IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

GREENSBORO DIVISION

MARQUETA WELTON, )
Plaintiff )
)
vs. )
) Case No. 17-cv-258
DURHAM COUNTY; DURHAM COUNTY )
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; )
WENDELL DAVIS, in his individual and )
official capacity; and KATHY EVERETT- )
PERRY, in her individual and official )
capacity, )
Defendants )

COMPLAINT
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

INTRODUCTION

This is an employment civil rights case involving deprivations of rights

contained within the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution,
made actionable pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, as well as enumerated violations
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000(e), et seq.,
and for supplemental jurisdiction claims of fraud, defamation and infliction of
emotional distress. Plaintiff Marqueta Welton (hereinafter sometimes Welton)
contends that her hard-earned position as second in command of Durham
County government was terminated, and her chances for employment in
substantially similar work severely limited, by defendants violation of her First
and Fourteenth Amendment rights. She seeks declaratory relief, and awards of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees and costs.
Moreover, this is a case about an exemplary, well-respected woman who
made her way as a leader to the top echelons of Durham County government,
then had the temerity to challenge a man for the top position of County

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 1 of 28

Manager. Reluctantly, she withdrew her name from consideration to preserve
County unity. He was appointed and immediately retaliated against her for
challenging him by publicly humiliating her, demoting her to a low-level position,
cutting her pay in half, and requiring her to perform onerous tasks intended to
overwhelm her. Under the anticipated stress he created, she had to resign from
County government.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is a resident of Durham County, North Carolina.
2. Durham County (County), is established and existing pursuant to
Chapter 153A-1 of the North Carolina General Statutes, as defined and
described in N.C.Gen.Stat. 153-11. At all times relevant to this action,
defendant County acted through its managers and policy makers, as well as its
County Commissioners, including but not limited to its County Manager and
Director Human Resources; and the acts, edicts, and practices of these persons
represent the official policies of defendant County. At all times relevant to this
action, defendant County was a person within the meaning and definition of 42
U.S.C. 1983.
3. The Durham County Board of County Commissioners (sometimes
the Board or BOCC) exercises supervision and control over governmental
matters in Durham County, and is a person under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
4. Defendant, Wendell Davis (hereinafter sometimes Davis), is a
resident of Durham County, North Carolina. At all relevant times herein, Davis
was and still is the County Manager of Durham County, North Carolina, and is
sued in his individual and official capacities.
5. Defendant, Kathy Everett-Perry (hereinafter Everett-Perry), at all
relevant times herein, was and still is the Durham County Director of Human
Resources, and Equal Employment Opportunity officer, and is sued in her
individual and official capacities.

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 2 of 28

 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, and the
Constitution and common law of North Carolina. Jurisdiction of this Court is
invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 28 U.S.C. 1331, and the doctrine of
supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1367.
7. The unlawful practices alleged below were committed within the
Middle District of North Carolina, and venue is therefore proper in this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background
8. Welton was employed by the County from 19 September 2005 to
28 December 2016, initially as the Director of Human Resources with a starting
salary of $107,000. In response to her meritorious performance in that capacity,
she was promoted to the position of Deputy County Manager on 13 June 2011.
She was one of two Deputy County Managers; both reported directly to County
Manager Mike Ruffin. The two deputy managers were second in the
organizational hierarchy of the county to the county manager. Mr. Ruffin retired
as county manager in 2014. By the time he retired, Welton had continually
earned meritorious performance evaluations, and her salary had increased to
$172,214.
9. In July 2013, the County formally announced that Mr. Ruffin would
retire as county manager by the end of January 2014. The BOCC began a
recruitment process to replace him, and Davis was among the applicants. He
was not employed in the county government at the time, but had previously
worked for Durham County government from approximately 1999 to May 2011
as a deputy county manager.
10. Initially, Welton decided not to apply for the county manager
position. But persons from both inside and outside county government
encouraged Welton to apply. They felt that Welton possessed the necessary

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 3 of 28

leadership qualities, competence and experience to best serve the people of
Durham County as county manager.
11. During the recruitment process, Welton petitioned the BOCC to
appoint her to the position, candidly asserting that her competence and
experience as deputy county manager, and quality of character, better qualified
her to be appointed to the position than any of the other applicants, including
Davis.
12. After narrowing the pool of applicants to Welton and Davis, the two
were interviewed by the BOCC several times between September and December
2013. In December 2013, the BOCC decided to utilize an independent panel in
Washington, D.C., to interview and recommend to them one of the two as better
suited to serve as county manager.
13. Welton and Davis were interviewed in January 2014. On the way to
the airport following the interviews, before the independent panel had rendered
any opinions, Davis asked Welton to withdraw because he understood that she
had been a reluctant applicant. Welton replied that she would not withdraw but
would leave it to the BOCC to make a final decision. However, before the BOCC
met to vote, Welton withdrew her application and Davis was named County
Manager.
Working Conditions Under Davis Immediately After He Assumed
Duties as County Manager on 14 April 2014

