Stacy Tebo’s Discrimination Suit of September 2016 against DeBary which is now in Summary Judgment

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

ORLANDO DIVISION

CASE NO: 6:16-CV-1599-ORL-31-DAB

 

STACY TEBO, Plaintiff

V

CITY OF DEBARY, FLORIDA, and

LEO DANIEL PARROTT, individually and in his official capacity

Defendants

 

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 

The Plaintiff, STACY TEBO, (“TEBO”), by and through her undersigned attorney, files this action against Defendant, CITY OF DEBARY, FLORIDA. (“CITY”), a Florida municipal corporation and LEO DANIEL PARROTT, also known as DAN PARROTT (“PARROTT”).

I NATURE OF CLAIM

  1. This is a discrimination and retaliation action brought by Plaintiff, TEBO, a woman and the former City Clerk for Defendant CITY, who was subjected to disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation based on her gender and because of her complaints of discrimination within the CITY and to the EEOC as how female employees were treated.

 

  1. After Plaintiff TEBO had lodged verbal and written complaints, as well as after having filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse actions in the form of a demotion and ultimately, termination of her employment.
  2. Plaintiff brings her claims of discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42U.S.C. 2000 et seq (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. 1983 (“Section 1983”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act, 760.01 et seq, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”)

 

II JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(F)(3).  This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 (a) over Plaintiff’s state law claims.
  2. Venue exists in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b), as all events pertinent hereto occurred in Volusia County, Florida.

 

III PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff STACY TEBO is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Volusia County Florida.
  2. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for approximately ten years until her termination of employment on April 17, 2015.
  3. Defendant CITY OF DEBARY is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Florida and located in Volusia County, Florida
  4. Defendant  DAN PARROTT was at all material times the City Manage for Defendant CITY and the individual responsible for the employment actions against Plaintiff.

 

  1. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

 

  1. Plaintiff filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (Charge No. 510201502305) and with the Florida Commissin on Human Relations (FCHR) (FCHR No. 201501134), which was also reviewed by the United States Department of Justice.
  2. Plaintiff filed this Lawsuit within ninety (90) days of receipt of the Notice of Right to       Sue on her charge of discrimination from the Department of Justice.
  3. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit more than one hundred eighty (180) days after her charges of discrimination were filed within the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
  4. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies on her claims brought until Title VII and the Florida Civil Human Rights Act.

 

V FACTS

  1. Plaintiff began her employment with the Defendant CITY as its City Clerk in 2005.
  2. Over the last five years of her employment, she was subjected to ongoing, pervasive and offensive sexist remarks and discriminatory actions on account of her gender, female, by the then-City Manager, Defendant PARROTT.
  3. Examples of PARROTT’S discriminatory remarks and actions include, but are not limited to:

 

  1.           Words to the effect of “women don’t think clearly because they are too                                                                emotional”),
  2. he did not want any more women working for the City;
  3.           he said that there was “too much estrogen here”;
  4. he often referred to his assistant city manager and Plaintiff as “bitches”;
  5. he referred to the assistant city manager as “the county whore”;
  6. When the CITY’s male Finance Director was retiring, the City Manager PARROTT                                                          initially refused to hire any replacement since all of the applicants wre women                                                 and he said he did not want any more women working there;
  7. PARROTT also gave disproportionate pay raises to women; shortly before                                                             Plaintiff was fired, the CITY’s female staff got an average of 2.13% increase while                                                 the men received 12.54% increase
  8. PARROTT refused to properly investigate the complaints of a female employee                                                         regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination by her manager.

 

