Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

TANESHA GRAHAM and

JOSEPH KING,

Plaintiffs, Civil Action No.:

v. Jury Trial Demanded

CITY OF SOUTH FULTON, GA.

Defendant.

COMPLAINT

COME NOW Plaintiffs Tanesha Graham and Joseph King, by and through

their undersigned co-counsels, and file this employment discrimination lawsuit

against Defendant City of South Fulton, GA., (“South Fulton”), pursuant to Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a), as

well as a supplemental claim under the Georgia Whistleblower Act (O.C.G.A. §

45-1-4). Plaintiffs, who were both public employees, bring this action to hold their

prior employer, South Fulton, accountable for violating their statutory rights by

subjecting them to a retaliatory hostile environment based on their opposition to

1
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 2 of 19

and reporting of discriminatory conduct; and by retaliating against Plaintiffs, for

disclosing a violation of, or noncompliance with a law, rule, or regulation to their

supervisors and to government agencies, the South Fulton Human Resources

Department and the South Fulton Police Department.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims

asserted in this action under 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343.

2. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as

Defendant is located in this District and division, and the events or omissions

giving rise to the claims occurred in this District and division.

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claim

Plaintiffs assert, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Tanesha Graham (hereinafter, “Ms. Graham”) is a resident of

Suwanee, Georgia, and at all times relevant to this complaint, was employed by

Defendant as South Fulton’s Human Resources Director.

5. Plaintiff Joseph King (hereinafter, “Officer King”) is a resident of

Lawrenceville, Georgia, and at all times relevant to this complaint, was employed

by Defendant South Fulton as a detective.

2
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 3 of 19

6. Plaintiffs are covered employees under Title VII and the Georgia

Whistleblower Act during the period in which they were employed by Defendants.

7. Defendant is an employer as defined by Title VII and the Georgia

Whistleblower Act, and is therefore subject to their provisions.

8. South Fulton is a municipality of the State of Georgia and is

responsible for the funding and operation of the South Fulton Department of

Human Resources and the South Fulton Police Department. South Fulton may be

served with summons at 5440 Fulton Industrial Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia 30336.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

9. On October 24, 2022, Plaintiffs timely filed a charge with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging retaliation under Title

VII. See Ex. A-B. Plaintiffs each received Right to Sue Letters on or about

December 5, 2022. This lawsuit is initiated prior to his statutory deadline of 90

days.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

10. Ms. Graham served as South Fulton’s Human Resources (“HR”)

Director from April 2021 to August 2022. She has previously served in senior

management HR roles for two other Georgia municipalities, Suwanee and

Norcross.

3
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 4 of 19

11. Officer King was employed by the South Fulton Police Department

(“SFPD” or the “Department”) as a Homicide Detective from October 10, 2018 to

June 6, 2022.

12. During Officer King’s tenure with SFPD, he won accolades for his

exemplary performance, including recognition by the Department as South

Fulton’s Detective of the Year in 2020 and as Fulton County’s Detective of the year

in 2022. During 2020, King was the only SFPD detective who compiled a 100%

case closure rate.

13. In 2021, Officer King’s experience with drug-related homicides led to

a cross-assignment to SFPD’s narcotics unit.

Evidence of corruption within the South Fulton Police Department

14. During 2021, Officer King and other members of the Department

observed numerous infractions and violations of SFPD regulations by Lieutenant

Shannon McKesey, the head of the department’s narcotics unit, including the

consumption of alcohol on duty, use of city funds to pay undercover officers to

purchase alcohol for use while they were performing their assignment, prohibited

fraternization including a sexual relationship between McKesey and a lower

ranking officer, and tampering with funds collected during drug arrests and

execution of search warrants.

4
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 5 of 19

15. McKesey practiced open intimidation and verbal bullying of officers

and was suspected by several, including Officer King, of sabotaging work

assignments to damage potential rivals whom she viewed as competition for

advancement.

16. McKesey also frequently used racial slurs in the presence of police

personnel, including Officer King. During crime scene investigations, she was

known to refer to suspects and witnesses as “n******”, and to describe African

American persons in derogatory and offensive terms.