14. Davis began his official duties as County Manager on 14 April 2014.
From the beginning, he treated Welton with hostility. While he engaged the
other deputy manager, Worsley, in friendly substantive discussions about
running county government, he interacted with Welton sporadically and
formally.
15. Davis would occasionally visit informally with co-workers whose
offices were adjacent to Weltons and ask if Welton was around, as if monitoring
her. Welton would hear Davis from her office and thought that he would stop in

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 4 of 28

to greet her as well. He never did. He engaged in few planning sessions with
her, except when in the presence of the other leadership team members. His
attitude toward her was apparent to the other employees, and caused Welton to
feel belittled and embarrassed before subordinate department heads and peers.
16. Because of the lack of any meaningful one-on-one meetings with
Davis, Welton was challenged to discuss with him any routine problems she had
encountered which she typically could discuss one-on-one easily with the prior
county manager. She started trying to schedule meetings through his
administrative assistant, without success. Scheduled meetings would be
cancelled and rescheduled. This pattern occurred multiple times which led
Welton to believe that Davis did not want to meet with her. She finally did
schedule a meeting for 18 July, only to be told that the appointment was
cancelled and rescheduled to the afternoon of 21 July. Approximately two hours
before the meeting scheduled for 21 July, his administrative assistant sent
Welton another cancellation notice, without explanation or rescheduling.
Davis Suspends Welton on 29 July 2014
17. Suddenly, on 24 July 2014, Welton received a request to meet with
Davis in his office on 25 July 2014, for the first one-on-one meeting they had
had since Davis became county manager in April 2014. There, he discussed
with her various complaints he had about her work performance from the time
that he became county manager. Welton had previously been trying to see Davis
about certain issues she had encountered, but his door was always closed to
her.
18. At the beginning of the meeting Davis handed Welton a document
which appeared to be disciplinary in nature and in which he accused her, among
other things, of being in Washington, D.C. on a day when her calendar indicated
that she had a doctors appointment.
19. During the two-hour meeting, Davis initially focused on Welton
being absent from the office on 17 July for a trip to Washington, D.C., without

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 5 of 28

prior notice or explanation. But Welton explained that she had told him she
would not be present for a departmental staff meeting the morning of 17 July
because of a dental appointment, and further explained that because of
medication given prior to and during the appointment she was instructed not to
return to work that day. She had to be driven home, and spent the rest of the
day at home recovering and working on county matters as she could. She
pointed out that she thought she had reported this to the receptionist, and
offered apologies if he had not been informed. When she questioned why he had
accused her of being in Washington, D.C., he showed her an email which
indicated that another person who indirectly reported to Welton was the person
in Washington, D.C., that day. Once Davis realized his accusation concerning
this incident were erroneous, he said he would amend the document
accordingly. Welton and Davis discussed other concerns he raised, including
that Davis felt Welton should have withdrawn from competing for the county
manager position when her white male counterpart withdrew.
20. On 29 July 2014, Davis met with Welton to follow up on their prior
meeting. At the beginning of the meeting Davis handed Welton a three-page
document outlining what Davis considered to be behavior that has a serious
impact on the operations of our department and our ability to meet our goals,
and at the very end of the three-page document, Davis stated, In light of these
infractions and the leadership role that Welton holds in the organization and the
importance of her leading by example, she is hereby suspended for five days
without pay effective Wednesday, July 30, 2014 August 5, 2014. She is to
report back to work 8:30 a.m. August 6, 2014. Welton discussed with Davis
how his treatment of her was not commensurate with her alleged infractions and
was more harsh than he had rendered to a former white male employee to
whom Davis gave a written warning for being absent from work without Davis
prior approval.

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 6 of 28

 August 2014 Grievance and Appeal of Suspension
21. The County did not have a specific written grievance procedure that
provided redress for an employee aggrieved by the county manager. Based on
grievance procedures in place, Welton was confronted with having to file her
appeal to Davis, if he denied a grievance. On 6 August 2014, she delivered a
six-page letter to Davis requesting reconsideration of his decision to suspend
her, concluding, Again, given the gravity of the alleged charges, the five-day
suspension is punitive rather than corrective and does not fit the alleged
infractions. I respectfully ask that you rescind the suspension and restore my
pay for the five-day suspension served.
22. Davis agreed to meet with Welton to discuss her request after he had
a chance to review it. However, the next day, 7 August, Davis came to Weltons
office to tell her that he had read her request and had decided to affirm the
suspension.
23. On 14 August 2014, Welton delivered to Davis a formal Grievance
of Disciplinary Action. On 18 August 2014, Davis filed and served Welton a
Response to Appeal from Ms. Marqueta Welton, which stated, among other
things, that her appeal represents a feeble attempt to establish a case for
retaliation; and that her excuse for her failure to show up for work [on 17
July] was a misrepresentation in Ms. Weltons appeal that raises a specter of
concern around her professional integrity. Therefore, my decision to suspend
Ms. Welton without pay for five days is upheld.
24. On 22 August 2014, Davis told Welton that if she continued to
pursue her grievance, he has big boxing gloves.
25. On 25 August 2014, Welton drafted an Appeal of Disciplinary
Action to the BOCC requesting it to review the five-day suspension without pay
and delivered copies of it to the Human Resources department. This appeal was
never delivered to the BOCC as there followed discussions between and among
former Human Resources Director, Cora Wilson, Davis and Welton, which

