Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Vanessa A. Phillips, Petitioner v. Macon Bibb County Government

Supreme Court briefAug 11, 2023

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No.:

2-3 '5^

3fo®I)e

g>ttpreme Court of tfje QUntteb States;

Vanessa A. Phillips ,

pro se Petitioner,

Macon-Bibb County Government,

■

•'-‘A

and

Macon-Bibb County Tax Commissioners ,

Respondents.

On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Vanessa A. Phillips, pro se Petitioner

P. 0. Box 7023

Warner Robins, GA 31095

478 - 334 - 9868

RECEIVED

SEP 2 8 2023

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

SUPREME COURT, U.S.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Whether the At-Will employment

statute shelters the employer, Macon-Bibb

County Government (MBCG), from the First

Amendment’s “unprotected speech”, when

a) Deceit and untruths are utilized for

cause of termination in order to

b) Affect the Petitioner outside of the

workplace by guaranteeing her denial

of her unemployment insurance benefits

since

c) The At-Will employment statute does

not specifically prohibit defamation.

2. Whether breach of contract occurred

when the Petitioner requested a hearing

(within the prescribed time), per the employee

handbook, where precise instruction and

language stated that a hearing ‘shall’ be

conducted once requested, was not conducted.

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

1. Honorable Rosenbaum

2. Honorable Grant

3. Groover, Esq., Duke

4. James Bates Brannan Groover LLP

5. Macon-Bibb County Board of Tax

Assessors

6. Macon-Bibb County, Georgia

7. Phillips, Vanessa, pro se, Petitioner

8. Pryor, Honorable Jill

9. Honorable

10. Self, Honorable Tilman E., Ill

11. Willis, Esq., Kathryn

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Questions Presented...............

Parties to Proceeding..............

Table of Contents ...................

Table of Authorities...........

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Opinions Below........................

Jurisdiction..............................

ii, m

IV, V, VI

Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continuation

2-4

Introduction........................

Statement of the Case..... .

5-7

Exhibits Al................. .

Exhibit A2...............

...8- 10

Exhibit C .......................

... 11, 12

.13-15

Exhibit K ................. .

.. 16 - 31

Exhibit G........................

.. 32 - 39

Exhibit H........ ...........

Exhibit L ........................

,. 40 - 44

.45-54

Exhibit X................. ......

55 - 62

Reasons to Grant the Petition

Conclusion............................

APPENDIX...... .................... .

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit, no Opinion, April 14, 2023......la, 2a

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh

Circuit, Opinion, December 30, 2022...3a - 8a

United States District Court for the Middle

District of Georgia, Opinion,

March 11, 2022

9a - 27a

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

Borden v. City of St. Petersburg,

765 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1985)

52, 53

Brewfab, LLC v. George Russo,

No. 22-11003 (11th Cir. 2022)

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165

(1977) ....................................

52, 53

Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892]

1 QB 256, 1892 Dec. 6, 7

Conoco, Inc. v. Johnson, 231

F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2000)

Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340, 357-8, 97

S.E. 2nd 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956) ........... 54

Fletcher v. Southwest Airlines Co.,

295 F.3d 1255 (11th Cir. 2002)

Goldberg v. Kelly, 425 U.S. 94 (1976)

Greene u. McElroy, 360 U.S.

474, 79 S. Ct. 1400 (1959)

50, 51

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

CASES

Hutchinson v. City of Atlanta,

(11th Cir. 2016)............

Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213, 1219-20

(3d Cir. 1977) §1983 .............................. 50

Mackenzie v. City of Rockledge, 920 F.2d 1554,

1559 (11th Cir. 1991)

McBride u. Southeastern Grocers, LLC, 694

F. App’x 821 (11th Cir. 2017).............

Me Elhannon v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

493 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2007)

Rasmussen v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.,

376 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2004)

Tricia Galbreath v. Hale County, Alabama

Commission, et al., No. 17-13765 (11th

Cir. 2018)................................ ................ 49

United States u. Turner, 79 M.J. 401

(C.A.A.F. 2020) .......................

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES - Continued

Page

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

First Amendment

Fifth Amendment

54, 61

Sixth Amendment

STATUTES

At-Will employment Statute

48, 56

The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C.

§§ 3729 - 3733 .................

5 USCA §701

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Case of Fries (1799) Justice Iredell

51, 52

Macon-Bibb County Government Policies and

Procedures employee handbook .... 48, 49

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully petitions for a writ

of certiorari to review the judgment of the U.S.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

OPINIONS BELOW

The Eleventh Circuit’s Affirm, No.2210930, Judgment entered December 30, 2023 of

the Court the Middle District of Georgia, Macon

Division’s court dismissal of her complaint,

printed at App. 3a - 8a.

JURISDICTION

The Eleventh Circuit denied a timely petition

for rehearing on April 14, 2023. This Court has

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

INTRODUCTION

1) The Petitioner, Vanessa Phillips, is referred

to as Petitioner, employee, she, and her.

2) The Respondents, Macon-Bibb County

Government and Macon-Bibb County Tax

Assessors, are respectfully referred to wholly as

MBCG, and/or the Employer.

3) Macon-Bibb County Government Policies and

Procedures Manual, approved and adopted, Dec

3rd, 2013 edition, respectfully referred to as

MBCG P&P and/or employee handbook.

4) The Middle District of Georgia, Macon

Division is respectfully referred to as the First

Court.

5) The United States Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit is respectfully referred to as

Appellate Court.

6) The Supreme Court of the United States is

respectfully referred to as the Supreme Court.

7) The Department of Labor will be respectfully

referred to as the DOL.

May 18th, 2020, the Petitioner accepted

the hourly paid employment offer at MaconBibb County Government (MBCG), in the

Macon-Bibb County Tax Assessors office as a

Residential Assessor I, exhibit “C”.

On January 11th - 15th, 2021, Petitioner

earned a score of a 90 from the Georgia

Department of Revenue for the Tax Assessors

office, Course I.

On February 9th, 2021, Petitioner was

called to her immediate supervisor’s office

where two other supervisors awaited her. A

“Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action” was

ready and waiting for her signature. Her

signature was acknowledgement of the

allegations against her and her termination

/suspension; not an[y] admission of guilt.

Petitioner was “terminated (suspended

with pay for five days pending a discharge

investigation)” on 02/09/21, exhibit “Al”, then,

escorted from the building. The door that is

always unlocked - was literally locked behind

her as she exited.

While on suspension, Vanessa received

the second of the three contracts, requesting

that she refrain from visiting the office pending

a discharge investigation, exhibit “B”.

Petitioner was separated from her

employment with Macon-Bibb County

Government (MBCG) on February 16th, 2021,

Separation Notice, exhibit “C”, without the

contractual hearing she requested per MBCG

P&P manual, 2013 edition, exhibit “Xs...”, by

requesting the [fair] hearing of her termination,

three times, in writing to:

1. Human Resources (H.R.), exhibit “Gs”, dated

February 15th, 2021, first request, via email.

2. Hand delivered letter, second request to the

H.R./Compliance Office/r, exhibit “Hs”, on

February 24th, 2021, and

3. February 24th, 2021 to the Mayor, Mister

Lester Miller, exhibit “Ls”, via email.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The precise wording of Vanessa Phillips’

termination/separation (exhibit “Al”) is as

follows:

1. Group II #9 - Commission of any unethical

act prohibited by the MBCG Ethics Ordinance,

as amended.