  1. Plaintiff TEBO received consistently favorable personal reviews from PARROTT until her last year of employment, after she was involved in a co-worker’s complaint of sexual harassment by her supervisor and she was listed as a witness in another co-worker’s sex discrimination complaint to the EEOC.
  2. After plaintiff complained about the pay disparity and sexist comments PARROTT took away some of her job duties.
  3. As she continued to complain and because she provided assistance to another female employee PARROTT had fired, Plaintiff’s job title of City Clerk was taken away and given to the City Manager.
  4. Subsequent to Plaintiff informing PARROTT that she was filing a complaint with the EEOC, he suspended Plaintiff pending termination, which was for pretextual reasons.
  5. Due to her gender, female, and her complaints about sexual discrimination, Plaintiff has been subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than her male peers.
  6. Plaintiff was unfairly disciplined and terminated from her employment in retaliation for complaints about disparate treatment, for her opposition to the discriminatory treatment of others and for her participation in another female employee’s charge of discrimination.
  7. Plaintiff engaged in an activity protected under Title VII and the FCRA when:
  8. she complained of sexually discriminatory treatment of female employees
  9. she complained of the failure to properly investigate complaints of sexual                                                             harassment by an employee;
  10. she stood by another female employee who had been fired as a result of her                                                             complaints about the sex discrimination by PARROTT; and
  11. she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC
  12. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actins in that she:
  13. received a lesser evaluation
  14. had her job title taken away
  15. was suspended and
  16. was fired

 

  1. A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions.
  2. Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her job, pay and benefits and has suffered stress, humiliation and great emotional distress due to these discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

 

VI  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

 

  1. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF – SEX DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (fcra) AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF DEBARY

 

  1. Defendant CITY engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this complaint in paragraphs 2 through 23, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment, sexual discrimination, and a sexually offensive and hostile work environment and retaliation which violated her rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq
  2. WHEREFORE, as to the First Claim for Relief, Plaintiff, STACY TEBO respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of Tible VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., including, but not limited to:

(1)          Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff

(2)          Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant CITY’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII;

(3)          Enjoining Defendant CITY from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII;

(4)          Ordering Defendant CITY to place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination.

(5)          Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she would have received but for Defendant CITY’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)          Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)          Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8)          Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate

 

  1. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF – SEX DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION (FCRA) AGAINST DEFENDANT CITY OF DEBARY
  2. Defendant CITY engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this complaint in paragraphs 2 through 23, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment, sexual discrimination, and a sexually offensive and hostile work environment, and retaliation, which violated her rights secured by the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), 760.01 et seq., Florida Statutes.
  3. WHEREFORE., AS TO THE Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiff, STACY TEBO, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable, and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of the Florida Civil Rights Act 760.01 et seq., Florida Statutes including, but not limited to:

 

(1)          Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)          Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant CITY’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s                            rights under the FCRA;

(3)          Enjoining Defendant CITY from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice, and                                              custom of denying female employees their rights secured by the FCRA;

(4)          Ordering Defendant CITY to place Plaintiff in the position which she wouldhave had,                                              absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5)          Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she would have received                                              but for Defendant CITY’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)          Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)          Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8)          Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate

 

  1. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF – SEX HARASSMENT AND RETALIATION

 (SECTION 1983) against LEO DANIEL PARROTT

 

  1. Defendant LEO DANIEL PARROTT engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this Complaint in paragraphs 2 through 23, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment, a sexually offensive and hostile work environment and a retaliatory discharge which violated her rights secured by 42 US.C. 1983.
  2. At all material times, Defendant PARROTT acted under color of the laws, ordinances, regulations, customs, policies and/or usages of the Defendant CITY OF DEBARY, FLORIDA.
  3. In the actions he took against Plaintiff, PARROTT acted in bad faith, with malicious purpose, and in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
  4. At all times material hereto, the actions of the Defendant as set forth herein were committed under color of state law.
  5. WHEREFORE., as to the Third Claim for Relief, Plaintiff STACY TEBO, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable, and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of 42 U.S. C. 1983, including but not limited to:

(1)          Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)          Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant PARROTT’s practices are                                                                violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Section 1983.

(3)          Enjoining Defendant from continuing or maintaining thepolicy, practice and                                                             custom of denying female employees their rights secured by  Section 1983;

(4)          Ordering Defendants to Place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had,                                     absent Defendant’s unlawful discrimination;

(5)          Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she would have                                                             received but for Defendant’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)          Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)          Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and

(8)          Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

 

VII.   REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Date:  September 13, 2016                                                         Respectfully Submitted,

Martha A. Chapment

Florida Bar Number 0004464

 

Council for the Plaintiff

 

 

COMMENTS RELATING TO STACY’S EEOC COMPLAINT WHICH DID NOT BEAR FRUIT SO THE ONLY WAY SHE COULD GET HER RECOGNITION WAS TO SUE DEBARY FOR DISCRIMINATION


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I HAVE INCLUDED BELOW SOME OF THE COMPLAINTS STACY MADE TO THE EEOC IN HER AFFIDAVIT.  AT THE TIME WE PLACED THE AFFIDAVIT ON THE BLOG, I INDICATED THAT IN NO WAY WOULD THE EEOC FIND THE TOWN OF DEBARY GUILTY OF WHAT SHE CLAIMED THEY DID.