17. While McKesey’s pattern of flagrant misconduct was widely known

within the department, Officer King and his colleagues were reluctant to report her

behavior within their chain of command. McKesey maintained a close personal

friendship with the wife of SFPD, Keith Meadows (“Chief Meadows”) and

McKesey openly touted the fact that Chief Meadows had mentored her.

18. In October 2021, Officer King and another officer filed complaints

regarding McKesey’s infractions with the city’s new HR Director, Ms. Graham.

19. The HR Department was obligated under South Fulton’s regulations to

report the misconduct allegations to Chief Meadows. As a subject of the

complaints, who was entitled to respond, McKesey was also notified.

5
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 6 of 19

20. Consistent with SFPD’s policies, Officer King and the other officer

who lodged a complaint were reassigned to units that were not under McKesey’s

supervision, and McKesey was advised that she was to avoid contact with them.

21. Ms. Graham launched an investigation of the allegations she received

against McKesey and during the fall of 2021 through the winter of 2022,

interviewed approximately 12 other officers who corroborated the claims by

Officer King and his colleague, including the reports of alcohol use on duty, use of

city funds for improper purposes, sexual conduct with a colleague, interference

with officers McKesey perceived as threats, racially offensive language in the

presence of officers, and tampering with cash seized during drug investigations.

22. The scope of the HR investigation encompassed evidence that

McKesey’s conduct violated various departmental regulations against abuse of

authority, consumption of alcohol of duty, fraternization with subordinates,

tampering with proceeds seized during police work; as well as evidence that

McKesey’s use of racial epithets and her sexual relationship with an employee

exposed South Fulton to liability under federal anti-discrimination law.

23. Chief Meadows, despite an abundance of evidence that McKesey was

unfit for command of her unit, refused to suspend McKesey or place her on

administrative leave. As Ms. Graham’s investigation continued, McKesey

continued to exercise supervisory authority over at least some of her accusers.

6
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 7 of 19

24. In addition to failing to act on the gathering evidence against the head

of one of the most sensitive and important units under his leadership, Chief

Meadows began to take steps that had a clear effect of obstructing the

investigation.

25. For example, Chief Meadows pressured Ms. Graham to name

witnesses implicating McKesey in wrongdoing. He also warned Ms. Graham that

he viewed her investigation as a distraction to the department and attempted to

preclude her from launching other investigations of the Department.

26. Chief Meadows even went so far as to reassign Officer King and the

other original complaining officer to work under McKesey’s supervision, a

fundamental breach of the principle that the subject of a misconduct complaint

should not be in a position to command her accusers. That principle is particularly

vital when the accused is in position to place her subordinates in high risk and

dangerous assignments.

27. On March 29, 2022, Ms. Graham issued a report of the findings of her

misconduct probe. She recommended McKesey’s demotion and the institution of

department wide training about bullying and harassment within SFPD.

28. Ms. Graham also advised City Manager Tammi Saddler Jones (“Ms.

Jones”) that she believed that there was sufficient evidence of unlawful behavior

7
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 8 of 19

beyond HR violations that the McKesey probe should be referred to an outside

agency.

29. During a meeting with Ms. Jones and Ms. Graham on April 27, 2022,

Chief Meadows stunned Ms. Graham with the aggressive and threatening nature of

his response to the investigation. Chief Meadows admonished Ms. Graham for

describing her findings with certain police personnel, and insisted that the entire

evidentiary file be presented to him, a violation of the HR Department’s policy that

it retain control over documents generated in the course of an investigation.

30. At several points during the meeting, Chief Meadows lost his

composure, raising his voice to the point of screaming, and shoving several

documents forcibly toward Ms. Graham.

31. Chief Meadows at first proposed that the investigation be transferred

to the SFPD Internal Affairs Department, which Ms. Graham regarded as an

unmistakable effort to ensure that Chief Meadows would retain control of the

outcome of the inquiry.