2. Group III #1 - Wanton and willful neglect in

performance of assigned duties.

3. Group III #2 - Deliberate misuse, destruction,

damage, sabotage or pilferage of Macon-Bibb

County property or property of an employee or

citizen.

4. Group III #12 - Use or attempted use of

political influence or bribery to secure an

advantage in any matter.

exhibit Al

MACON-BIBB COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action

Employee Name: Vanessa Phillips

Job Title: Residential Appraiser

Supervisor: Kema Bishop

Hire Date: 05-18-2020

Department: Tax Assessor

Date of Incident: 02-03-2021

Termination (you are suspended with

pay for five (5) business days pending a

discharge investigation).

DISCIPLINARY ACTION(S) IS BEING

TAKEN FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:

(Include specific details: date(s) of infraction

and violation of stated policy, additional

documents may be attached with this form:

Group II #9 - Commission of any unethical

act prohibited by the MBCG Ethics

Ordinance, as amended.

Group III #1 - Wanton and willful neglect in

performance of assigned duties.

exhibit Al continuation

Group III #2 - Deliberate misuse, destruction,

damage, sabotage or pilferage of Macon-Bibb

County property or property of an employee

or citizen.

Group III #12 - Use or attempted use of

political influence or bribery to secure an

advantage in any matter.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS OR WARNINGS:

(Include dates and explanation of previous

discussions and/or discipline):______________

The duties of an appraiser have been taught

to Vanessa since the first week of

employment. She has been trained with

many appraisers as well as her supervisor.

None of the actions stated above have been

taught as a part of her duties or as a part of

the concerns of the Assessment Office. If she

does have a part- time job as a law clerk,

this has never been made known to our office.

FUTURE EXPECTATIONS FROM

EMPLOYEE: (The following corrective action is

expected of the employee): Vanessa Phillips is

expected to make immediate and sustained

improvement.

exhibit Al continuation

Vanessa Phillips

Employee name-sig-print

02-09-2021

date

Your signature does not imply agreement with

the disciplinary action, it is simply an

acknowledgement this has been discussed with

you and have been given a copy of the warning.

EMPLOYEE COMMENTS: There will be a

letter to Ms. Duhart.

You have the following rights:

a. For verbal or written warnings, you have the

right to add a written rebuttal to the

disciplinary action within five (5) business days

of receipt of the disciplinary action. The written

rebuttal must be sent to Human Resources to be

placed with the disciplinary action.

b. You may review any written material or

statements relating to the reasons for your

proposed disciplinary action and submit any

statements or affidavits supporting reasons

as to why you should not be disciplined.

c. You may respond orally or in writing to these

reasons in H.R. at 4:00 pm on

02-09-2021.

exhibit A2

Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action Addendum

GROUP II #9, GROUP III #1 and

GROUP III #12

Vanessa continually insinuated to a taxpayer

representative that she was with the Code

Enforcement Department. She said that she

was taking photos for Code Enforcement and

Tax assessors, she stated that she would be

sending the photos to another person (in code

enforcement), she said she was at the property

to take pictures of trash, which was the only

photos she took that day (50 photos). She stated

that WE aren't fining you today, indicating that

she worked for a department that could impose

fines for trash. Vanessa stated that the

taxpayer would have time to clean up, she

showed the taxpayer representative photos of

trash on the County tablet when she was asked

if she thought the property was dirty. She

stated that all WE can do is impose fines,

"that’s all we can do, impose fines". The tenant

stated that some of the debris was his evidence

of what's going on and that "she (Vanessa)

already knows, "She stated that she worked a

part time job as a law clerk which is how she

exhibit A2 continuation

was familiar with a legal case involving the

tenant and property owner. She indicated that

she had a tenant signed document causing her

to be at the property. Throughout this review at

this property Vanessa was insinuating that she

was with Code Enforcement/ took photos of

trash and debris but not one photo of a building

(which is what is required of an Appraiser). She

answered questions regarding trash, fines, and

Code enforcement. She was quoting ethics

ordinances, stated she was a law clerk and

knew the laws.

The Tax Assessors Department does not take

photos of trash or debris, we do not impose or

pretend to impose fines of any kind nor do we

have anything to do with Code Enforcement

or their duties. The only laws that we have to

be familiar with and would discuss with a

taxpayer are laws regarding assessments.

GROUP III #2

Vanessa took approximately 50 photos of trash

and debris at the property. These photos were

taken on the County I-pad. If the number of

photos that are taken exceed the amount that

can be held in the mobile assessor, they are to

exhibit A2 - continuation

be taken on the I-pad then uploaded to the Z

drive on the computer. All work done in the

field goes through a mobile data system where

the information goes into the cloud and then

comes to the Managers or Supervisors

computer once the work on that parcel is

marked complete. These photos were on the

tablet the day she went to the property but

were deleted. There were no photos uploaded

the day of this inspection for this parcel.

exhibit C

State of Georgia

Department of Labor

SEPARATION NOTICE

1. Employee’s Name: VANESSA PHILLIPS

2. SSN: XXXX

3. Period of Last Employment:

from 05/18/2020 to 02/16/2021

4. Reason for Separation: Policy Violation

5. Nothing selected.

6. Did this employee earn at least $7,300.00 in

you employ: YES

Employer’s Names

Macon-Bibb County

Human Resources

Department

700 Poplar St.. 1st Floor

Address

City Macon, State Georgia Zip 31201

Employer’s Telephone No. 478-751-2720

Ga. D. O. L. Account Number 123612-04

This is the number assigned to the employer

by Georgia Department of Labor.

exhibit C - continuation

I CERTIFY that the above worker has been

separated from work and the information

furnished hereon is true and correct. This

report has been handed to or mailed to the

worker.

exhibit K

GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

CLAIMS EXAMINER’S

DETERMINATION

APPEALS TRIBUNAL

148 ANDREW YOUNG INT’L BLVD NE, STE

525

ATLANTA, GA 30303 - 1734

EMAIL : appeals@gdol.ga.gov

FAX : 404-232-3901 OR 404-232-3902

SSN kkk kick -XXXX

BYB 05/30/2021

CWB 05/30/2021

ACCT# 123612-04

CLAIMANT

Vanessa Phillips

P O Box 7023

Warner Robins, Ga 31095

EMPLOYER

Macon Bibb County

700 Poplar St

Macon, Ga 31202

Section I - Claim Determination

Disqualification begins 05/30/21 and continues

until claimant becomes reemployed, is

exhibit K - continuation

separated and has earned insured wages equal

to at least $3650 (10 times WBA).

Section II - Legal Basis for Determination

Section 34-8-194 (2) (A) of the Employment

Security Law says that you cannot be paid

unemployment benefits if you were fired from

your most recent employer for not following

your employer's rules or orders. In addition,

you may not be paid unemployment benefits if

you were fired for failing to perform the duties

for which you were hired, if that failure was

within your control. You also cannot be paid

benefits if you were suspended for any of these

same reasons. The law says that your employer

has to show that discharge or suspension was

for a reason that would not allow you to be paid

unemployment benefits. If you cannot be paid

unemployment benefits under this section of the

law, you may qualify at a later time. To do this,

you must find other work and earn wages

covered under unemployment law. The covered

wages must be at least ten times the weekly

amount of your claim. If you then become

unemployed through no fault of your own, you

may reapply for unemployment benefits.

exhibit K - continuation

Section III - Reasoning

Your employer fired you because you did not

meet the standard of conduct your employer has

the right to expect by misrepresenting yourself.