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 7 of 28

caused Davis to rescind the penalty associated with the five-day suspension and
maintain a corrective action plan as written until 29 January 2015. Welton
asked Davis to strike the corrective action plan as inappropriate and unfair, to
which Davis responded that she had two options: Accept the offer as
conditioned, or move forward with the appeal process. Welton elected to move
forward with the appeal process.
26. On 16 September, Davis advised Welton of his final decision to
rescind the suspension without pay and maintain the corrective action plan.
Human Resources (HR) determined, in a written letter to both parties, that,
With the removal of the disciplinary action, the associated corrective action plan
is regarded as a documented counseling which is not a disciplinary action.
There is no internal process to grieve/appeal a documented counseling, and
therefore, the prior discussions are regarded to be coaching and counseling
sessions. HR then determined: The aforementioned corrective action plan
must be revised to be reflective of a documented counseling...[which would] be
maintained in Mr. Davis desk file for Ms. Welton...[which] does not have any
impact on Ms. Weltons eligibility to receive pay adjustments nor to work an
alternative work schedule. The letter further stated that, There will be no
documents/correspondence related to this matter in Ms. Weltons official
personnel file.
Continuing Harassment and Humiliation of Welton
27. Despite Welton dropping her pursuit of the matter, Davis private
and public relations and communications toward Welton worsened. He insisted
on carrying forward with a six-month corrective action plan which required
Welton to meet with him once a month through 29 January 2015; however, he
cancelled most meetings that were scheduled with her. He delivered her 2014
performance appraisal 10 months later than due, thereby delaying her merit
pay increase by almost a year.

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 8 of 28

 28. Beginning in November 2014, Davis prohibited Welton from
continuing service in the National Association of Counties (NACo), in the various
committee roles she held there since 2006. Davis claimed NACo was intended
for commissioners only, even though Welton reminded him that at a recent
meeting he had just encouraged all leadership team members to become active
and join NACo committees. The County Tax Administrator and the Director of
Social Services, department heads who both indirectly reported to Welton in the
county organizational hierarchy, attended the NACo conference in 2015 while
Welton was denied the opportunity. Similarly situated individuals not of her
race, gender or age were allowed to attend various conferences, while Welton was
continually denied permission to attend NACo.
29. In November 2014, Davis discontinued the County paying Weltons
bar expenses to maintain her North Carolina law license, a benefit she
negotiated for and had received since she was hired in 2005.
30. Davis public humiliation of Welton intensified such that she lost
confidence in her ability to work with her colleagues and other counterparts from
other local government agencies with whom she collaborated on common inter-
governmental projects. Davis also made material changes in Weltons work
responsibilities as deputy county manager, including giving her entry-level
administrative work assignments.
31. The above behavior of the County Manager continued and
intensified through February 2016, when it became extreme, transparently overt,
and oppressively humiliating.
32. On 1 February 2016, Davis replaced the former co-deputy manager
(Worsley) with a less experienced female, Jodi Miller (hereinafter Miller). Davis
began further undermining Weltons leadership by presenting Miller as deputy
manager in ceremonial roles over departments assigned to Welton. On
19 February, only days after her hire, he announced that Miller would be
appointed Acting County Manager for a week while he was attending a NACo

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 9 of 28

conference the very conference Davis told Welton was for commissioners only.
Copies of the announcement were sent to members of the BOCC, HR, county
department heads, and numerous other county employees who were unfamiliar
with Miller, but very familiar with Weltons reputation as an experienced,
capable deputy manager.
Demotion; 50% Pay-Cut; Eviction from County Offices
33. On 25 February 2016, Davis notified Welton that under his
reorganization plan she would be demoted from the position of deputy county
manager, an E5 classification which is the highest pay grade in the Countys
employment system. During the month of March, Davis met with County and
City of Durham department heads and other staff and presented his
reorganization plan, including his demotion of Welton.
34. On 4 April 2016, Davis publicly announced his reorganization plan
at a BOCC meeting. During the BOCC meeting, Davis was asked what role the
BOCC would play in his reorganization. He responded that his announcement
was for information purposes an administrative realignment, without
informing the Board that its permission was required for new positions created
and associated funding. The Countys compensation plan includes a salary rate
structure and assigns each job to a grade level with a designated salary range.
The Durham County Code requires that adjustments to the plan be approved by
the BOCC.
35. Also at this time, Davis did not inform the Board that his plan would
include a demotion of Welton to a minor role in the Countys government with a
drastic pay cut.
36. Because Davis knew that the Boards approval of his administrative
realignment/reorganization plan was required, he put the matter on the Boards
agenda as a consent item at its next meeting. However, the matter was removed
from the agenda before the meeting without it being discussed or formally
approved.