 

STACY WAS EXTREMELY CUNNING AND DID NOT LIKE DAN PARROTT FROM THE TIME HE BEGAN AS CITY MANAGER FOR DEBARY. SHE REFUSED TO ASSIST HIM AND SHE REFUSED TO PERFORM HER HR DUTIES AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY.

 

SHE BY HER OWN STATEMENTS  SHOWS HOW SHE CONTINUALLY KEEPS RECORDS OF EACH AND EVERY INSTANCE SHE DOES NOT FEEL IS WITHIN HER FAVOR.  WHO CAN REMEMBER ALL THOSE DATES?  CERTAINLY, I CANNOT WITHOUT A LOT OF RESEARCH BUT I CAN RECALL THE YEAR IN WHICH SOMETHING HAPPENED AND THE MONTH.  STAC Y REMEMBERS THE DAY, HER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE MATTER, THE COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS MADE AND WHO SHE SPOKE TO ABOUT WHAT HAD TRANSPIRED.

 

IT APPEARS SHE COMPLAINED ABOUT BEING OVERWORKED AND WHEN THE CITY MANAGER TOOK AWAY SOME OF THE WORK SUCH AS HR, SHE WAS UPSET BECAUSE HER GRADE LEVEL OF HEAD OF DEPARTMENT DID NOT REMAIN. 

 

DAN PARROTT GAVE HER RAISES SHE DID NOT DESERVE BUT FOR WHICH SHE CONTINUALLY HAMMERED HIM ON UNTIL SHE RECEIVED WHAT SHE WANTED.  SHE SEEMED TO KNOW WHAT EVERY INDIVIDUAL WAS DOING AND WHAT THEY WERE SAYING AND ASSISTED IN THE OVERALL GOSSIP MONGERING OF THE OFFICE. IT AMAZES ME THAT SHE ACCOMPLISHED ANY  OF HER WORK DETAIL SINCE SHE WAS SO BUSY WRITING DOWN DATES, AND WHAT EVERYONE SAID AND DID TO EACH OTHER.

 

THE COMMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS OF DISCRIMINATION ARE RIDICULOUS AND I CANNOT BELIEVE AN ATTORNEY WOULD NOT ADVISE HER OF SUCH. BUT STACY WISHES A TRIAL WHERE SHE CAN WEEP LIKE THE BEST ACTRESS IN TOWN, WHILE MANUPALITING THE JURY WITH HER POOR WOE IS ME.   FORTUNATELY THE EEOC RECEIVED HER WRITTEN DOCUMENTS AND I KNEW AS THEY DECIDED THAT THERE WAS NO MERIT IN HER ACCUSATIONS.

 

STACY FEELS SHE WILL WIN THE FEDERAL SUIT AND I AM CERTAIN SHE HAS BEEN ADVISED BY HER ATTORNEY OF THE PROCESSES WHICH TRANSPIRE PRIOR TO A TRIAL BY JURY.  THERE WILL BE DEPOSITIONS; THERE WILL BE MEDIATION AND THEN THERE WILL BE A TRIAL IF THE JUDGE DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION BY HIMSELF OR HERSELF. IN MY OPINION STACY WAS “EMOTIONAL” AND INSOFAR AS THE OTHER COMMENTS, SHE IS THE WORD THAT RHYMES WITH “WITCH” AND BY READING THE EEOC AFFIDAVIT ALONE ONE CAN SEE HOW SHE SINGLE HANDEDLY MANIPULATED EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ATTACKED HER BOSS DAN PARROTT BECAUSE HE DID NOT WISH HER IDEAS BUT WISHED TO RUN THE CITY OF DEBARY AS HE SAW FIT.