32. Despite the initial resistance from the Chief, Ms. Jones decided to

move in the direction of finding an external investigation. The Smyrna, Georgia

Internal Affairs Department (“Smyrna IA”) was selected to conduct its own probe

of misconduct by McKesey, who remained in command of the narcotics unit in the

face of numerous complaints about her leadership, ethics, and judgment.

8
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 9 of 19

Retaliation against Officer King

33. In May 2022, Officer King was interviewed by a team of investigators

from Smyrna IA.

34. Two days after his interview, Officer King was notified by SFPD they

had launched an investigation of a tip that he had faked a COVID vaccination card,

which had been submitted over a year earlier.

35. Officer King was able to promptly confirm through the Georgia

Department of Public Health that his COVID vaccination card was accurate, but

Officer King perceived the spurious complaint as a warning shot that his

whistleblowing would have adverse consequences for his career and that he was a

continuing target for reprisal.

36. Officer King chose to accept an Investigator position at the Fulton

County District Attorney's Office, which he started in June 2022.

37. Within his first couple of weeks working at the District Attorney's

Office, Officer King learned from his new supervisor that Chief Meadows and

other unidentified persons within SFPD were actively disseminating false and

derogatory information about Officer King to the DA’s office in a blatant attempt to

get him fired.

38. After Mr. King started working at the DA’s Office, he also began

receiving unsolicited calls from McKesey, which to Officer King appeared to

9
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 10 of 19

oscillate between veiled threats and efforts to bait him into contradicting his

previous allegations.

39. The barrage of ill-concealed threats and efforts to ruin his career

subjected Officer King to emotional distress and anxiety, and raised the specter that

the repercussions would only escalate.

Retaliation against Ms. Graham

40. In February 2022, while the HR Department’s investigation of police

corruption was underway, a false allegation was unfurled against Ms. Graham by

an employee in the Department who alleged that Ms. Graham had been verbally

abusive towards her. Despite a dearth of any supporting evidence, Mrs. Saddler

Jones’ inquiry into the incident lasted three months before Ms. Graham was

notified in early May 2022 that the complaint had no merit.

41. Still, despite finding the complaint was groundless, on May 2nd, Ms.

Saddler-Jones took corrective action against Ms. Graham, directing her to undergo

mandatory “emotional intelligence training.”

42. That same day, on May 2, 2022, Ms. Saddler-Jones disclosed to Ms.

Graham that there was internal pressure from political forces in South Fulton to

terminate Ms. Graham. Ms. Saddler-Jones specifically mentioned that Chief

Meadows had reached out to one of his allies on the City Council, Helen Willis,

and that Councilor Willis had threatened to push for her colleagues to oust Ms.

10
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 11 of 19

Saddler-Jones if she did not “make changes” in the personnel structure at City Hall,

including firing Ms. Graham.

43. According to Ms. Saddler-Jones, Councilor Willis further stated that

the Council was prepared to terminate the City Manager’s contract if Chief

Meadows were not given veto power over the selection of an independent

investigator.

44. The close proximity between the corrective action against her and Ms.

Saddler-Jones’ warning about political pressure to fire Ms. Graham made Ms.

Graham deeply apprehensive, and led her to craft a document labeled “Hostile

Work Environment Notice”, which was emailed to Ms. Saddler-Jones on the

morning of May 3, 2022.

45. The Notice was based on CSF’s Healthy Workplace Ordinance, ORD

2022-009 Section 2-6010.2, which prohibits “hostile and humiliating remarks of

professional disqualification” and “unjustified threats of dismissal.”

46. In her Notice, Ms. Graham directly complained about retaliation in the

form of interference by Chief Meadows and Councilor Willis, which she alleged

resulted in anxiety, and emotional trauma directly related to workplace stress. She

also advised that she had sought counseling for anxiety and insomnia caused by the

stress of the situation.

11
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 12 of 19

47. Soon after the filing of her Hostile Environment Notice, Ms. Graham

noticed that the scope of her duties began to be reduced by the City Manager. Ms

Graham was increasingly excluded from meetings involving city business that

would normally require the presence of the HR Director.