10

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 10 of 28

 37. Nevertheless, on 12 April 2016, Davis sent Welton a formal notice
that her demotion would be effective 25 April 2016. He demoted her to the
position of Economic Development Officer, a position he and Human Resources
director Everett-Perry created at a C4 classification which is approximately 12
grades below the E5 classification. Weltons salary was reduced 50 percent from
approximately $172,214 annually to $86,248 annually.
38. The Countys recruitment and selection policy required Davis to
consult with HR and obtain its approval to make any such change in position.
Everett-Perry directed her staff to create the new Economic Development Officer
position and corresponding salary to which Welton was reassigned. Then, on
4 May 2016, Everett-Perry sent a memo to Welton in which she informed Welton
that her salary would be changed from $172,214 to $86,248.
39. Weltons new salary was approximately $21,000 less than her initial
starting salary when hired by the County in 2005. Davis capped Weltons
maximum salary at $86,248 in her new position, thereby eliminating the
possibility of Welton ever receiving another pay increase.
40. These actions became effective on 25 April 2016, two months prior
to the BOCC adopting Davis recommended FY 2016-2017 Budget Ordinance
which included the new Economic Development Officer position and salary.
41. On the same day, Davis ordered Welton to be removed from the
central County administration offices to a vacant office in a separate building
housing the Criminal Justice Resource Center (CJRC) in which the primary
activities included drug testing, electronic monitoring, re-entry training, and
probation services.
42. On 27 April, a security manager notified Welton that the HR
Director, Everett-Perry, instructed him under orders from Davis to remove all of
Weltons badge access rights to everything except the Criminal Justice Resource
Center and appropriate common readers.

11

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 11 of 28

 43. Criminal and drug testing activities have no relation to Weltons
Economic Development functions. This move had a negative impact on Weltons
professional work, as many economic development partners with whom Welton
was expected to work did not desire to conduct business there. Welton was the
only person in her department and assigned group under the reorganization
structure to be relegated to the Criminal Justice Resource Center.
10 March 2016 Grievance of Demotion and Pay Reduction
44. On 10 March 2016, Welton filed a grievance of the demotion and pay
reduction with Davis, requesting reconsideration of his decision. In a written
response delivered on 14 March 2016, Davis attempted to justify the demotion
and pay cut by saying his action did not constitute a demotion, but was a
restructure of county management positions to eliminate the two deputy county
manager positions and replace them with five general manager positions with
the pay classifications of E5.
45. He further stated in his response that: the prior conversation he had
with Welton on 25 February was just a kind jesture [sic], to provide insight into
the new structure prior to its implementation; her grievance, was only self-
described as a demotion and pay reduction; her grievance was untimely and
meritless; the newly appointed general managers were subject matter experts;
and by implication, she lacked the qualities necessary to be included in the
upper echelons of management under his new restructure plan. Therefore, he
said, Weltons grievance would be denied, as the reorganization will move
forward as currently planned.
46. Yet, in his 30 November 2015 annual written evaluation of Welton,
Davis had strongly indicated that she possessed all the qualities necessary to fill
a general manager position under the new restructure plan, and that she should
continue in her role of providing key assistance to the Countys overall Strategic
Planning policy. He had given her an overall rating of Exceeds Expectations
(EE), the highest possible rating in county government. Under the first and

12

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 12 of 28

most detailed grading category, STRATEGIC PLANNING, Davis made this
overall statement about Welton: Marqueta has brought thoughtful insight to
the strategic planning process. He then set forth his expectations for the next
calendar year for this EE performer:
(a) Marqueta will work with the leadership in County
government to develop and refine a long-term vision for Durham
County government to become a leader in performance. ... Marqueta
will aid in designing a managing for results model [the new
restructure model referred to above] and setting timelines and
identifying critical milestones for the organization to reconstruct a
roadmap for the communitys future success.... Marqueta will work
with the [County] Manager to identify key staff in the organization
who will be responsible for the deliverables of key milestones in the
Strategic Plan and the MFR Model throughout the implementation
process;
(b) Marqueta will work with County government leadership
to educate staff...to successfully implement our long- term
performance strategy;
(c) Marqueta will work with County government leadership
to educate staff on the strategic plan and/or the MFR Model [new
restructure model] to successfully implement our long- term
strategy;
(d) Marqueta will work with the leadership to develop a
comprehensive strategy to refresh the Countys strategic plan on a
regular cycle.... Marqueta will work with the leadership to help
develop a comprehensive communication strategy to educate (all
stakeholders) on MFR [the new restructure plan];
(e) Under the [new restructure] model, Marqueta will be
one of the Principal leaders for implementation of the MFR strategy