 

I CANNOT BELIEVE HE DID NOT GET RID OF HER BECAUSE HE HAD JUST CAUSE.  ONE ONLY HAS TO LOOK AT THE COMPLAINTS AGAINST HER PERFORMANCE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD ON THE BLOG.   PARROTT REQUESTED TEBO SEND HIM EMAILS AS PART OF A RECORDS REQUEST.  AFTER  MORE THAN A WEEK SHE HAD ONLY PROVIDED 101 OF 131 PARROT SAID.  PARROTT ADVISED TEBO THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO SANITIZE THE ONCES SHE CHOSE TO SEND HIM AND THE ONES SHE CHOSE NOT TO SEND HIM.  PART OF THE REASON THE CITY LEARNED WAS THAT SHE USED A PRIVATE G-MAIL ACCOUNT FOR THE CITY OF DEBARY BUSINESS. BECAUSE OF HER GMAIL ACCOUNT ALL THINGS WERE NOT TRANSPARET IN HER POSITION AS CITY CLERK.   THE COMPLAINT WAS ISSUED IN JULY OF 2016. ALL THE COMPLAINTS PREVIOUSLY WERE ON THE BLOG under “STACY’S DISCIPLINARY FOLDER FROM DEBARY”

 

IN APRIL OF 2015 STACY TEBO FILED A FEDERAL GENDER DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AGAINST CITY MANAGER DAN PARROTT IN MARCH AND WAS FIRED.

 

THE TERMINATION LETTER SIGNED BY PARROTT STATES TEBO VIOLATED ELEVEN (11) CITY POLICIES; SHE FAILED TO DO HER JOB PROPERLY OR SHE OVERSTEPPED HER BOUNDS.  HER PERFORMANCE REVIEWS WERE STELLER BUT HER DISCIPLINARY FOLDER WAS FRAUGHT WITH PROBLEMS OF WHICH WE HAVE COPIES ON THE BLOG.

 

STACY TEBO HAD APPROACHED MAYOR CLINT JOHNSON AFTER A MARCH 18TH WORKSHOP IN AN ATTEMPT TO FIND OUT WHICH COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD VOTE TO FIRE DAN PARROTT.  SHE ALSO EXPRESSED HER OPINION THAT SHE COULD CONVINCE COUNCIL MEMBER CHRIS CARSON TO VOTE TO TERMINATE PARROT, POTENTIALLY, VIOLATING THE OPEN MEETING LAW.

 

TEBO CALLED COUNCILMAN RICK DWYER ON APRIL 2ND ATTEMPTING TO DISCUSS A CONFIDENTIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING.   THE LETTER STATED “YOU PERSISTED IN YOUR QUESTIONNING ALTHOUGH COUNCILMAN DWYER REFUSED TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITH YOU”

 

DAN PARROTT’S LETTER ALSO ALLEGED THAT IN 2014 STACY TEBO WAS IN CHARGE OF HUMAN RESOURCES BUT HAD FAILED IN THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATING AND REPORTING ALL FINDINGS AFTER AN EMPLOYEE MADE A COMPLAINT ABOUT HER BOSS AND SUGGESTS NOTES THAT TEBO PROVIDED PARROTT “APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ALTERED AS TWO DIFFERENT INK COLLORS ARE USED”.

 

ONCE ALL EVIDENCE IS RECEIVED BY THE FEDERAL COURT, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE STACY TEBO WILL WIN HER DISCRIMINATION SUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF DEBARY AND DAN PARROTT?  HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WHO ARE NOW HAPPY THAT STACY TEBO IS NOT THERE WILL REALLY STAND BESIDE HER.  WITH HER CONCERN ABOUT OTHER EMPLOYEE’S MONEY AND POSITIONS IT HAS TO BE A GREAT RELIEF THAT SHE WAS FIRED.  SHE MAY STATE SHE WAS FIGHTING FOR ALL FEMALES BUT AT THE SAME TIME SHE SHOWED GREAT DISTAIN NOT ONLY AGAINST MALES BUT AGAINST ANYONE OF AUTHORITY.

 

I KNOW SHE DOES NOT RESPOND TO THE SUNSHINE LAWS NOW IN WHITE SPRINGS AND SHE HAS A 30 DAY WAITING PERIOD FOR 119 REQUESTS.