If you violate a standard of conduct it is the same

as violating an employer rule. Because you failed

to perform and conduct yourself in an acceptable

way, you were at fault in your separation.

Therefore, you cannot be paid unemployment

benefits.

Section IV - Account Changeability

NOTICE TO EMPLOYER

Section V - Appeal Rights

NOTE: This determination will become final

unless you appeal by 09/07/21 . If you wish to

file an appeal, submit a request online at

dol.georgiagov, in writing by email to

appeals@gdol. ga. gov, or fax to 404.2323901 or

404.232.3902. If you file an appeal you must

continue to report on your claim as instructed,

or you will not be paid if you win your appeal

Refer to the Claimant Handbook for more

details.

Georgia Department of Labor 08/19/21 08/20/21

exhibit G

(email)

Vanessa Phillips

1127 S. Houston Lake Rd, Apt #705

Warner Robins, GA 31088

478-334-9868

VaPhillip s 7 6@gm ail. com

REF: Official Appeal of My Termination

[Pending Investigation]

Mrs. Alisha Duhart, Director of Human

Resources

ADuhart@MaconBibb.us

Macon-Bibb County Government Center

700 Poplar St

Macon, GA 31201

DATE: Monday, Feb 15th, 2021

“The taxpayer will misconstrue the truth in their

favor” - Deputy Chief Appraiser, Mr. Jody

Claiborn.

As of 2:16 p.m. Tuesday, Feb 9th, 2021,1 am a

former Macon-Bibb County employee with the

Tax Assessors Office. My direct Manager,

exhibit G - continuation

Mrs. Kema Bishop, Deputy Chief, Mr. Jody

Claiborn, the Director of Human Resources, Ms.

Alisha Duhart, and myself were closeted in Mrs.

Bishop’s office where I was “terminated”

without due diligence based on hyperbole and

half-truths. The over-reach of the violations

can only be described as venomous.

In my written statement (incident report) for,

and dated Wed, 02/03/2021,1 submitted the

name and phone number, Mr. Ronnie, 478-5389304, the witness to the event. Not one of the

three aforementioned managers thought it

prudent to contact the witness as part of the[ir]

investigation. How is it that the Human

Resources Director, the Chief Tax Appraiser,

the Deputy Chief Tax Appraiser, and an

Assistant Chief Tax Appraiser not know that

action is taken after a thorough investigation?

This arbitrary disregard of a witness is

erroneous. A[ny] court would set aside the

‘decision’ to avoid doing an injustice to the

parties, 5 USCA §701.

TheFreeDictionary.com defines the term

arbitrary as a course of action or a decision

made without regard for the facts, not based on

reason or judgement but on personal will or

exhibit G - continuation

discretion without regard to evidence, rules or

standards. In many instances, the term implies

an element of bad faith, and may be used

synonymously with tyrannical or repressive,

oppressive, suppressive, depressive.

Due diligence is an investigation to substantiate

the facts of a matter under consideration before

taking action or entering into a transaction.

The MBCG Policies and Procedures 4.01 on

Review for Disciplinary Action #2. clearly states

“Review the evidence (documentation,

statements of witnesses, etc.) that substantiates

the validity of the charged violation to include

any mitigating factors”.

The mitigating factors are:

(i)

(ii)

(hi)

(iv)

Context.

I did not have notice to prepare for the

‘hearing’.

I have yet to be afforded the

opportunity to listen to the accuser(s)’

recording, nor read the transcript if

the recording was transcribed, or read

her/their written statement.

The witness, Mr. Ronnie (478-5389304), whose information was

submitted even before a complaint

was made/filed, was never contacted.

exhibit G - continuation

(v) I have not been privy to my direct

supervisor’s (Mr. Shawn Austin)

statement. I reported the incident to

him.

Since I was unaware of any violations and a

hearing, I was unprepared as prescribed in the

MBCG P&P 4.02, the Purpose - “Efforts should

be made by the employee and her manager, with

the assistance of Human Resources Department

if needed, before a formal procedure is

instituted”

I have been with the Tax Assessors office for

about 9 months. Not even an entire week

passed before my employment termination was

determined due to half-truths and lies. The

situation needs to be evaluated in its entirety

within context. The tax assessors’ office first

instinct was to terminate my employment

without a proper probe.

The wives thought I was with code enforcement

regardless of my assertions that I was not.

Ultimately, I grew tired of reiterating who I was

and was not. Plus, I had made up my mind that

their hostility, loudness, and fear that someone

from Code Enforcement was at the apartments

was suspicious. I was going to make sure Code

exhibit G - continuation

Enforcement was made aware. After notifying

my direct superior, Mr. Shawn Austin, I did

contact Code Enforcement. I spoke with the

person that answered the phone - Ms. Sheila

Williams. She said she will make sure someone

is made aware of my concerns. I [re] assert that

I did not insinuate that I was a representative

of Code Enforcement. In fact, she accused me of

trying to fool her by withholding that I really

was with Code Enforcement even though my

business card reads “Tax Assessors”, my title

reads “Residential Appraiser”, the yellow safety

jacket that I wore and always wear reads

“Assessors”, and that I introduced myself as

“Hi, I’m Vanessa Phillips with Macon-Bibb Tax

Assessors Office”.

Do I remember every single word she and/or her

wife said, or questions they asked? “No, of

course not”. Nor do I remember every single

word I said. However, I remember how I felt.

Any “we” statements I made, was not made

with the intention of misrepresenting myself. I

don’t mind helping out or multitasking but I’m

not going to complete a second set of job

descriptions without getting paid. I do

volunteer; however, I will not work for free.

exhibit G - continuation

When I agreed with her statement that “we”

could not fine her without notice, she and I

knew that the “we” was Macon-Bibb Code

Enforcement. My replies or lack thereof were

more out of exhaustion for the entire

conversation rather than an[y] insinuation[s].

The only thing I am unsure of is my reply to her

question about her property being dirty. I don’t

think I would literally say “yes”, but she would

have probably seen my opinion in my eyes.

Even when she threatened to record me for

snooping on her property, I had no concern.

First, I’m not unattractive, second, I was not

doing anything improper. She eventually

believed I was who I said I was, and I had no

problem with her phone in my face (presumably

recording me), asking me the same questions,

and talking about the White man. I did take

issue to her bowing up at me, her attitude, and

her volume but not enough to leave the property

knowing that I’d have to deal with her

eventually. Again, I found no need to say

anything other than “we” unless she asked me a

question about “me” since she eventually did

understand who I was and wasn’t.

She told me that she and her wife live in ATL. I

told her I live in Warner Robins. She asked me

exhibit G — continuation

if there were any Black people in charge in my

office. I answered, I said; “no”. I even told her

about the gunk in her eye. What she was trying

to do was stop me from seeing the wires going

from building to building. When that didn’t

work, it was back to being mean. I think

they’re either stealing electricity from their

tenants to fix the closed apt building or from

whatever company that gives power in that

area or are doing YouTube electrical

work out there. I played her game. I saw

something. I said something. I do not require,

nor do I seek permission or approval to pass

information on. Maybe I over-stepped.