13

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 13 of 28

 and will co-chair the Learning and Evaluation Progress Team...and
use this opportunity to refine and improve our Management
Reporting systems;
(f) As the Countys Strategic Plan will be the principal
focus for all of our work, Marqueta will be extremely instrumental in
making certain that all staff under her supervision understands the
Strategic Plan...[and] will be one of the principal leads in making
sure that knowledge transfer of these concepts and other common
language permeates the organization....
47. No other performance evaluations of Welton were made by Davis
before she was demoted and her pay cut in half on 10 March 2016.
Coercion to Resign New Position
48. Under the newly created position of Economic Development Officer,
Weltons main function was to perform comprehensive professional and
administrative work developing and directing the economic development
activities of the County. She was placed under the supervision of one of the
newly created general managers, Jay Gibson, the County Engineer who had been
subordinate to Welton in her position as deputy manager. Gibson was now the
General Manager for Environmental Stewardship and Community Prosperity.
49. Prior to moving to the Criminal Justice Resource Center (CJRC),
Welton asked Gibson if she could move into a space that she had located which
was more suitable than the CJRC. Gibson checked with Davis and said No.
Shortly after she first moved in, a banner was posted at the entrance of the
CJRC which read, Drug Courts A Proven Budget Solution. Drug Courts
Work! This was not a space conducive to encouraging major industries and
businesses to move to Durham County, North Carolina.
50. Weltons new general manager reported directly to, and took orders
from, Davis. Gibson rarely met or conversed with Welton to discuss her work on
economic development projects, or to provide direction on any other projects

14

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 14 of 28

assigned to her. His instructions to her were routinely delivered by email. She
did not have staff or assigned support in the CJRC.
51. Weltons 2016 performance review and merit increase was due on 13
June 2016. Although HR acknowledged that she was entitled to it, neither
Gibson nor Davis nor Everett-Perry saw to it that Welton would ever receive it.
52. On 1 September 2016, Gibson informed her by email that she was
to take the lead in a redevelopment and rezoning joint city-county project
(hereinafter the Junction Road Project or Project). Gibson instructed her
that, while some support will be available from Peri, Jane, Steve, and myself,
the bulk of the work will be yours to execute.
53. It would be a hands-on project just for her. She was to
immediately put together a firm/team that is intimately familiar with Durham
Planning processes/requirements; has strong traffic and stormwater engineering
in-house or solid partners who are also familiar with Durham requirements; and
handle the community engagement requirements associated with a rezoning;
and a firm/team that has both the bandwidth to move our Project forward timely
as well as a demonstrated track record of success with similar projects in
Durham.
54. Gibson further instructed her to develop a rezoning application,
which would include the following: Development Plan; Comp Plan Amendment;
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA); Stormwater Statement/Draft Plan/Analysis;
Schedule for Public Meetings - required item to my understanding. Gibson
further instructed Welton that there may be other items required for inclusion
in the rezoning submittal, and closed his letter by saying, Please have a
schedule prepared for discussion that addresses the items above as well as
meeting the necessary inflection points timewise, and be submitted to him by
the close of business tomorrow, after checking with other resources to provide
comments as appropriate. Gibson stated that time was of the essence.

15

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 15 of 28

 55. The work that County Engineer/General Manager Gibson assigned
Welton required specialized skills and was encompassed in the job description of
an Engineering Department Project Manager, skills which Welton did not have.
The work was not encompassed in the Economic Development Officer job
description. Since time was of the essence, Welton pointed out that the work
she was being asked to do was in the realm of expertise of a Project Manager or
Civil Engineer. After consulting the resources she could reach on short notice,
Welton responded to him on 5 September 2016, stating that she had never done
any work in the development of site projects or rezoning, and that [I] have no
training, experience, background or exposure to it, and that it was totally
outside of my body of knowledge, skills and abilities and I am not comfortable
taking the lead. Welton had been subordinated to the Engineering Department
and was now being asked to perform the work of an engineer.
56. Gibson responded by email two hours later, admitting that the task
he had given her was a new approach or form for economic development for
Durham County, but that as the key person, he needed her focused
attention on this now...primary assignment, that it was only the beginning of
the work she would have to do on the project, and that certainly...others can
offer input, however, it is yours to execute and move forward. He said, In
conclusion, my expectation is that you will lead and manage the process for the
Junction Road entitlements to an appropriate conclusion as our D-Co Economic
Development Officer.
57. As a result of these developments in her career, and next-to-
impossible working conditions, Welton began seeing her medical doctor and a
recommended clinical psychologist for treatment of stress and anxiety. She was
placed on continuous leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
beginning 29 September 2016.

