The three Pendergrass “whistleblowers” who alleged corruption among Pendergrass leaders have lost their federal lawsuit.
Senior U.S. District Judge William C. O’Kelley ruled in favor of the city last Thursday. The three, former city clerk Katherine Rintoul, and ex-officers William Garner and Scott Rogers, initially filed the lawsuit in 2009, after they lost their jobs in what they called unconstitutional retaliation by Pendergrass officials.
Attorney Nancy Val Preda said Tuesday that she plans to file a lawsuit in State Court on behalf of Garner and Rintoul.
Pendergrass whistleblowers lose lawsuit
Judge O’Kelley ruled that while the whistleblowers claimed that city officials committed criminal acts, the former employees didn’t prove the acts were part of a criminal conspiracy.
The judge also ruled against a motion by Garner, who resigned in September 2009 from an allegedly hostile work environment. Rintoul and Rogers had been fired in July 2009.
Judge O’Kelley said Garner failed to show in the court proceedings that his work environment and conditions had become so unbearable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign.
The judge, however, dismissed a counterclaim by city officials that Rintoul was responsible for a variety of unauthorized charges to the city’s credit card that totaled $5,788. City officials said in court documents that the former city clerk knew that an ex-police investigator was making the purchases, but approved them anyway.
The judge also ruled against a motion by Garner, who resigned in September 2009 from an allegedly hostile work environment. Rintoul and Rogers had been fired in July 2009.
Judge O’Kelley said Garner failed to show in the court proceedings that his work environment and conditions had become so unbearable that a reasonable person would be forced to resign.
The judge, however, dismissed a counterclaim by city officials that Rintoul was responsible for a variety of unauthorized charges to the city’s credit card that totaled $5,788. City officials said in court documents that the former city clerk knew that an ex-police investigator was making the purchases, but approved them anyway.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
#1
more to it
on
04/07/11 at 06:41 PM
[Reply]
From what I've read in other newspapers the case was dismissed because the lawyer didn't file in Superior Court first. And according to the article she and Scott's lawyer plan on filing in Superior Court. So the headline that they lost is misleading. They were just in the wrong court and the judge let them know. Now it starts all over locally although I doubt any local judge is going to hear the case.