 

 

 

 

 

WHY STACY WAS NOT AN EXEMPLARY EMPLOYEE IN DEBARY:

Information taken from Stacy’s own words in her Affidavit to the EEOC and information received through :

 

  • Stacy complained that as the HR department she was aware of the need to conduct a city wide salary survey but complained to Dan Parrott who was hired a year later that it had not been done for five years. As HR Stacy should have placed together information relating to various positions and required changes in compensation prior to Dan Parrott’s hiring to whoever was the City Manager.  But at least she should have provided that information for Dan Parrott to review and bring forth recommendations to the council, since he was new on the job as City Manager.  She did not do her job as HR.

 

  • Stacy complained that the survey of 2005 did not include newly added position and that Dan Parrott did not feel he had the political support yet to do the survey. She said it was a subject she brought up numerous times over the year.   Again, Stacy should have provided information for Mr. Parrott to review and from a response to her previous EEOC complaint, it was stated Stacy was more interested in her own salary increase and had not discussed the salary changes for other employees in those numerous times.
  • Stacy complained that Ms. Blissett wrote about turnovers because Mr. Parrott asked her to do so and it was a fact that low level administrative office assistants (which were female) were underpaid. She complained it was not Ms. Blissett’s job because Mr. Parrott was in charge. It was Stacy’s Job as HR to place together information on the exit papers of the low level administrative office assistants. If salary was the reason and an assistant was giving notice for that reason, if the assistant was valuable HR should have approached the City Manager to see if compensation could be changed.  As HR Stacy was responsible for placing together information based upon exit paperwork and provide the information to the City Manager in writing.

 

  • Stacy claimed it was fact that the maintenance workers in Public Works and Parks & Recreation left the City to work in the private sector. She stated some of the reason was pay but stated the other reason perhaps was due to the Director because he was disliked by most of his department.  As you noted is was a “perhaps”…which to me comes from the gossip mill, which HR does not get involved with unless there is a valid complaint..  If this information about the Director was not stipulated on exit papers, then it is a “perhaps” only.  Stacy’s complaints to the EEOC, and her complaints in the lawsuit stipulated discrimination only against women, but her affidavit stated  there may have been discrimination about men and that these men required raises as Dan Parrott provided at a later date because he may not have desired losing valuable male employees.

 

  • Stacy complained Mr. Parrott was lobbying the Council for a change in his salary and he asked her to use her HR contacts countrywide to provide him with the salaries of all city managers, assistant city managers and city clerks.   That should have been Stacy’s job as HR and there should be no complaint since her responsibility was to serve at the pleasure of the City Manager and subsequently the City of DeBary.

 

  • Stacy complained that in 2014, the consultant met with employees to perform a job analysis and contended Mr. Parrott was changing what the consultant was preparing and created multiple sets of numbers and studies to implement what he wished to transpire. Stacy made an assumption, not a fact based upon Mr. Parrott’s analysis of statistic data.  Many companies have consultants and that is exactly what they do; they consult on what they feel is best.  That does not mean that a City or a Business will take all of the consultant’s ideas and Stacy should have been happy because obviously Mr. Parrott was doing the job Stacy should have been doing as HR.

 

  • Stacy complained Mr. Parrott included himself in the analysis and determined that to be wrong because it slants the percentage. Parrott obviously wished an overall analysis because he after all reports to the council and must consider the bottom line and whether such increases are acceptable for the overall well being of the City.

 

  • Stacy stated her annual evaluation was effective 1/01/2014 and she received a 3% increase; On 1/12/15, she received a 1.08% increase due to the implemention of the salary survey and she complained that the City also inaccurately reports the number of maintenance workers and that the office assistance were not brought up to the market level by Mr. Parrott. She said : “ He could have easily given them a little bit of money it would have taken to do that instead of giving some of the men in administrative positions a raise when they were already up to market levels”   Again if there was a question about this matter, should not have Ms. Tebo addressed it with Mr. Parrott rather than complaining about it.  After all she did not do her HR job it appears and obviously received raises by Mr. Parrott anyway.