16

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 16 of 28

 1 April 2016 Grievance and Appeal Never Heard or Timely Investigated
58. Following denial of Weltons grievance of 10 March 2016, Welton
filed a new grievance on 1 April 2016 with HR and the BOCC. On 6 April 2016,
Human Resources Director, Everett-Perry, asked to meet with Welton and
advised her that she had identified four potential outside investigators and that
Welton would likely be contacted next by an outside investigator. On 26 May
2016, Everett-Perry advised Welton that the required investigation of her
grievance would not be completed within the required 45-day time frame for
investigating grievances under Durham Countys grievance policy and would
have to be extended, as an external party should conduct this investigation and
a search for the appropriate investigator [has] ensued.
59. The County decided that it would be appropriate that the required
investigation be performed by a lawyer in Charlotte, North Carolina, who is a
fraternity brother of Davis and the County Attorney. In August 2016, the
Charlotte lawyer contacted Weltons counsel and informed him that he had been
retained by the County to report on the grievance, and that he wanted to begin
an investigation by interviewing Welton. Weltons counsel declined the request,
and no further investigation was conducted until after Welton had received her
right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC). Welton was never afforded a due process hearing of her complaint.
60. Welton, in due course, timely filed a Charge of Discrimination
with the EEOC, alleging racial, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation.
She proceeds now on Title VII claims. At Weltons request, the EEOC issued a
right-to-sue letter on 29 December 2016.
COUNT I
First Amendment Retaliation - Freedom of
Speech; Right to Petition Government
42 U.S.C. 1983

61. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in

the preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.

17

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 17 of 28

 62. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution affords the broadest
protection to discussion of public issues made during debate on the qualifica-
tions of candidates for public office or appointive employment to ensure the
unfettered exchange of ideas for the betterment of a governmental entitys
citizens. Defendants, by engaging in extreme and malicious retaliation against
Welton for competing against Davis for the position of county manager, and later
for seeking redress of her grievances, fundamentally violated the First
Amendment.
63. From the time that Davis began his official duties on 14 April 2014,
he has engaged in a malicious campaign of retaliation against Welton by:
(a) Constantly undermining her credibility and authority as
deputy county manager;
(b) Humiliating her before co-equal and subordinate
Durham City and County employees;
(c) Without cause, imposing a humiliating disciplinary five-
day suspension without pay on Welton based on recklessly
erroneous or fabricated facts, which suspension was withdrawn only
after the suspension had been served;
(d) Reminding her that if she continued with her grievance,
he has big boxing gloves;
(e) Terminating her as one of two deputy county managers,
and relegating her to a newly created position as a county economic
development officer, at a rate of pay 12 grades below that of deputy
county manager/general manager, based on the pretext of
restructuring county government, after Welton had just earned, yet
again, the highest job performance ratings of any high-level
employee;
(f) Evicting her from the central county government offices
and publicly stripping her of all access to same; and

18

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 18 of 28

 (g) Requiring Welton to perform onerous new duties outside
the scope of a county economic development officer, for which
Welton had little or no training or experience, to the end that she
would become so frustrated and stressed, that she would quit as an
employee of county government.
64. The above-said acts were undertaken by Davis in his official capacity
as county manager with the knowledge, acquiescence, and ratification of the
BOCC and Everett-Perry. To the extent that they exceeded the scope of their
official duties, Davis and Everett-Perry each acted individually to accomplish the
common purpose of driving Welton out of county government.
65. As a direct and proximate result of defendants retaliation against
her:
(a) Welton was constructively discharged from her
employment and sustained substantial monetary and non-monetary
damage, including severe emotional distress;
(b) Welton has suffered loss of current and future income
and benefits, as well as loss of professional opportunities and
compensation and benefits associated therewith;
(c) Welton suffered severe emotional distress; and
(d) Welton has suffered humiliation and injury to her
reputation and character.
66. As a direct and proximate result of defendants above-said actions,
Welton sustained substantial injury and damage.
COUNT II
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments- Liberty Interests
42 U.S.C. 1983

67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.

19

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 19 of 28

 68. Davis, acting by and through the BOCC, stigmatized Welton as
incapable of handling the rigorous duties of a deputy county manager or county
manager, when in truth she had received the highest job performance ratings
throughout her career as Director of Human Resources and Deputy County
Manager for Durham County government. She was rated by Davis as exceeding
expectations, and determined by him to be highly qualified to participate as a
leader in his planned government restructure in November 2015; then she was
noticed of demotion to a minor job at one-half the pay in February 2016, and
from there driven from employment with the County in intentional, unmitigated
humiliation.
69. Defendants also prevented Welton from seeking proper redress when
she attempted to grieve the above adverse employment actions. The Countys
personnel ordinances and policies required that Welton appeal to Davis, her
tormentor, for relief, and then appeal to him if he denied relief. Upon appeal,
she was due an investigation of her grievances by the County, followed by a due
process hearing, presumably before the BOCC. But defendants failed to provide
a timely investigation, and in fact no independent investigation occurred. As a
result, no due process hearing occurred.
70. As a direct and proximate result of defendants stigmatizing and
illegal actions, Weltons ability to work in a field for which she was perfectly
suited has been damaged. She has been deprived of a liberty interest protected
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
71. As a direct and proximate result of defendants stigmatizing and
illegal actions, Welton has suffered substantial injury and damage as described
in Count I.