48. For example, on June 15, 2022, Ms. Graham was not allowed to

weigh-in on the termination of the city’s purchasing manager. Termination of

senior municipal officials normally required input by the HR Director.

49. Ms. Saddler-Jones also precluded Ms. Graham from conducting an

investigation of employee complaints within the Finance Department, although

leading inquiries into complaints by city employees was one of Ms. Graham’s core

job duties.

50. Chief Meadows and Councilor Wills openly bypassed Ms. Graham to

engage her subordinates in her department, a breach of the ordinary deference

given the HR Director to manage her own staff, and in Councilor Willis’ case, a

violation of the city ordinance precluding council members from exercising

managerial authority over municipal departments.

51. Ms. Graham was not permitted to observe or advise any aspects of

Smyrna IA’s probe of McKesey. In fact, she only learned of the investigative report

through an email that was sent to her principal deputy.

12
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 13 of 19

52. As Ms. Graham became increasingly marginalized, she inquired about

the status of her own hostile environment complaint against city officials. On or

about June 23rd, weeks after she initiated the complaint, Ms. Graham was

informed that the matter had been assigned to an outside law firm for investigation.

53. On July 11, 2022, Ms. Graham met with the external investigator, who

told her that only 30 minutes had been allotted for the interview. During the half

hour, Ms. Graham was presented a set of cursory, conclusory questions and was

told that the investigation had been expanded to include rumors that Ms. Graham

had hired blood relatives to city positions in violation of nepotism policies.

54. The investigator promised to conduct a second interview, which never

occurred.

55. On August 2, 2022, Ms. Graham discovered that her access to SF’s

computer systems had been deactivated. Assistant City Manager Don Toms

advised her that the decision had been made to offer Ms. Graham a severance

package in advance of her employment with South Fulton ending.

56. On August 4, 2022, Saddler-Jones confirmed to Ms. Graham that a

severance package was in the works.

57. Over the next three weeks, Ms. Graham remained in a limbo status

with South Fulton. City officials were apparently instructed that they did not need

to engage her directly; in fact, at one point, Councilor Willis emailed senior

13
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 14 of 19

members of the HR Department that she would be contacting them directly

regarding certain HR tasks, which as noted above, directly contravenes municipal

regulations regarding the independence of municipal staff from political

interference.

58. Ms. Graham offered her resignation on August 26, 2022, an

involuntary decision based on the extreme stress South Fulton’s municipal

leadership exerted on her and the fact that her job responsibilities were being

visibly curtailed, to the detriment of her professional reputation.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE
RETALIATORY HARASSMENT
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a))
(Plaintiff King)

59. Plaintiff King re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as

if set forth herein.

60. Plaintiff King engaged in protected activity under Title VII by

reporting to the Defendant’s Human Resources Department that the chief of the

South Fulton Police Department’s narcotics unit regularly employed racial slurs

while on duty.

61. South Fulton, through various officers and agents of its police

department, retaliated against Plaintiff King for actions that included his reporting

of racially discriminatory conduct by subjecting him to a retaliatory hostile work

14
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 15 of 19

environment, i.e., ongoing mistreatment that might have dissuaded a reasonable

person from opposing discrimination in the workplace.

62. South Fulton’s retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff King included the

instigating of false claims that he fabricated an official document, reassigning him

to a unit directed by the subject of his complaints, and continuing efforts by

Department personnel including the Chief of Police to spread derogatory and false

information about Plaintiff to a subsequent employer.

63. As a direct and proximate result of South Fulton’s retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff King has suffered compensatory damages including mental anguish,

emotional distress, and anxiety.

COUNT II
RETALIATORY HARASSMENT
(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-3(a)
(Plaintiff Graham)

64. Plaintiff Graham re-alleges the allegations in the preceding paragraphs

as if set forth herein.

65. Plaintiff Graham engaged in protected activity under Title VII in her

capacity as South Fulton’s Human Resources Director by investigating and

subsequently reporting to municipal officials evidence that the head of the South

Fulton Police Department’s narcotics unit engaged in unlawful activity including

15
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 16 of 19

regularly making racial slurs while on duty, and subjecting a subordinate to a

potentially coercive sexual relationship.