 

  • Stacy complained she was underpaid and overworked. She stated Mr. Parrott ignored her memos and she repeatedly reminded him of it..She stated on 12/3/2012, he finally gave her a salary adjustment because she kept leaving him notes reminding him of her request. She then complained that Mr. Parrott does not generally respond to emails or memos so it would become necessary to physically visit his office in person or leave him a post-it notes on his chair. Her consensus was that he would generally do whatever it required to make that person go away.  If someone kept sending me numerous requests for a salary increase, I probably would tire of that person easily myself. Why couldn’t Stacy just make a time to have Mr. Parrott discuss the matter with her?  I noted her glee when she attributed the salary increase he gave her to her persistence.  That is no way for an HR person to act and obviously it shows that she had no consideration for her boss whatsoever.  I guess I never had to ask for a raise but was always received raises, some substantial, because of my performance and not because I complained…and I was not in HR.

 

  • Stacy complained that Jimmie the Finance Administrator was given a raise in March of 2013 and in October 2013 without survey or research and an Accounting Clerk warren was given a raise of 7.74% at his annual evaluation of 10/01/2013 rather than 3% like everyone else. Not everyone receives identical raises unless it is just a cost of living raise. One would have to look at performances of duties and it appears Stacy was too busy looking into everyone else’s pay raises than working at her job as HR and Town Clerk. Stacy even stated another accounting clerk would be upset with only 3% and she was ignored.  How would the other accounting clerk know unless Stacy was busy in the rumor mill?  Granted a City’s salaries are public but it depends on the work one is doing, what one gets paid.

 

 

  • Stacy complained her pay grade was lowered by two levels from department head because the consultant categorized her as department hear. Although Stacy’s HR responsibilities were removed March 2014 to the Assistant City Manager she complained that it should have no bearing on the importance of her City Clerk Job.  First She complains she has too much work and then complains when her pay grade is lowered when her HR duties (HR is a department head) were removed.  Parrott made a smart move in taking away Stacy’s HR duties because she obviously was more interested in who was being paid what then doing an excellent job as HR.  She should have secured a book on HR practices which even her Insurer loss control department could provide where she would understand the laws instead of assuming everything Mr. Parrott did was wrong.  

 

  • She admitted she had several conversations with Mr. Parrot about her heavy workload serving as the entire HR department and the City Clerk’s office…and she continually asked for help for four years and that one person could not do it. He responded by removing HR so I believe he listened to her but probably saw what we did that it appears Stacy is not efficient nor organized and yet he gave her raises up to almost $70,000 when she started at I believe $36,000 nine years prior.
  • Stacy in 2013 co-shared an office assistant with the Finance Department which was budgeted from 10/1/2013 to 03/27/2014; then assigned the assistant to work with the Assistant City Manager. Yes, Stacy should have utilized her assistant when she had her at her disposal but since part of her duties went to the Assistant City Manager, I can see where the assistant was removed.

 

  • Stacy stated her high degree of supervisory responsibility serving as the RMLO for the entire City and was upset that a male with a fraction of her education moved into her office the Monday after she was fired. Can’t Stacy understand that her self-importance relating to her degrees does not make her a good employee.  What we have viewed in White Springs shows a lack of efficiency, organization and an inability to follow laws and procedures.  So why would it matter that a Male was hired.  Obviously with the unfriendliness possessed in Stacy’s City Manager job a male may be far more cordial in that capacity.  Obviously Stacy dislikes males and needs help to find out where that comes from.

 

  • Stacy was upset that the Information Technology Records Manager was provided budgetary responsibilities which was a requirement to be graded as a department head. Again her self-importance and dislike for anyone to get ahead amazes me.  She is her own worse enemy, complaining constantly and when her complaints are answer, she complains that it lowered her pay grade…but it also lowered her responsibility.

 

  • On March 31, 2015 Stacy could not find the job description folder which was missing from the shared drive and she asked a co-worker who advised Dan Parrott instructed her to move the files. She then opened the job description file on the City’s shared drive to look at her job description and mentioned the contents of the job description folder were completely different than the last time she viewed them.  She was no longer in HR; She lowered her grade by lessening her responsibilities so what would she expect?  Yet she stated she knew the folder was different but was unclear as to what exactly was changed.