20

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 20 of 28

 COUNT III
Violation of First and Fourteenth Amendments - Property Interests
42 U.S.C. 1983

72. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
73. Welton was initially employed by the County in 2005 as the Director
of Human Resources with a starting salary of $107,000. As a result of
meritorious performance, she was promoted to the position of deputy county
manager on 13 June 2011, and as a result of continued meritorious performance
evaluations, her salary had increased to $172,496 by January 2014.
74. Over the years of her employment, Durham County developed
policies, rules and understandings which, taken together, created an expectancy,
and implied a contract, of continuing employment in her current position or in a
substantially similar position to the one which she occupied in January 2014, at
substantially the same salary.
75. For example, during Weltons employment, the stated purpose of the
Countys compensation policy was to attract, reward, and retain employees.
Under the Countys personnel policies, regular positions such as Weltons were
established to meet continuing needs for an indefinite duration, and the
County developed a disciplinary process setting work standards for continued
employment.
76. Under its written performance management procedures, at each stage
of Weltons employment, her job performance was periodically evaluated to
determine, among other things, whether her employment in her regular position
would be continuing indefinitely, and whether she would be retained, demoted,
promoted, transferred or discharged, or have her pay increased or decreased.
77. During Weltons employment, the county manager had final
authority and responsibility for appointments, classifications, evaluations,
recognition, discipline, dismissals, grievances and appeals. However, he could

21

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 21 of 28

not act arbitrarily to end continued employment in a regular position, or to
demote, transfer, reduce or otherwise adjust her pay. He was constrained by the
Countys policies and practices, including the grievance policy which allowed
Welton to protest (grieve) any such actions, including acts of discrimination,
retaliation, and harassment, to obtain a review of same by him; and then to
appeal any adverse decision to the next highest level of supervision which, in this
case, turned out to be him again. The grievance policy further provided that,
with due notice, Welton could have an appeal hearing to review any findings
arising from the investigation, allow Welton to examine witnesses and submit
documents in support of her position, and in all ways to present evidence, make
argument, and be represented by counsel during the hearing.
78. In Weltons case, no investigation was timely conducted, no hearing
was ever held, and the alleged independent investigative report was delivered to
her in January 2017, three weeks after her employment with the county ended
and ten months after her complaint was filed. As a result, she was deprived of a
property right, to wit, her expectation of continued employment at the position,
or a similar position, she enjoyed in February 2014, without due process, in
violation of the First and the Fourteenth Amendments.
79. As a direct and proximate result of defendants illegal retaliation,
Welton was constructively discharged from her employment and sustained
substantial injury and damage as described in Count I.
COUNT IV
Discrimination
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17

80. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
81. Welton was and is an employee as that term is defined at 42
U.S.C. 2000e(f), and the County of Durham was and is an employer as the
term is defined at 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).

22

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 22 of 28

 82. Prior to and after Davis became her supervisor, Welton maintained
superior exceeds expectations employee performance evaluations.
83. Defendant County of Durham violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 by
discriminating against Welton when it:
(a) Abolished the two positions of deputy county manager,
including hers, while retaining the other deputy, a white female, as a
newly created general manager, under a so-called government
restructure plan;
(b) Demoted Welton to a position with qualitatively
diminished responsibility inferior to all other managerial positions in
the county employment hierarchy, vastly below her former position of
deputy county manager, for which she had recently attained a
performance evaluation of exceeds expectations;
(c) Reduced her pay 12 grades below that which she earned
at her abolished deputy county manager position;
(d) Retained the only other deputy county manager, Miller, a
white female with less experience, in one of five newly created general
manager positions, at the same or higher salary than what Miller
earned as a deputy county manager;
(e) Failed to take any action on her grievance of racial
discrimination; and
(f) Created a hostile work environment as described in the
foregoing allegations.
84. As a direct and proximate result of age, gender, and race
discrimination, Welton has suffered substantial injury and damage as described
in Count I.

23

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 23 of 28

 COUNT V
Retaliation
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
42 U.S.C. 2000e to 2000e-17

85. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
86. After Weltons discrimination grievance and appeal was denied by
defendants, they undertook the materially adverse employment actions
enumerated above, which violated the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 U.S.C.
2000e-3.
87. The above-said acts provided the capstone to a carefully
choreographed plan of retaliation to set up Welton to fail in her new role as
Economic Development Officer.
88. The above-said acts were calculated to create such a hostile work
environment that a reasonable worker would be compelled to withdraw from
any employment with the County of Durham. Instead, Welton was compelled to
seek medical assistance and took leave under the Countys Medical Leave Policy
and Federal Medical Leave Act beginning on 29 September 2016 through 28
December 2016. Welton was compelled to resign at the end of her approved
leave, as her medical providers advised that returning to work at Durham
County would cause further harm to her health.
89. The County undertook the above materially adverse employment
actions in response to Weltons engaging in a protected activity, which county
actions might well have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or
supporting a charge of discrimination.
90. Welton would have exhausted her county administrative remedies,
except that she was intentionally prevented from pursuing them by the County
postponing an investigation and report as required by the Countys grievance
procedures. No report was provided until after the EEOC issued its right to sue