66. Plaintiff Graham further engaged in protected activity by lodging her

own internal complaint with South Fulton that she was being subjected to a hostile

environment based on her reporting and investigation of unlawful activity that

included sex and race based discriminatory conduct.

67. South Fulton, through officials including its Chief of Police, City

Manager, and a member of the City Council retaliated against Plaintiff Graham for

reporting and investigating discriminatory conduct under Title VII by subjecting

her to a retaliatory hostile work environment, i.e., ongoing mistreatment that might

have dissuaded a reasonable person from opposing discrimination in the

workplace.

68. South Fulton’s retaliatory conduct against Plaintiff Graham included

the following: verbally and physically threatening behavior from the Chief of

Police; political pressure from municipal officials aimed at encouraging the City

Manager to terminate Plaintiff Graham; a reduction in the scope of Plaintiff

Graham’s duties and responsibilities; unjustified corrective action; a failure to

investigate Plaintiff Graham’s complaints of a hostile work environment; and

threats that Plaintiff Graham’s termination was imminent.

16
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 17 of 19

69. As a direct and proximate result of South Fulton’s retaliatory conduct,

Plaintiff Graham has suffered economic damages including the loss of income and

compensatory damages including mental anguish, emotional distress, and anxiety.

COUNT III
Georgia Whistleblower Act
(O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4)
(as to Plaintiffs Graham and King)

70. Plaintiffs re-allege the foregoing allegations as if set forth herein.

71. Georgia’s whistleblower statute (O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4) prohibits public

employers from retaliating against public employees who report a violation of, or

noncompliance with, a regulation, rule, or law to a supervisor or governmental

agency.

72. Plaintiffs Graham and King, both public employees, engaged in

protected activity under the Georgia Whistleblower Act by by engaging in the

aforementioned reporting of discriminatory conduct outlined in Counts I and II,

and by disclosing numerous other forms of misconduct by the head of the South

Fulton Police Department’s narcotics unit, including misuse of funds seized in

investigations, consumption of alcohol while on duty, sexual misconduct with a

subordinate, intimidation of police officers, and interference with officers’ work

assignments.

17
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 18 of 19

73. All of the acts identified above violated laws, rules or regulations that

governed the South Fulton Police Department.

74. Plaintiffs Graham and King were subjected to retaliation by officials

of South Fulton as alleged above, including in Plaintiff Graham’s case, the

incidents alleged in Count II and in Plaintiff King’s case, the incidents alleged in

Count I.

75. As a direct and proximate result of South Fulton’s violation of the

Georgia Whistleblower Act, Plaintiffs Graham and King have suffered

compensatory damages including mental anguish, emotional distress, and anxiety,

and in Plaintiff Graham’s case, economic damages including lost income.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demands judgment against Defendant as follows:

a. All damages that may be awarded under Title VII of the of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, (“Title VII”) and the Georgia Whistleblower

Protection Act (O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4), including lost wages and back

pay; general compensatory damages including but not limited to

damages for mental anguish and emotional distress;

b. Special damages to the extent allowed by law;

18
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-MHC-JEM Document 1 Filed 02/07/23 Page 19 of 19

c. Injunctive relief under Title VII preventing and prohibiting Defendant

from engaging in its present practices in violation of the laws cited

herein;

d. Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1988;

e. Such other relief as this court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, the 7th day of February 2023.

/S/ Arnold J. Lizana

Law Offices of Arnold J. Lizana III
GA Bar No.: 698758
1175 Peachtree Street NE, 10th Floor
Atlanta, GA 30361
T: (404) 207-1559
F: (470) 231-0672
alizana@attorneylizana.com

/S/ Artur G. Davis .

HKM Employment Attorneys LLP
ASB-3672-D56A
2024 3rd Ave. NSuite 307
Birmingham, AL 35203
T: (205)881-0935
adavis@hkm.com
(applying for admission pro hac vice)

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS

19