However, I had no idea that each department of

Macon-Bibb County are separate entities unto

themselves with moving parts not connected to

a whole.

I am attempting to obtain records from

02/03/2021, and 02/06/2021 (911 phone call,

body cam footage, CAD report(s), radio traffic...)

to corroborate the lady’s deceptions. Mr. Joel

Callins is working on it. The lady called the

police on the witness claiming that I had

instructed the witness to pick up the trash with

my “authority”. The officer(s) and I had

absolutely no contact/interaction, so I thought it

exhibit G — continuation

unnecessary to bring it up. She is lying and

misrepresenting everyone to her benefit.

I would like to note that if a taxpayer/rep asks

to see the photos I’ve taken of their property -1

show them. It’s not a secret. Did I take 50

pictures? Or did I take 25 pictures that were

doubled? I’ve had that issue with the iPad

before.

The lady told me about a White man coming out

there then asked me if he could fine her/them. I

told her if the White man was from Code

Enforcement, he could give them warnings and

eventually fine them.

Did I over-step? Maybe. I listened to her talk

about the White man. I even talked about the

White man. When I was asked for the number

for Code Enforcement, I called the office and got

the number for Code Enforcement, and

voluntarily gave her the (new) Director’s name,

Mr. J.T. Ricketson. I wrote his name and

number on the back of another one of my

business cards. Now she had two of my cards

with my information on it. She asked me if he

exhibit G - continuation

was white too. My reply was extra; “Yes. A

white man is gonna clean up Macon”. She

seems panicked by the White man. Good! I am

many things, including a law clerk, a maid, a

chef (not a cook), a volunteer, a writer, a

journeyman electrician, a concerned citizen, and

maybe a person with a little touch of OCD... I’m

familiar with the case because she and the

witness had just walked the property with, me

and told me about it - their individual versions.

I wished them both “good luck” simultaneously

when they had finally stopped taking about the

upcoming case.

The witness asked that I take his number.

When I asked him “why”, he said that the lady

and her wife are bad people that are going to

cause trouble for me at my job or get me fired

because I was out there taking pictures (or

something to that nature). Ofcourse I thought

that was a huge leap/claim but I responded

with; “I didn’t do anything wrong. Anyway, I

can defend myself’. She then asked me If I was

a law clerk when she heard me say I was. (I

can’t remember why I said that, but I did.)

Anyway, I took his number since he seemed

concerned though I was not.

exhibit G - continuation

I did not say nor indicate that I had a tenant

signed document causing me to be at the

property! The iPad was the reason I was there.

The iPad has the addresses of the parcels I was

to visit for that day/week/months/years.

Technically, that property should not have been

on the iPad, but the dates I submitted for my

Ad Hoc visits were ignored. I no longer have

access to my email or computer for Macon-Bibb.

However, since there’s an investigation, that

information should still be readily accessible.

After going over that day in my head with the

Addendum, I could see where it seems like I

could have insinuated that I worked for Code

Enforcement if one was not present, privy to

only part(s) of the conversation, did not contact

the witness, does not understand over

modulation in speech, and not having the entire

conversation in full context. Regardless, that

was never my intention. Today, I can

objectively admit that I should have left, and

refused to ever return to the parcel, even with a

supervisor. (It’s ironic that my managers

thought that I should have left the property

when I saw that the taxpayer was

unreasonable, yet, these are the same managers

exhibit G - continuation

that have sent us out to work in the rain telling

us it’s'part the job (to risk illness); so why would

I permit a degenerate to make me revisit the

property?) My momentary lapse in judgment of

remaining on the property and going along with

her little answer-my-questions-game may have

been a blunder, however, it was not unethical,

wanton, or an attempted use of political

influence or bribery.

The inflammatory and over-exaggeration of the

‘infractions’ by my manager[s] is unnecessarily

venomous.

This APPEAL is NOT a petition for my

(re)instatement with the Tax Assessors office. I

may have not handled the situation

appropriately, however, I am but one person.

There are four people:

Ms. Alisha Duhart, Director of

(i)

Human Resources,

Ms. Andrea Crutchfield, Chief Tax

(ii)

Appraiser,

(iii) Mr. Jody Claiborn, Deputy Chief

Appraiser, &

Ms. Kema Bishop, Assistant Chief

(iv)

Tax Appraiser

exhibit G - continuation

that mishandled the situation by not conducting

a thorough investigation and stacking

unwarranted, gross infractions onto my

discharge.

Originally, I was stunned and annoyed that

four managers decided to terminate/suspend me

pending a discharge investigation without due

diligence. Then I read the NPDA & the

Addendum at home and was incensed from the

incendiary violations which are as follows:

(1) Group II #9 - Commission of any

unethical act prohibited by MBCG Ethics

Ordinance, as amended.

(2) Group III #1 - Wanton and willful neglect

in performance of assigned duties.

(3) Group III #2 - Deliberate misuse,

destruction, damage, sabotage, or

pilferage of Macon-Bibb County property

or property of an employee or citizen.

(4) Group III #12 - Use or attempted use of

political influence or bribery to secure an

advantage in any manner.

exhibit G - continuation

My REPLY to the fabrications and over

exaggerations on the NPDA and Addendum...

(1) Group II #9 -1 did not insinuate to the

lady and/or her wife that I was with Code

Enforcement and the Tax Assessors

office.

As a matter of fact, I concisely repeated that I

was not with Code Enforcement. My business

cards, which I gave to the lady, has my name,

title, office, & email address on it. The same

business card she utilized to call the office

about me. The bright yellow safety vest I

always wear and wore that day literally has

ASSESSORS ironed on it. My employee I.D.

has my title on it.

(2) Group III #1 - At no point did I tell the

lady that her place was dirty. Taking

pictures of buildings and trash is not

cruel nor violent.

(3) Group III #12 - On Wed, Feb 3rd, 2021,1

was a Macon-Bibb employee. There is

nothing I can do on the clock for the

betterment of Macon-Bibb that can be

classified as misuse, destruction, damage,

sabotage, or pilferage. I did not seek out

exhibit G - continuation

parcel. I was there because it was on the

iPad. While I was there, I was

(4) accused most bitterly of hiding that I was

in fact Code Enforcement so much that I

felt it my duty to report their mix of fear

and hostility to Code Enforcement. I was

unaware that each department of

Macon-Bibb is completely cut off from one

another, and that “see something, say

something” is not a part of Macon-Bibb

County.

(4) Group III #2 - This ‘violation’ is

outrageously flagrant without purpose

other than to be inflammatory. This

parcel is not the first parcel I had not

uploaded pictures for. Please check that

entire day, and at least four consecutive

‘work’ days prior and after the incident

to verify that I do not always take photos

of parcels when the parcel has been

visited within the last 45 or so days if .

there are no changes. (However, I’m

pretty sure I took at least 2 or 3 pics of

the buildings before I decided there is no

need to change the building photos I

already have.) This request can be easily

achieved though I don’t know how to do

so myself. I have seen it done.

exhibit G - continuation

Also, the statement of the photos on the

iPad for Code Enforcement being deleted

is false. I’m not sure why that particular

untruth was fabricated, but it is a

falsehood. Deleting the photos or leaving

them on the iPad has no bearing. The lie

is... odd. I had already contacted Code

Enforcement with my concerns, at the

scene. It was not a secret.