24

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 24 of 28

letter, which was nine months after the grievance was filed, and after Weltons
employment ended.
91. As a direct and proximate result of defendants illegal retaliation,
Welton has suffered substantial injury and damage as described in Count I.
COUNT VI
State Claims - Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty
92. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
93. The acts of Davis and Everett-Perry, acting jointly, and by and for
the County of Durham, constitute fraud and breach of fiduciary duty under
North Carolina common law.
94. Before Davis new county government restructure plan became
effective, he was required to disclose the plan to the BOCC, and obtain its
approval. As shown in the allegations incorporated here, Davis did not obtain
required approval prior to implementing his reorganization plan.
95. Davis and Everett-Perry knew that the reorganization plan which
included Weltons new position and salary required BOCC approval. Neverthe-
less, Davis told the BOCC at its 4 April work session that it did not have a role
in his reorganization plan. Yet Davis added the plan to the BOCCs 11 April
agenda as a consent item for the Boards approval. However, it was removed
from the agenda prior to the meeting without being discussed or formally
approved.
96. In spite of not having obtained the BOCCs formal approval to
amend the Countys compensation plan, on 25 April 2016 Davis implemented
his reorganization plan which added new positions and salary rates to the plan.
97. On 4 May 2016, Everett-Perry sent a memo to Welton in which she
informed Welton that her salary would be changed from $172,214 to $86,248,
which was significantly less than Weltons initial starting salary when hired by
the County in 2005. The BOCC had not approved the economic development

25

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 25 of 28

officer position and associated salary as a change to the Countys compensation
plan.
98. Davis and Everett-Perry did not take the compensation plan changes
to the BOCC for discussion prior to implementing Davis reorganization.
Rather, Davis simply included the changes in the fiscal year 2016-2017 budget,
which the BOCC adopted on 27 June 2016, ratifying the harm to Welton as
described above.
99. As a direct and proximate result of defendants illegal actions herein
described, Welton has suffered substantial injury and damage as described in
Count I.
COUNT VII
State Claim - Defamation

100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
101. The acts of Davis, acting individually, and by and for the County of
Durham, were committed with malice and intent to cause Welton to suffer
humiliation and damage her reputation within county government, so
stigmatizing her that her reputation would be damaged beyond county
government and prevent her from continuing work in her chosen career.
102. Defendants actions toward Welton have conveyed to persons and
entities within and without county government the untruthful charge that
plaintiff is incompetent to perform any duties equivalent to a county manager or
deputy county manager or similar positions within and without government
employment. Defendants actions have been defamatory per se.
103. Defendants actions have, when considered with innuendo and
explanatory circumstances, become defamatory, causing plaintiff to suffer
ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, and further causing special damages more
specifically set forth below. Defendants actions have been defamatory per quod.

26

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 26 of 28

 104. As a direct and proximate result, Welton has suffered substantial
injury and damage as described in Count I.
COUNT VIII
State Claim - Infliction of Emotional Distress

105. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the factual allegations set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as though fully alleged herein.
106. The above-described conduct of Davis, acting individually, and by
and for the County of Durham, was extreme and outrageous, intended to cause
severe emotional distress, or committed with a reckless indifference to the
likelihood that such conduct would cause severe emotional distress, and which
did cause severe emotional distress to plaintiff.
107. In the alternative, Davis, individually and by and for the County of
Durham, negligently engaged in the above wrongful conduct. It was reasonably
foreseeable that said conduct would cause the plaintiff severe emotional
distress, and the conduct did in fact cause the plaintiff severe emotional
distress.
108. As a direct and proximate result, Welton has suffered substantial
injury and damage as described in Count I.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Marqueta Welton, respectfully requests this
Honorable Court to grant the following relief:
1. Enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants, jointly
and severally, for compensatory damages;
2. Enter a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendants
Wendell Davis and Kathy Everett-Perry for punitive damages;
3. Assess reasonable attorneys fees and costs of suit in favor of
plaintiff and against defendants, jointly and severally;
4. Enter a declaratory judgment that defendants violated plaintiffs
rights under the laws of the United States;
5. For a jury trial;

27

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 27 of 28

 6. Grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the nature of her
cause may warrant.
This the 23rd day of March, 2017.

/s/R. Hayes Hofler, III

R. Hayes Hofler, III (NCSB #6211)
LAW OFFICES OF HAYES HOFLER, P.A.
1007 Vickers Avenue
Durham, North Carolina 27707
Telephone: (919) 682-9663
Facsimile: (919) 682-2016
hayeshofler@hoflerlaw.com

28

Case 1:17-cv-00258-CCE-JEP Document 1 Filed 03/23/17 Page 28 of 28