Oh That Deputy At The Ethics Commission Whose Position Was Elimated For “Budget Reasons”? Claims She Was Denied An Interview For Similar Job When Funds Magically Reappeared

Jim Walls at Atlanta Unfiltered has another one of great interest:

Sherry Streicker was told her job at the state ethics commission went away last year because of budget issues, not her performance. But when a new position opened there with nearly identical duties, she says in a new whistleblower suit, she couldn’t even get in the door for an interview.

Streicker and Stacey Kalberman, once the top two executives at the State Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission, filed suit June 8 claiming they were fired for investigating possible wrongdoing by the 2010 campaign of Gov. Nathan Deal. Each suit was filed under the Georgia Whistleblower Act, seeking back pay, reinstatement and compensatory damages.

We covered Kalberman’s suit yesterday.  Click the link and read the rest on Streicker’s story from Jim, thus rewarding his good work. 

Streicker’s denial of a subsequent interview, if true, is a new wrinkle entirely.

11 comments

  1. Dave Bearse says:

    It’s a long time until Nov 2014. And it’s two new spotlights on the disposition of pending complaints.

  2. Bull Moose says:

    Well, this is a story that’s been a long time coming! Deal can only dodge the truth coming out so long.

  3. Bob Loblaw says:

    Charlie, I fail to see the new “wrinkle”. What duty does the State have towards Streiker to give her a job interview? If I applied for my old job and didn’t get an interview, even if the employer hired someone with less experience to fill the job, where is the tort?

    • Charlie says:

      The tort is in her wrongful termination. The claim was that her position was elminated for budget reasons. The position was then re-created, with the same responsibilities, and she was not allowed to fill that position. Her refusal to even be allowed to interview is evidence, not the tort itself.

      But I’m guessing you already knew that.

  4. Bob Loblaw says:

    Agree 100% on the evidentiary value. I just don’t “see it” from a GA employment law angle. Bringing in as evidence of wrongful termination disagreements on substantive work matters with your supervisor, unless they violated some employment laws in the process, won’t help because they are likely not relevant. Its fairly clear that Kalberman, and it seems now, Strieker, are leaning on work-related disagreements with their bosses. If you aren’t on the same page as the boss, you may get fired. Its just what happens at work. It matters not whether one didn’t wash the lettuce enough at McDonalds and disagreed with the Manager’s assertion that more washing was necessary or if it was a disagreement about how to obtain discovery materials from a political campaign. The idea that budget cuts were “engineered” to somehow constructively terminate the pair likely won’t influence a Judge that has sat through cut after cut with budgets having been slashed. The evidence that the work load drastically increased will make that cut all the more reasonable. Every agency has been cut and cut to the bone in many respects. GA employement law won’t splice the varying percentages between agencies’ cuts to the extent that the Judge will find some uber-budget cut at the Commission that crosses an employment law line.

    I would expect this out of Kalberman. But not Strieker. IIED claim? Cry me a river.

    The fact that the Commission created a new position to handle her responsibilities doesn’t mean she was guaranteed of an interview because they told her she was let go because of budget cuts, period.

    • Charlie says:

      We’re well aware of the company line Bob. We’re also well aware that the official position keeps changing from “no job performance” to “job performance” depending on which suits the company that day.

      Also great to see so many of the company’s sock puppets back on Peach Pundit. Seems like it must be a bad week around the office.

  5. Bob Loblaw says:

    Agreed on the “messenging” 100% as well being inconsistent. But the courtroom will have two messenges, one from each party. Its merely my legal opinion that the law won’t match up with the facts when it comes to what is and what isn’t wrongful termination in GA. Its a fairly high bar. The Law Offices of Bob Loblaw make darn sure we have a good case before going to a Judge, or at least a fact that can’t be proven prior to the hearing to dismiss our complaint.

    • rrrrr says:

      Messaging … right

      Just like the “message” sent to Channel Five at the signing of HB 87.
      You know, the one where his administration pulled its Obama impersonation by blocking access ….
      RIGHT in front the cameras for CNN, really well thought through IMHO…
      This administration is ALL about the message

      A tax increase is NOT an increase – if the PEOPLE vote for it.
      Gov. Deal has spent some time with the Nancy Pelosi School of Communication for certain.

  6. debbie0040 says:

    This should be investigated thoroughly and I look forward to seeing all of the facts in the case from both sides. I am not sure where I stand on this. I m not going to jump to conclusions and want to see the facts first.

    After reading more thoroughly what the ethics complaints are, I can see why Gov. Deal’s people are extremely paranoid about Karen Handel and her supporters as they may believe Gov. Deal may be weakened enough by the ethics investigation to warrant a re-match with Handel. That is not going to happen as Karen has repeatedly made it quite clear to numerous people she is not interested in running against Gov. Deal in the primary.. Gov. Deal needs to focus on governing and keeping pledges he made to voters regarding tax increases (T-SPLOST and possible support for renewing hospital bed tax are areas that violate the pledge) and not keep looking back in the rear view mirror fearful of Handel..

Comments are closed.