 

  • Stacy stated the City’s statement said “during the five years of Ms. Tebo’s supervision by Mr. Parrott she flourished. She took exception to that statement as she felt her excellent job performance had nothing to do with Dan Parrott and had everything to do with her work ethic. She cites she has a Type A personality and is an overachiever.   Let’s see, during those five years, she would not assist Mr. Parrott with HR information required of all HR personnel; she continually harassed him for a pay raise and complained about what everyone else was making; her duties were lessened and she still had complaints about her lower pay grade and who was doing what.  Overachiever, she is not.  If she had spent more time doing her job(s) and assisting Mr. Parrott to achieve his as her boss, then I would have considered her a Type A Overachiever.  But it is always about money for Tebo and how much more she can get without doing the work required.  Her self-importance relating to education is nothing if she has no common sense and the ability to exceed her own expectations, much less those of others.

 

  • Stacy said” I told Mr. Parrott himself on numerous occasions that I didn’t appreciate his comments.  There were some instances in which I did not verbalize my distain.  Instead, I would give him a dirty look so he would know I was not pleased with his dialogue.”Stacy stated she could not count the number of times Mr. Parrott told her she was too emotional and she had no one to go to since Dan Parrott was her boss. In my opinion she is the Master of Manipulation and when she does not get her way she does act emotional; that being an act I believe as well.  She was tearie eyed when I told her she should follow the law and I believe it is a further act of manipulation.  If you have a problem with your boss, you discuss it head on rather than causing problems behind the scenes and giving him dirty looks.  I do not know how Dan Parrott had the patience to not fire her earlier on because she certainly did not serve him well from the time he started as City Manager.  He certainly did not owe her an apology as she so desired; He owed the City her termination and not continual raises which I believe she certainly did not earn especially with viewing her performance in White Springs.

 

  • Stacy went directly to elected officials to complain about Mr. Parrott, a current council member and a former vice mayor. Part of the complaint was that Mr. Parrott did not wish to hire another woman and she shared his sexist comments with them. She told them “Mr. Parrott said “there’s too much estrogen upstairs: and “women are too emotional and I’m not hiring another woman.” She told them that he offered Jimmie more money to stay (as there were no suitable male candidates), and so Jimmie didn’t retire until 3/31//14.   She said she was irritated because she was not notified when she was in HR that Jimmie would be staying on another year. She found out by asking Jimmie when he was going to retire and Mr. Parrot formalized Jimmie’s raise himself. I’m surprised the Council member and the Vice Mayor listened to her without telling her to mind her own business.

 

 

  • Then Stacy became frustrated with the Council Member because he seemed willing to let her vent her complaints, but he was unwilling to do anything about them…Instead the Council member stated in part..During the time I was most upset with Mr. Parrott in May 2014, CM Carson said to me “Well you  know how these city managers are.they’re all like that, some are just worse than others…sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know.” Stacy further stated “ I felt really let down as I had just told him I’d overheard Mr. Parrott calling Ms. Blissett the county whore and heard him refer to her and myself as bitches.”

 

  • Stacy made the accusation that Mr. Parrott becomes irritated when confronted with personnel issues because he does not lie dealing with them….and I might add he should not have to if there was a good HR person on board. She kept asking him what he was going to do about a sexual harassment complaint made on 1/29/2014 and he avoided her. She did not recall him speaking to her during March and April of 2014……but she had time to make notes of some of the outrageous things Mr. Parrott was saying to her  She would immediately tell Stacy things which Stacy wrote down I wrote the following   On 4/15/14, she told me she felt like she was in an abusive relationship because Mr. Parrot again called her stupid and said she wasn’t doing a good job.  He tried to make her feel threatened by stating that a Council Member thought we didn’t need an Assistant City Manager or a Parks & Recreation Director.  I CAN’T GO ON BUT AS YOU CAN SEE STACY CONTINUALLY ENABLED GOSSIP AND COMPLAINTS.  IT IS A WONDER HOW DEBARY MANAGED TO SERVE ITS CITIZENS WITH ALL OF THE CHAOS STACY TEBO HERSELF CAUSED.

