“I believe that my termination was unjust and was actually due to discrimination based on my pregnancy, my temporary disability related to my pregnancy, and my use of FMLA leave. . .
“I was scheduled to return to work on May 13 but was informed via text message on May 11 that I was being placed on administrative leave and should not return to work. I was terminated, without warning, following the conclusion of my FMLA leave and prior to being allowed to return to work.”
– Melanie King, city of graham’s former finance director
The city of Graham’s former finance officer, Melanie King, claims that she was fired on May 20, 2024 as a result of discrimination based on her pregnancy, a “temporary disability related to” her pregnancy, and her use of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) – not due to her job performance –countering a description of the events leading to her departure that city officials recently provided to The Alamance News.
Graham city officials held a pre-disciplinary conference with King, who had been hired as the finance officer in the spring of 2023, to give her an “opportunity to respond to the proposed disciplinary actions,” based on a copy of the subsequent notice of termination that King received on May 20, 2024 and which Graham city officials furnished last week in response to a public records request by The Alamance News.
The notice of termination that the city sent to King on May 20 recounted, “At the pre-disciplinary conference, you provided information and documentation to explain the reasons for which certain job functions under your area of responsibility were not completed.
“However,” the termination notice stated, “neither the assertions you made nor the information you provided are sufficient to refute the findings that you failed to effectively and timely perform the duties and tasks to which you were assigned.”
While the May 20 notice of King’s termination seemed to imply she had been given prior warnings regarding her job performance, that wasn’t the case, King countered in an email to The Alamance News Monday morning.
The May 20 termination notice stated, “An employee whose job performance is unsatisfactory over a period of time should normally receive at least two warnings…The critical nature of delinquent work you failed to perform is not something for which any employee should reasonably expect written multiple warnings.”
“Your behavior and actions violated Section 8-11” in Graham’s personnel policy, the May 20 termination notice stated. Those purported violations included: “Demonstrated inefficiency, negligence, or incompetence in the performance of duties”; “failure to complete work within time frames established in work plan or standards”; and “failure to meet work standards over a period of time.”
King refuted that characterization of the reason for her termination in her email to the newspaper.
Instead, the former finance officer recalled that she had given birth and started her “maternity/FMLA” leave on March 18 of this year and was placed on administrative leave shortly before she was scheduled to return to work.
“I was scheduled to return to work on May 13 but was informed via text message on May 11 that I was being placed on administrative leave and should not return to work,” King wrote in her email to the newspaper Monday. “I was terminated, without warning, following the conclusion of my FMLA leave and prior to being allowed to return to work.”
King had been hired as Graham’s finance officer on March 13, 2023 and her final salary was $109,258.71 when she was terminated, based on information that Graham officials furnished to the newspaper last week.
Supplementary documentation that King provided to the newspaper this week stated that she had been transferred from probationary status on September 13, 2023 and had been rated as having exceeded expectations in six of nine areas of her job duties (and as meeting the standard in three areas) during a performance evaluation last September.
While the newspaper had been told that King had not attended a “name-clearing hearing” this summer, two email exchanges with the city’s human resources department that King furnished to the newspaper this week showed that she had withdrawn her request for such a hearing on July 29.
Graham’s personnel policy gives any non-probationary employee who is terminated the opportunity to appeal a disciplinary action, within 15 days of termination, as well as the opportunity to have a “name-clearing hearing.”
The North Carolina League of Municipalities (NCLM) concluded that, following a 2018 ruling by the U.S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a right to a name-clearing hearing to all public employees who are terminated.
The name-clearing hearing gives public employees a chance to refute accusations made against them in connection with a termination or a serious demotion, the NCLM wrote in an April 2019 memo to all municipal human resources directors.
Though the name-clearing hearing might not change the decision to terminate an employee, it allows him/her to publicly address allegations “so that they are not stigmatized from obtaining future employment opportunities,” particularly given that dismissal letters are defined as public records under state law, according to the NCLM.
Alleged lack of reasonable accommodations
King also furnished the newspaper a copy of an undated “Formal Appeal of Termination Due to Discrimination” that she apparently sent to city officials after she was fired.
“I believe that my termination was unjust and was actually due to discrimination based on my pregnancy, my temporary disability related to my pregnancy, and my use of FMLA leave,” King wrote in her written appeal, which requested reconsideration and an investigation into these “serious allegations.”
“During my employment, I informed you of my pregnancy and the associated medical appointments and health concerns,” King wrote in her appeal of termination letter. “My pregnancy and related complications constituted a temporary disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Despite my efforts to manage my workload and communicate openly about my situation, I was met with undue scrutiny and a lack of reasonable accommodation for my condition.”
Alleged retaliation for taking leave
King went on to note, that under FMLA, she was permitted to take leave to recover from childbirth and care for her newborn. “My FMLA leave was taken 5.5 weeks early due to preterm labor, significantly impacting the status of my work at the time of my leave. That said, it appears that my leave was used against me in the assessment of my job performance and subsequent termination. This is a clear violation of my rights under FMLA, which protects employees from retaliation for taking approved leave. It is important to note that I was never allowed to return from FMLA leave…[constituting] retaliation, as the law explicitly prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for taking leave under the FMLA. My termination before being able to resume my duties is a direct violation of these protections.”
King also countered in her formal written appeal that the purported job deficiencies outlined in her May 20 termination letter were “a direct result of the challenges I faced during my pregnancy and the lack of adequate support and accommodation provided by the city.”
“I never received a single warning” prior to any disciplinary action leading to termination, King contended in her formal appeal. “After my discharge from the hospital, I offered to continue working during my leave and was explicitly told that would not be allowed. Instead, you opted to hire externally.”
King emphasized in her email to the newspaper Monday, “I never received a single warning regarding my performance from the City of Graham, verbal or written.”
Other defenses
In her formal appeal, King offered her defenses for several “performance allegations,” including: delinquent revenue journal entries that she says “were consistent with my established process, which was never previously flagged as problematic”; that delays in bank reconciliations “were largely due to the significant issues encountered” during a conversion to new software; and that a delay in completing an Annual Financial Information Report was “due to the overwhelming workload and medical complications.”
While the newspaper has been told that King may be contemplating legal action against the city, she had not responded to an inquiry about that matter by press time. Documents currently on file in Alamance County civil superior court and in federal court give no indication that King has filed a lawsuit against the city of Graham.
However, in most cases, claims of discrimination – based on race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, gender identity, and/or sexual orientation – originate with filing a “charge” of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). At the conclusion of its investigation into a charge of discrimination, the EEOC typically issues a Notice of the Right to Sue, permitting the plaintiff to file a lawsuit in a state or federal court.
In her subsequent email to the newspaper, King wrote, “My termination was recommended by my supervisor, City Manager Megan Garner. My defense was denied by City Manager Megan Garner, and my appeal was denied by City Manager Megan Garner. I went through the full grievance process available to me, even though the entire process was in the hands of a single individual.”