In the end, I am in the situation I am in

because I thought all the departments are

related. I was wrong, and I apologize. Mr.

Shawn Austin, my direct supervisor, and the

ALL the senior Residential Appraisers are good

trainers. I hope this ‘situation’ does not reflect

badly upon them which usually happens when

the buck is passed or when management is

deficient. By the way, deficiencies in

management can be easily verified. I can point

them out if need be. I understood this even

before Six Sigma.

Even though Mr. Lester Miller and Mr. J. T.

Ricketson were quoted in the Macon Telegraph

as being serious about cleaning up MaconBibb,

I should have known that the county can’t be

cleaned up until the County is cleaned up. I was

an hourly employee. What I should have done is

the minimum to collect my little check every 2

exhibit G — continuation

weeks like everyone else since Macon-Bibb

departments are entities unto themselves.

Plus, I live in Warner Robins.

Again, this letter is a request for a competent

investigation with a remedy for my Macon-Bibb

employee record to be cleared from the

exaggerations and flagrance of the Notice of

Proposed Disciplinary Action (NPDA)

violations. I am not seeking re-instatement

with the Macon-Bibb Tax Assessors Office.

Sorry to be so long-winded but this is also me

venting.

This vehicle is my APPEAL. My REMEDY is to

clear my employee record without

reinstatement of my employment.

Thank you,

Vanessa Phillips

1127 S. Houston Lake Rd, Apt 705

Warner Robins, GA 31088

VaPhillips 7 6@gmail .com

478-334-9868

exhibit H

(hand delivered)

Vanessa Phillips

mailing address:

P 0 Box 7023

Warner Robins, GA 31095

478-334-9868

VaPhillips76@gmail.com

02/24/2021

REF: Official Grievance/Complaint

Compliance Officer

Macon-Bibb County Attorney’s Office

700 Poplar St

Macon, GA 31201

DATE: Wednesday, Feb 24th, 2021

As of 2:16 p.m. Tuesday, Feb 9th, 2021,1 am a

former Macon-Bibb County employee with the

Tax Assessors Office. My direct Manager, Mrs.

Kema Bishop, Deputy Chief, Mr. Jody Claiborn,

the Director of Human Resources, Ms. Alisha

Duhart, and myself were closeted in Mrs.

Bishop’s office where I was “terminated”

without due diligence based on hyperbole, halftruths, and without context nor knowledge of

the full conversation. The over-reach of the

violations can only be described as spiteful.

exhibit H - continuation

In my written statement (incident report) for,

and dated Wed, 02/03/2021,1 submitted the

name and phone number, Mr. Ronnie, 478-5389304, the witness to the event. Not one of the

three aforementioned managers thought it

prudent to contact the witness as part of thefir]

investigation. How is it that the Human

Resources Director, the Chief Tax Appraiser,

the Deputy Chief Tax Appraiser, and an

Assistant Chief Tax Appraiser not know that

action is taken after a thorough investigation?

This arbitrary disregard of a witness is

erroneous. A[ny] court would set aside the

‘decision’ to avoid doing an injustice to the

parties, 5 USCA §701.

TheFreeDictionary.com defines the term

arbitrary as a course of action or a decision

made without regard for the facts, not based on

reason or judgement but on personal will or

discretion without regard to evidence, rules or

standards. In many instances, the term implies

an element of bad faith, and may be used

synonymously with tyrannical or repressive,

oppressive, suppressive, depressive.

exhibit H - continuation

Due diligence is an investigation to substantiate

the facts of a matter under consideration before

taking action or entering into a transaction.

The MBCG Policies and Procedures 4.01 on

Review for Disciplinary Action #2. clearly states

“Review the evidence (documentation,

statements of witnesses, etc.) that substantiates

the validity of the charged violation to include

any mitigating factors”.

The mitigating factors are:

(vi)

Context.

(vii) I did not have notice to prepare for the

‘hearing’.

(viii) I have yet to be afforded the

opportunity to listen to the accuser(s)’

recording, nor read the transcript if

the recording was transcribed, or read

her/their written statement.

(ix)

The witness, Mr. Ronnie (478-5389304), whose information was

submitted via my incident report,

even before a complaint was

made/filed, was never contacted.

Since I was unaware of any violations and a

hearing, I was unprepared as prescribed in the

exhibit H — continuation

MBCG P&P 4.02, the Purpose - “Efforts should

be made by the employee and her manager,

with the assistance of Human Resources

Department if needed, before a formal

procedure is instituted.”

I [re] assert that I did not insinuate that I was a

representative of Code Enforcement. In fact,

I was accused of withholding that I really was

with Code Enforcement even though my

business card reads “Tax Assessors”, my title

reads “Residential Appraiser”, the yellow safety

jacket that I wore and always wear reads

“Assessors”, and that I introduced myself as

“Hi, I’m Vanessa Phillips with Macon-Bibb Tax

Assessors Office”.

If I saw a dog foaming at the mouth roaming

the streets, child being abused, an auto

accident, prostitution, or any other questionable

or need handling condition -1 would call the

appropriate agency without external

conversation(s). It would never occur to me to

seek clearance to call Animal Control, Child

Protective Services, Code Enforcement, 911 for

an ambulance/fire/police office, the Health Dept,

or to literally kick a rapid dog that’s attacking a

person... Perhaps I over-stepped by telling her

exhibit H - continuation

that dirty properties can be given warnings and

eventually fined when she asked; I did not just

volunteer this information. However, was my

statement incorrect?

Point blank, the lady that complained on me,

with my Tax Assessor business card, is loud and

boisterous. It was easier to terminate my

employment than to tell her to cease calling the

office with the same complaint because the Tax

Assessors Office is oppressive. [Oppression can

be proven.] The fact that she could and would

have taken her complaint higher-up the ladder

than the Tax Assessors Office to probably

include my manager(s) in her complaint was

part of the issue. The other part of the issue...

is better disclosed on a different vehicle, at a

formal venue.

At-will employment is an employer’s ability to

dismiss an employee for any reason, and

without warning, as long as the reason is not

illegal. When the Tax Assessors Office along

with H.R. decided to have an investigation

without an actual investigation - my

termination without a thorough investigation

became illegal. Where are the checks and

balances? Who is reviews H.R.? Who’s

exhibit H - continuation

reviewing the Office of Compliance? I don’t

expect impartiality from the attorneys of

Macon-Bibb County, I am not their employer.

However, I expect statistics.

What makes me so different that I cannot be

afforded the opportunity of a thorough

investigation? How could H.R. decide upon my

termination so completely while half-stepping

on an investigation where the violations are a

vilification of my person?

This Complaint is NOT a petition for my

(re)instatement with the Tax Assessors office.

I may have not handled the situation

appropriately, however, I am but one person.