 

  • . On 4/29/14 Dan Parrott accused Blissett and Tebo of running their mouths all the time about him. He stated they were both disloyal and threatened Blissett’s job if she did not come up with an idea to deal with the “Stacy Problem”. Blissett stood up to Mr. Parrott and told him he had misjudged her and she wasn’t interest in taking his place when he left.She said she wasn’t going to do anything about his perceived “Stacy problem” because she didn’t think I had done anything wrong.   Parrott’s response to that was “You bitch!  Now I’m going to have to rethink my strategy.”He tried to persuade her by saying that I was telling everyone she was an alcoholic.  He added that when he tells her or me anything it gets back to him within 3 days.  He told her that she really needed to do something about me because “she is your competition and wants the city manager job.”   He told her that Stacy was continually going behind his back with Council Members.  Stacy of course denied she wanted to be City Manager but added one of the Council Members told her she would make a good one.  Boy was he wrong.  Furthermore, when does an Assistant City Manager go around and tell everyone including Stacy about private conversations with the City Manager.  She should have been fired for this disloyalty.

 

 

  • Stacy had an affidavit signed by a former Council Member whichstated that she had complained to him about Mr. Parrott. She stated she did not know him personally the way she knew others so she never complained to him until December of 2013. She said she did not feel comfortable doing it but she had to.

 

  • Then a resolution did not have Stacy’s name on the bottom to attest the Mayor’s signature. Instead it had the Planning Administrator’s name on it and it stated she was “Acting City Clerk”  Stacy immediately printed it out and asked Mr. Parrott “What the heck is this”.  Stacy tossed the resolution in front of him and he acted confused by Stacy being upset.  He nonchalantly said “Oh yeah, I notice that too when I read the email.”  I said, “Well this tells me that I’m not going to be the City Clerk on Wednesday when this thing gets heard by the council.”  He said, “No, no no….Now don’t get paranoid.  That girl over there must’ve messed this up”  I said “What girl are you talking about?”  He said “Don’t get all excited, it’s just a mistake.  We’ll call over there and get to the bottom of this.  Stacy didn’t let this drop and made a mountain oout of a mole hill by calling the attorney who said he made a mistake. But Stacy even told Council Members about it and what a sexist Parrot was and how he lies to the council all the time.  She stated she didn’t hold back  The attorney even mailed Mr. Parrott an email apology for the mistake but Stacy did not believe any of it.  She felt like she was about to be fired.  Three council members contacted Parrott and she felt Parrott felt he should not fire her. One of the Council Men even called the attorney to have the resolution thing verified and another called Mr. Parrott who gave him the same story.  Stacy was pleased the Council Member did not tell Mr. Parrott that he had already called the attorney’s office and allowed Mr. Parrott to lie to him and he never told him he knew he was lying.  The Council Member told Stacy that he told Mr. Parrott that nothing better happen to her because she was doing a good job. DON’T YOU SEE, THIS IS WHAT A MASTER MANIPULATOR DOES.  WITH ALL THE CRITERIA IN HER AFFIDAVIT AND ALL OF THE DATES OF EVERY INSTANCE, I WONDER WHEN SHE HAD TIME TO FULFILL ANY OR ALL OF HER DUTIES.

 

 

  • Stacy also went to Mr. Parrott about Parks and Recreation Director numerous times while I was responsible for HR.   She complained that he is currently on his 5thoffice assistant and that she has heard complaints from all five of these female assistants about him.  She also heard complaints from males in his department too.   One story I heard from his maintenance worker is that the Director liked to boast about the fact that he was the boss and therefore could tell everyone else what to do.  He would say “RHIP” to the maintenance guys as he was driving around on the golf cart during the 4th of July city events while the guys were busting their butts.   When this particular employee asked him what he meant, he said “Rank Has Its Privileges” and laughed.   He seemed to take pleasure in flaunting his position in the organization and sought to make subordinate employees aware that they were beneath them. When one of his maintenance workers left, he filled out an exit interview form; he said a lot of things about the way the Director was running his department and Stacy thought Mr. Parrott needed to see it.  She tried to give Mr. Parrott a copy of it, but he almost yelled at her, she stated and he didn’t care about that particular employee’s comments. Mr. Parrott refused to take the copy from her hand and read it. And Stacy was not certain if a reprimand was ever issued by Mr. Parrott.  I DO NOT KNOW HOW MR PARROTT HANDLED STACY TEBO; SHE WAS A ONE PERSON MANIPULATIVE INSTIGATOR WHO MADE NUMEROUS COMPLAINTS IF THE RESULTANT WAS NOT TO HER LIKING.

 

Karin for the blog.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply