, FM&G, after review of videos of commission public meetings, stated (page 2 in each of the two responses) that “There is absolutely no evidence that his [Reynolds] reference to the Charging Party’s raise was due to her gender. Instead, Commissioner Reynolds argued that whereas the vast majority of county employees received only a $1/hour raise, some employees received raises that in his opinion were inequitable, including one employee who received a 39% raise, one who received a 27% raise, and another who received a 16% raise. Commissioner Reynolds did not reference any of the three employees by name or gender, but argued that these types of raises necessitated greater budgetary controls such as mandatory board approval for all raises over 10%.”

It was noted in the FM&G’s responses that Chairman Michelle Morgan repeatedly asked Reynolds to name the employees, as noted on Pages 19 in Hulsey response and Page 20 in Dost response: “The Chairman returned to her initial question: ‘Would you please tell me who the three are that you continually discuss?”

This is confusing as Morgan would have known who the employees were as she was the one who both issued the raises and determined the amount of each raise. Under Section 14 of the Carroll County Charter, “chairman shall have exclusive authority to … fix the compensation of all employees and officials of the county.” Any reason as to why Morgan was verbally pushing Reynolds to be the one to publicly identify the employees was not included in either response to EEOC. Reynolds did not name anyone and stayed with his point concerning the budget and raises for all county employees, specifically the he believed a “merit-based system rewards and encourages high performers in public services”. Reynolds said, “What I’m saying is that there is inequity. I simply want to address the inequity and ensure that favoritism is not flourishing, but equity is flourishing and there’s proper ‘tone at the top’.” To which Chairman Morgan then announced it was the Communications Director. At a later time, Morgan also identifies by job the Solid Waste Director.

In the budget Reynolds was discussing, Morgan gave Dost a $23,760 / 39% raise, and Hulsey a $10,400 / 16% raise. Dost was hired July 2021 with a salary of $61,240. After her 39% raise one year later in July 2022, Dost was being paid $85,000 a year. A meetings concerning the budget, Reynolds’ public statements continued to include his opinion that these specific raises were “inequitable” and based upon “favoritism” rather than merit. In her complaint, Dost stated the raise was due to increased job responsibilities. Her job was Solid Waste Manager and was changed by Chairman Morgan to Solid Waste Director one year later. Dost stated it was because of her gender that Reynolds believed she was receiving more, and that his conduct was based upon discriminatory animus towards females. Hulsey’s salary was $65,000 before the 16% raise of $10,400 for a salary of $75,400.

Despite Morgan being a defendant in the complaint, both Dost and Hulsey confusingly go to Morgan’s defense in their official complaints against her / commission board: Dost stated “Mr. Reynolds publicly blames, criticizes, and undermines Chairman Morgan, a female, implying she is not competent.” Hulsey stated “Mr. Reynolds and some of the other male Commissioners try to undermine the Chairman and take control an.” From these statements, Chairman Morgan appeared to have been active on both sides of this legal issue: having favored these two employees with significant financial benefit yet being the one who publicly identified both (by specific job). 

Due to the fact it was Morgan who revealed the identities of the two to the public (along with a third female employee by job title who did not file a complaint) seemed to indicate the repeated accusations of “gender discrimination” “retaliation” and “animus” against Reynolds were grossly misplaced. And were it not for Morgan’s identifying the two at the public meeting and short of a leak within the board to the local newspapers or radio of Dost or Hulsey’s identity by job, the public and other county employees would have most likely remained in the dark as to whom Reynolds was referring.

Hulsey’s complaints #50, #51, and #52 included two others commissioners, Tommy Lee and another unnamed: “Mr. Reynolds has stopped including me on work-related email correspondence on which I historically would have been included. County Attorney Avery Jackson told me that District 3 Commissioner Tommy Lee stated that I was not to be in the same meetings he was in, or he would not come to them. This has made my job difficult and hindered my performance of my job duties, as my projects require me to meet with the district commissioners, which I have always done in the past. Previously, one Commissioner and I spoke almost daily and worked closely together to share information about current projects with the public. Now, however, he has abandoned me as a friend and colleague and only includes me in necessary business matters.”

Dost complaints #33. #34, #35, #36, and #37 included claims of being “berated” and “subjected to a grueling inquisition”: “On September 28, 2023, I appeared before the CCBC regarding a request to replace a piece of equipment for my department. My written request made it clear that I had held off on asking for this needed equipment because I feared being unfairly subjected to a grueling inquisition, because of the turmoil within CCBC during the budget process, and because of my health. I had conferred with the Chairman about holding off. Nevertheless, when I appeared before the CCBC regarding the request, Mr. Reynolds took the opportunity to berate me and the Chairman for making the request after the budget process concluded. One Commissioner brought up the Public Works equipment that had caught fire and again wrongly placed the blame on Solid Waste, asking if the equipment I needed to replace was the same one that caught fire. Though they and the CCBC agreed that my department needed the equipment, Mr. Reynolds and another male Commissioner took the opportunity to attack me, question my competence and integrity, and retaliate against me.”

After reviewing the recording of the September 28, 2023 commission meeting, FM&G’s response (on page 22) to the charge of Dost claim of being subjected to a “grueling inquisition” was the following: “After the Charging Party [Dost] had finished presenting, Commissioner [Clint] Chance began the CCBC’s [commission board’s] discussion by asking a few questions about the warranty, which the Charging Party answered. Commissioner Reynolds then spoke up, saying he had ‘no problem’ with the Charging Party’s purchase request, that the equipment was ‘needed’ and her ‘selection [was] good”. Reynolds noted, however, that he first heard of this purchase request no later than three weeks after the new fiscal year, and that for purposes of ‘budget integrity’ Solid Waste or perhaps the Finance Director or Chairman should give the CCBC a heads up about major upcoming purchases. . . . Commissioner [Steve] Fuller asked whether anything was salvageable on the old excavator prompting a laugh from Dost . . . Commissioner [Tommy] Lee then asked, ‘It’s not the one that burned up, right?’ and the Chairman [Morgan] responded it was not.”

In conclusion, Freeman Mathis & Gary summed up their findings for a “No Cause” request to the U.S EEOC:

1. found no evidence Reynolds’ references to pay were based on gender

2. both Hulsey and Dost did receive their raises and neither lost their jobs

3. The only employee whose proposed raise was rejected in that budget by the board was a male (fire department)

4. 60% of the county employees who received raises were female

5. Carroll County did not subject the Charging Party to any adverse action

6. Charging Party cannot show harassment sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment

7. Charging Party’s own allegations amount to no more than 4 incidents over the course of 11 months

8. Gender-neutral conduct such as “angry looks, harsh words, and ‘silent treatment’ cannot form the basis of a hostile work environment” and that an “employee must present concrete evidence in the form of specific facts, not just conclusory allegations and assertions.”

Specifically, FM&G cited Miller-Goodwin v. City of Panama City Beach, Fla. 385 F. App’x 966, 970 (11th Cir. 2010): “Importantly, not all conduct by an employer negatively affecting an employee constitutes adverse employment action.” And that “none of these allegations” “resemble a termination, demotion, suspension without pay or pay raise or cut.”