There are four people:

Ms. Alisha Duhart, Director of

(v)

Human Resources,

(vi)

Ms. Andrea Crutchfield, Chief Tax

Appraiser,

(vii) Mr. Jody Claiborn, Deputy Chief

Appraiser, &

(viii) Ms. Kema Bishop, Assistant Chief

Tax Appraiser

that mishandled the situation by not conducting

a complete investigation while stacking

unwarranted, gross infractions onto my

separation.

exhibit H - continuation

Originally, I was amazed and annoyed that four

managers decided to terminate/suspend me

pending a discharge investigation without a full

investigation. Then I read the NPDA & the

Addendum I was vexed. Please see my initial

Appeal to my termination/suspension with pay

for five days pending a discharge investigation

submitted via email to H.R./Ms Alisha Duhart

on Monday, February 15th, 2021 so as not to

have this vehicle, my Grievance/Complaint, too

long. This Grievance is related and is a

collaboration to the Appeal.

I am not seeking re-instatement with the

Macon-Bibb Tax Assessors Office.

This vehicle is my GRIEVANCE/Complaint.

My REMEDY is:

1. Contact the Witness (info above), in

Appeal, and initial incident report.

2. Contact Ms Sheila Williams at Code

Enforcement.

3. Clear my Macon-Bibb County employee

record of all ‘over reaching’ violations.

4. Fully state policy violations as stated in

Separation Notice on Separation Notice.

exhibit H- continuation

5. Review Appeal submitted via email to

H.R./Ms Alisha Duhart on Feb 15th, 2021.

6. Investigate Deputy Chief Tax Assessor,

Mr Jody Claiborn to corroborate

oppression...

7. Investigate Chief Tax Assessor, Ms

Andrea Crutchfield to corroborate

oppression...

8. Investigate Director of H.R., Ms Alisha

Duhart for unnecessary disclosure(s).

9. Conduct a thorough investigation which

includes the police info I have yet to receive.

Respectfully Submitted,

Vanessa Phillips

478-334-9868

exhibit L

(email)

DATE: Tuesday, 3/02/2021

Vanessa Phillips

P.O. Box 7023

Warner Robins, GA 31095

478 - 334 - 9868

VaPhillips76@gmail.com

RE: Discrimination AND Repression at MaconBibb Tax Assessors Office

Macon-Bibb County Government Center

700 Poplar St

Macon, GA 31201

Dear Mayor Lester Miller,

I know you are a busy man in a place that

requires much needed attention - the land of

Macon-Bibb. However, I respectfully request

that you take the time to look at Macon-Bibb,

Tax Assessors’ Office, and Human Resources.

My termination was finalized on February 16th,

2021. First, I need to say that I am not seeking

exhibit L - continuation

reinstatement with the Tax Assessors’ Office.

The environment is subtlety toxic. The

subtlety is not on purpose; it is a response to

the systematic oppression. Attached, in order by

date, my Appeal dated Mon, Feb 15th, and my

Complaint to the compliance office date Wed,

Feb 24th - where I explained why and how my

suspension and subsequent termination were

not only premature but a full display of

incompetence.

How is it that this many people (see bottom

Appeal, page 4 of 6), have any type of authority

over anyone? Having book sense but no

common sense with notions of supremacy is folly. My termination was agreed upon by 2

directors (one human resources and a chief), an

asst director (deputy chief), and a manager

(asst deputy chief) without a complete

investigation. How does something like this

happen? Especially with a government job?

Especially when the systematic oppression can

be validated by their own paperwork?

I’m appealing to you because I believe you care

about Macon-Bibb. The Women’s Shelter is an

outstanding gesture of hope that many people

exhibit L — continuation

appreciate. Since you care about strangers, you

care about your employees. Again, I am

not seeking reinstatement. I’m appealing to

you because I want the employees in the Tax

Assessors Office to be liberated. I know

“liberated” sounds heavy, like an over

exaggeration, however, I can’t think of any

better word to communicate the necessity of a

probe into the Tax Assessors Office. The

oppression can be validated through the

employee reviews. There’s:

(4) Above Satisfactory

(3) Satisfactory

(2) Below Satisfactory

(1) Needs Improvement

Why would any employer keep a(n) employee(s)

year after year that cannot rise to the level of

Satisfactory? Either the employer does not care

if the job is completed or completed properly,

and/or the employer is deliberately causing

emotional distress and repression.

An employer that withholds a meritorious

satisfactory evaluation restrains the employee

from growing, which causes humiliation,

diminished quality of life, anger, frustration,

exhibit L - continuation

and loss of sleep. For this act of repression to

continue year after year, the act is calculated.

The employees in the Tax Assessors Office are

scared to even submit applications to other

Macon-Bibb County Departments for fear of

reprisal for attempting to “do better”.

As for me, I want a thorough investigation,

within context, and my Macon-Bibb County

employee record to be cleared of the malicious

policy violation/s. I have no more avenues on

this level. I will file an EEOC claim. I do not

have enough time with Macon-Bibb to make a

stink, however, I want to do my best to

safeguard that no one else is mistreated as I

was because (1) I contacted Code Enforcement,

(2) took pictures, (3) utilized an inclusive

pronoun, (4) was slightly surly with a slum lord,

(5) am not job scared...

For the sake of Macon-Bibb County, I pray you

verify and cure the wrong occurring in the Tax

Assessors Office, and any other department.

There’s absolutely too much going on and not

enough happening simultaneously in the Tax

Assessors Office. The nonchalance and

callousness in the Tax Assessors Office is

exhibit L - continuation

ridiculous. Check the employee reviews going

back seven years or so. Assure the employees

that there’s no way the Chief, Deputy Chief,

and HR Director will know what is said nor by

whom.

They will not speak to you in a group. To speak

with you is equivalent to giving their ‘two-week

notice’, without their hand. You’ll have to

speak to everyone even if they do not speak

with you, including the Assistant Deputy

Chiefs.

Please excuse any misspelled words or any

grammatical errors; it’s very late.

Thank you,

Vanessa Phillips

exhibit X

4.02, page 79, MBCG Policies and

Procedures approved and Adopted December

31, 2013 edition.

While employees of MBCG Constitutional

officers and independent elected officials are not

specifically covered under this Personnel Policy

Manual unless such elected official has opted

into full coverage for his/her employees under

this manual by execution of an Election Form

by a Constitutional Officer or Elected Official

contained herein, they are covered by all

applicable federal and state laws, including

those governing equal opportunity and non

discrimination.

Step 3: Request for Hearing

• Time for filing: An employee must file a

request for a hearing with the Department of

Human Resources within ten (10) working days

after receipt of the written decision by the

Department Head made pursuant to Step 2

above.

• Contents of request: The request for hearing

shall contain a statement describing what is

being appealed; the request shall be filed on a

form provided by the Department of Human

Resources.

exhibit X - continuation

• Hearing Officer: Upon receipt of the

employee's choice of strike, the Human

Resources Department will within three

(3) business days, furnish the MaconBibb

County attorney with the list of the remaining

panel members. The MaconBibb County

attorney or his/her designee, upon receipt of

the list, will have five (5) business days to

notify the Human Resources Department in

writing which panel member, he/she chooses to

strike.

• Referral to Hearing Officer: Within five (5)

business days after receipt of the Macon-Bibb

County attorney's strike from the hearing

officer panel of attorneys, the Department of

Human Resources will refer the request for

hearing to the hearing officer. The hearing

officer will determine if the case is covered

under the MBCG Employee Problem Solving

Procedure and if all procedural requirements

have been met, If the request for hearing has

been properly filed, the hearing officer will

notify the employee of the date, time and place

of the hearing. The hearing officer will also

notify the Macon-Bibb County attorney of the

exhibit X - continuation

date, time and place of the appeal hearing and

the Macon-Bibb County attorney or his/her

designee shall represent the department head

or Macon-Bibb County, as the case may be.

