Buckley Beal LLP, the Atlanta civil rights and employment litigation law firm, has filed a suit against Clayton County and three county commissioners on behalf of a woman who served as the county’s chief financial officer for nearly 10 years and claims she was ousted and denied nearly $85,000 in severance pay in retaliation for her husband’s work on the campaign of another commission member whose reelection the trio opposed.

The suit names Clayton County Commissioners Felicia Franklin, Alieka Anderson and Gail Hambrick and was filed in federal court.

Former CFO Ramona Bivins had a history of glowing annual reviews and regular merit pay raises and was well regarded by the commissioners she served from 2013 until June 2022, according to the suit filed by Buckley Beal Managing Partner Edward D. Buckley and Attorney Andrew R. Tate.

Bivins’ problems allegedly began when her husband, Charlton Bivins, began campaigning for incumbent Commissioner DeMont Davis, who faced a challenge in the Democratic primary by Janice Scott, the complaint says. Davis triumphed over Scott in the May primary and is unopposed on the November ballot.

Bivins’ complaint says Franklin, Anderson and Hambrick – along with suspended Clayton County Sheriff Victor Hill, who currently faces charges for civil rights violations involving his use of a “restraint chair” on detainees at the county jail – were all supporting the challenger Scott’s campaign.

In late May, the complaint said, the incumbent Davis called Mr. Bivins to complain that his campaign signs were being stolen by individuals in a vehicle bearing Scott campaign signs; Mr. Bivins, a retired DeKalb County police captain, advised him to follow the vehicle and call the police.

A Riverdale officer approached the vehicle with a drawn weapon, but soon holstered it and allowed the occupants to go about their business, the complaint says.

The next day Commissioner Franklin contacted a local newspaper, the Clayton Crescent, and provided a recording between Davis and an assistant Clayton County police chief which mentioned Mr. Bivins’ efforts to locate the Scott campaign vehicle. The incident was widely reported in the county, the complaint said, as was the fact that Bivins’ wife was the county CFO.

On the agenda at a County Commission meeting several days later was a motion to renew Ramona Bivins’ contract for three years. When Commission Chairman Jeffrey Turner called for a vote Franklin, Anderson and Hambrick voted “no,” then voted to fire Bivins and declare her contract “ultra vires” and void, thereby stripping her of $84,853 in severance pay guaranteed by her contract. When asked by Turner on what basis was Bivins being terminated, Franklin, Anderson and Hambrick each remained silent, the suit alleges.

Both votes were 3-to-2, with Turner and Davis in the minority. Bivins was given two days to clear out her office.

After the meeting, the complaint said, Franklin and Anderson “expressed glee at Ms. Bivins’ termination,” with Franklin allegedly saying “I can sleep good tonight” to which Anderson responded “Do I need to get us a bottle?”

After she was fired Bivins filed for unemployment benefits, which the county has opposed; the three Commission defendants also passed a measure demanding that she return more than $37,000 in tuition payments to Vanderbilt University for a leadership program the county authorized. The suit alleges that the county’s COO, Detrick Stanford, also received the benefit of tuition paid by the county, and that Franklin told Mr. Stanford that he didn’t need to pay the county back because, “we are only going after Ramona.”

“This case is cut and dried to us,” says Tate. “We believe she was unlawfully fired in retaliation for being married to her husband who supported these commissioners’ political enemies. We look forward to getting her severance reinstated and restoring her rights.”

Bivins’ complaint includes constitutional claims for retaliation in violation of her First Amendment rights to free speech and free association and for breach of contract, and also seeks punitive damages against Franklin, Anderson and Hambrick in their individual capacities for willful and malicious retaliation.

The case in U.S District Court for Georgia Northern District is Bivins v. Franklin et al., No. 1:22-cv-04149.