The hearing will be conducted in accordance

with the procedures set forth below.

• Waiver: The employee's failure to comply

with these procedures including but not

limited to the employee's failure to give timely

notice, will result in a waiver of the employee's

right to pursue a complaint under this

procedure.

Step 4: Hearing

Conduct of Hearing: With regard to the conduct

of the hearing, the hearing officer shall:

1. Administer oaths and affirmations;

2. Regulate the course of the hearing;

3. Set the time and place for continued

hearings and pre-hearing conferences;

4. Fix the time for filing written arguments as

deemed appropriate;

5. Adjudicate motions pertaining to

. preliminary, jurisdictional and ancillary

matters as set forth by the parties;

exhibit X - continuation

6. Provide for, where applicable, the taking of

testimony by deposition, interrogatories or

other written statements;

7. Reprimand or exclude from the hearing any

person for any indecorous or improper conduct

committed in the presence of the hearing

officer;

8. Make informal disposition of any case by

stipulation, agreed settlement, consent order

or default, if appropriate and not otherwise

precluded by law;

9. Require the attendance of

witnesses/employees, Employees appearing as

witnesses shall be released from their duty

without loss of pay and without effect on their

service rating. An employee who is designated

as a witness by either the department head or

by the employee may be disciplined for failure

to appear at the hearing. No person shall

directly or indirectly use or threaten to use an

official authority or other influence which

would tend to discourage a person from

testifying)’

10. Arrange a pre-hearing conference for the

purpose of reviewing the matter being

appealed and establishing stipulations and

agreements to expedite the hearing.

exhibit X - continuation

•

Hearing Procedures: In the hearing of a

complaint, proceedings shall be informal but

orderly. The following procedures shall prevail:

1. The hearing officer shall read or cause to be

read the complaint and specifications as

contained in the employee problem solving

form.

2. The stipulations as to any facts not in

dispute shall be entered into the record.

3. Each party shall be given the opportunity to

make a brief opening statement identifying the

issues and stating what is to be proven.

4. All witnesses shall testify under oath or

affirmation.

5. Each party may conduct such examination

of the witnesses as shall be required for a full

and true disclosure of the facts. This includes

the right to cross-examine witnesses adverse

to any party's position. In addition, the

hearing examiner may examine the witnesses.

6. Official notice may be taken of facts

generally recognized by the public. In addition,

official notice may be taken of technical facts

within any specialized knowledge of the

hearing officer. Parties shall be notified either

before or during the hearing of the material

officially noted, and they shall be afforded an

opportunity to contest the material so noticed.

exhibit X - continuation

7. MBCG shall provide at its expense a

certified court reporter, who will take down

the testimony at the hearing, In the event that

the hearing officer requests that the hearing

be transcribed, such transcription will be at

the expense of Macon-Bibb County. In the

event that either of the parties request that

the hearing be transcribed, such transcription

cost shall be at the expense of the party so

requesting the transcript.

8. An employee may represent himself/herself

at the hearing or he/she may retain the

services of an attorney to represent the

employee at the hearing. A member of the

Human Resources staff may reasonably assist

the employee and/or his/her attorney. In the

event that the employee does retain the

services of an attorney to represent him/her,

the MBCG County Commission will reimburse

the employee for said employee's attorney's

fees and expenses in an amount not greater

than five hundred ($500.00) dollars, if the

hearing officer renders a final decision in favor

of the employee.

9. Before closing the hearing, the hearing

officer shall allow both parties the opportunity

to make brief oral or written closing

arguments.

exhibit X - continuation

10. The hearing officer who presided shall

within fifteen (15) working days from the close

of evidence, issue a written decision with

findings of fact and reasons for the hearing

officer's recommended decision. Provided,

however, for good cause, the hearing officer

may extend the time for rendering a decision

for an additional fifteen (15) working days. The

hearing officer's decision will be final and

binding, and a copy shall be immediately

transmitted to all parties, the Mayor and

County Commission.

11. The hearing shall be open to the public as

required by law, provided that the hearing may

be closed at the request of the employee if such

closures are authorized by law. Likewise, any

documentary and other evidence shall be

available for public inspection as required by

law.

• Evidentiary Rules: With respect to all

hearings before the hearing officer, the

following rules regarding the evidence shall

govern:

1. Formal, legal rules of evidence shall not be

strictly applied. Evidence may be admitted if it

is of a type commonly relied upon by

reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of

their affairs. The hearing officer shall follow

exhibit X - continuation

the Georgia Rules of Evidence regarding

privileges recognized by state law.

2. Irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious

evidence may be excluded. Objections to

evidentiary offers shall be made and ruled

upon by the hearing officer.

3. When a hearing will be expedited and the

interest of the parties will not be prejudiced

thereby, any part of the evidence may be

received in written form, including but not

limited to the use of depositions,

interrogatories, and affidavits or written

statements.

4. The burden of proof shall be on the party

requesting the hearing, That party shall have

the right to open and conclude the hearing.

5. Documentary evidence may be received in

the form of copies. However, upon request and

at the discretion of the hearing officer, parties

shall

6. be given the opportunity to compare with

the original document.

7. The hearing officer's decision should be

supported by substantial evidence. Substantial

evidence is that degree of relevant evidence

that a reasonable mind, considering the record

as a whole, might accept as adequate to

exhibit X - continuation

support a conclusion that the matter asserted

is true.

• Appointment and Compensation of Hearing

Officers An independent, impartial hearing

officer shall be selected to hear the case and

conduct the hearing set forth herein. The

Mayor or County Commission shall provide a

list of three (3) attorneys, each of whom shall

have been licensed and a member of the State

Bar of Georgia for at least ten (10) years. The

employee and Macon-Bibb County attorney, or

his/her designee, shall each strike one name

from the list and the remaining name shall be

appointed as the hearing officer.

• Time Requirement Failure of the employee

to comply with the time limits specified in this

employee problem-solving procedure shall be

deemed to be an abandonment of the

procedure and the complaint will be dismissed.

However, if the supervisors involved fail to

answer in a timely fashion any of the

procedural steps involved in Steps 1 and 2, the

employee, if he or she desires, may proceed to

the next procedural step as outlined, provided

that such failure to answer within the

prescribed time limits shall not amount to an

admission by the supervisor in question that

an employee's complaint has merit. The time

exhibit X - continuation

limits may be extended in writing by mutual

agreement of the parties.

• Final Written Disposition

Written and satisfactory dispositions of

employee complaints shall be kept in a special

file in the Human Resources Department and

will not be placed in any employee or

supervisor's personnel file.

Reasons for Granting the Petition

The Honorable First and Appellate Courts have

both erred by ignoring MBCG P&P employee

handbook’s specific contractual terms and

conditions on when and how to have/hold a

hearing. The Petitioner complied and completed

her portion of the contract. MBCG breached

the[ir] contract.

MBCG made false statements to a third

party, the DOL, that produced economic

damages to the Petitioner. The Court should

grant this petition and review judgments

because the At-Will employment statute is not a

limitless provision that allows MBCG boundless

authority.

If the At-Will employment statute does

permit Macon-Bibb County Government to

breach contracts, void the right to due process,

cancel the right against double jeopardy, negate

the right to be free from injury by defamation...

this should be clearly disclosed to all employees,

just as other known risks of employment

similar to disclosing the presence of hazardous

chemicals, loud noises, carcinogens, or choking

hazards. The disclosure could be made as part

of the employee handbook, or in a separate

document that is provided to all employees.

What the MBCG P&P employee

handbook does disclose is clear instruction,

utilizing detailed terms to both the employee

and the employer on how to request a hearing

and how and when to conduct said hearing,

exhibit “Xs”, December 31, 2013 edition,

online, pages 79-84,4.02 - Step 3 and Step 4.

In Me Elhannon u. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,

493 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2007), McBride v.

Southeastern Grocers, LLC, 694 F. App'x 821

(11th Cir. 2017), Mackenzie v. City of Rockledge,

920 F.2d 1554, 1559 (11th Cir. 1991),

Fletcher u. Southwest Airlines Co., 295 F.3d

1255 (11th Cir. 2002) and in Tricia Galbreath v.

Hale County, Alabama Commission, et al., No.

17-13762 (11th Cir. 2018), the court found that

the handbook in these cases contained clear and

unambiguous terms that created a contractual

right to due process before termination.

The Court held that an employer can be

liable for breach of contract if it fails to follow

the procedures set forth in its employee

handbook, in Rasmussen v. Winn-Dixie Stores,

Inc., 376 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2004). The

handbook created a reasonable expectation that

the employer would follow its own procedures,

and that the employer's failure to do so was a

breach of contract. An employee handbook can

create a unilateral contract that gives the

employee a property interest in their

employment.

In Carlill u Carbolic Smoke Ball

Company [1892] 1 QB 256, 1892 Dec. 6, 7, the

contract law decision by the court, held an

advertisement (in a newspaper) containing

certain language... is a binding unilateral

contract.

“Even a text message is an enforceable

contract” says the Court in Brewfab, LLC v.

George Russo, No. 22-11003 (11th Cir. 2022).

In Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213,

1219-20 (3d Cir. 1977) §1983, Jennings states

that “[a]n abuse of the process is by definition a

denial of procedural due process”.

In Greene v. McElroy, 360 U.S. 474, 79 S.

Ct. 1400 (1959) “Where governmental action

seriously injures an individual, and the

reasonableness of the action depends on fact

findings, the evidence used to prove the

government's case must be disclosed to the

individual so that he has an opportunity to

show that it is untrue.” The Petitioner was

denied a hearing, thus she was not afforded an

opportunity...

The First and Appellate Courts have

agreed that the DOL’s denial rests solely on the

DOL, even though the singular information

utilized in the DOL’s denial came entirely from

MBCG, exhibit “K”.

The DOL conducted no interview(s)

because the DOL is not a fact-finding body in

unemployment insurance benefit claims no

more than a[ny] jury, a[ny] Justice, Judge,

arbitrator - in a[ny] administrative, criminal or

civil proceeding.

Knowingly submitting false information

in order to pass or prohibit a claim is fraud.

Fraud can take many forms, but it is always

intentional. Justice Iredell in Case of Fries

(1799) reasoned that;

“men who are at a distance

from the source of

information must rely

almost altogether on the

accounts they receive from

others. [If those] accounts

are false, the best head and

the best heart cannot be

proof against their

influence; nor is it possible

to calculate the combined

effect of innumerable

artifices, either by direct

falsehood, or invidious

insinuations. ...”

Submitting false information for the

purpose to withhold or deny “property” is a

violation of The False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§

3729 - 3733, the reverse claim of 3729(a)(1)(C).

Fact finding is important in the case of

documentary evidence, it is even more

important where the evidence consists of the

testimony of individuals whose memory might

be faulty or who, in fact, might be perjurers or

persons motivated by malice, vindictiveness,

intolerance, prejudice, or jealousy. These

protections have been formalized in the

requirements of confrontation and cross- .

examination. They have ancient roots. They

find expression in U.S. Const. Amend. VI, which

provides that in all criminal cases the accused

shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the

witnesses against him." The United States

Supreme Court has been zealous to protect

these rights from erosion. It has spoken out not

only in criminal cases, but also in all types of

cases where administrative and regulatory

actions were under scrutiny. Nor has Congress

ignored these fundamental requirements in

enacting regulatory legislation.”

In Daugherty v. Ellis, 142 W. Va. 340,

357-8, 97 S.E. 2nd 33, 42-3 (W. Va. 1956), a civil

defendant will be held liable for misfeasance if

the defendant owed or breached a duty of care

toward the plaintiff. Misfeasance in the office

requires an affirmative act or omission that

resulted in harm to the plaintiff; intent nor

knowledge is not required. In Borden v. City of

St. Petersburg, 765 F.2d 1187 (11th Cir. 1985)

the court held that a city could be held liable for

misfeasance in office for failing to properly

investigate a complaint, that the city's failure to

investigate was a "deliberate indifference" to

the plaintiffs rights, and that it was therefore

liable for the plaintiffs injuries.

MBCG does have the First Amendment

right to make false statements about the

Petitioner. However, once those false

statements took shape into [unlawful] conduct

(submitted defamatory info to the DOL) that

negatively interfered with the results of the

DOL’s ruling (loss of finance) - that “freedom of

speech” is no longer protected speech. The AtWill employment statute does not quash the

“unprotected speech” of the First Amendment.

Defamation is always illegal.

The Petitioner’s right against Double

Jeopardy was violated when her employment

was terminated, and her unemployment

insurance benefits were denied from the same

severe, false allegations, where she was refused

her contractual hearing.

Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977),

forbids successive prosecution and cumulative

punishment... Pp.432 U.S. 166-169. Separate

violations need not have the same elements or

require the same proof in order to be the same

within the meaning of double jeopardy, at

Brown 164.

In United States v. Turner, 79 M.J. 401,

the Fifth Amendment provides that no person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law and no person shall

be subject for the same offense to be twice put

in jeopardy.

The Goldberg v. Kelly, 425 U.S. 94 (1976)

decision set the parameters for the procedural

due process when dealing with the deprivation

of a government benefit. The Court held that a

person has a property interest in certain

government entitlements, which requires notice

and a hearing before a government entity

denies or takes property away.

The Goldberg Court decided that such

entitlements (government pensions,

unemployment benefits, professional licenses...)

are a form of ‘new property” that require pre

deprivation procedural Protection and so did

away with the traditional distinction between

rights and privileges.

Property includes money and other

tangible things of value, but also any intangible

right considered as a source or element of

income or wealth.

The Supreme Court's ruling will have

significant implications for employees, unions,

and employers. If the Appellate Court's

ruling is upheld, it will mean that employers

can deny due process and use defamation to

cause injury to [former] employees [outside the

workplace]. The At-Will employment statute’s

conflict and impunity to the “unprotected

speech” of the First Amendment could have a

chilling effect on employees' willingness to

report workplace misconduct.

Conclusion

Please hold the pro se litigant to a less

stringent standard on procedure; and grant this

Writ of Certiorari based on the merit

(evidence/exhibit) though the vehicle is coarse.

Respectfully Submitted in Good Faith,

Vanessa Phillips , pro se , Petitioner

P. 0. Box 7023

Warner Robins, GA 31095

478-334-9868

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.