Election Commission to Begin Issuing Candidate Petitions for 2022 Elections Monday, December 20

December 18, 2021
By: Dwayne Page

Candidates interested in running for one of the offices on the May 3, 2022, Republican and Democratic Primary ballots can pick up petitions at the local election office beginning Monday, Dec. 20.

“In addition to obtaining a petition, candidates will also be given additional paperwork and a published ‘guide’ to assist them throughout the electoral process,” said Dennis Stanley, Administrator of Elections.

“Both Deputy Administrator Tina Gee and I will be available to issue petitions and assist the candidates and the process will take approximately 10 minutes per candidate,” he added.

Offices on the May primary ballots include: County Mayor; Road Supervisor; Sheriff, General Sessions Judge; Circuit Court Clerk; County Clerk; Trustee; Register of Deeds; County Commissioner in all seven (7) districts; School Board members in districts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7; Constable in District 4 to fill a vacancy; Circuit Court Judge Part I and Part II (13th Judicial District); Chancellor (13th Judicial District); Criminal Court Judge Part I and Part II (13th Judicial District); District Attorney General (13th Judicial District); and Public Defender (13th Judicial District).

Petitions must be returned by Noon February 17th.

There is an additional earlier deadline for Sheriff and Road Supervisor candidates. They must have appropriate paperwork to the Peace Officer Standards Training Commission (POST) for sheriff and the Tennessee Highway Officials Certification board 14 days before the qualifying deadline.

While the above offices will appear on May primary ballots, candidates also have the option to run as Independent candidates who will not appear on the ballot until August. However, the same qualifying deadlines apply.

Winners of the May primaries will square off against each other in the August DeKalb County General Election along with any properly qualified Independent candidates.

The local election office is open Monday-Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and is located on the first floor of the DeKalb County Courthouse.

December 18, 2021
By: Dwayne Page

Both the DeKalb County Democratic and Republican Parties will hold a primary school board election for districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7 and any other vacancies that may occur on Tuesday May 3, 2022.

“I have received a proper request from the DeKalb Democratic Party to add school board seats to the May 2022 Primary,” said Administrator of Elections Dennis Stanley.

Local Democratic Party leaders met on Monday, December 6 to make it official.

“We request a May primary be held for any and all school board offices on the August 2022 ballot, including any vacancies that may occur”, signed by Chairman Billie Ann Tubbs-Trigueros and Secretary Carolyn Hawkins.

The Republican Party Executive Committee met on Monday, November 29 and voted to hold a DeKalb County School Board Republican Primary election on Tuesday May 3, 2022.

Party leaders had until December 10 to notify the election commission of their decision in time for the 2022 elections.

Under a new state law, candidates for local school boards in Tennessee can now run-in partisan races.

For many years local school board elections have been nonpartisan in Tennessee and candidates were barred from campaigning as a nominee or representative of a political party when running for school board.

Now, local political parties are allowed to direct county election officials to hold a party primary for the seats. Even with the change in the law, school board candidates do not have to run as Democrats or Republicans. They could still choose to run as nonpartisan or independents in the county general election as they have for the last several years.

In DeKalb County, there are seven school board positions, but the four-year terms are staggered, meaning five of the school board seats are filled in the same election year while the other two positions are filled in elections two years later. In 2022, the seats up for election are currently held by Danny Parkerson in the 1st district, Alan Hayes in the 2nd district, Jim Beshearse in the 3rd district, Kate Miller in the 4th district, and Shaun Tubbs in the 7th district. The other two up for election in 2024 are Jamie Cripps in the 5th district and Jason Miller in the 6th district.

In a letter to chairs of both the DeKalb County Democratic and Republican Parties, Administrator of Elections Stanley explained that the district offices for school board up for election in 2022 can be added to local party primary ballots in May 2022.

“The General Assembly passed legislation during their recent special session that allows parties to nominate candidates for any school board office. Because you have called a primary in May, you have the option to add school board offices that will appear on the August ballot to the primary. This includes county school districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7,” said Stanley.

“If you would like to supplement your existing call for a primary to add school board offices, you must file an original written notice with our office no later than the close of business on Friday, December 10, 2021. Like any call for a primary, we request that it be signed by two members of the county executive committee,” Stanley said.

The election commission will begin issuing candidate petitions for the May 3, 2022, primaries on December 20, 2021.

December 17, 2021
By: Dwayne Page

A former payroll clerk for the DeKalb County Road Department has a federal court lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court of Middle Tennessee against Road Supervisor Danny Hale and his department claiming she was the victim of discrimination when forced to retire in March 2020 because of her age and that she was not paid for all the time she worked including overtime.

86-year-old Mildred Suffridge is asserting a claim for discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). Suffridge is seeking a jury trial and an award for compensatory and liquidated/punitive damages against the DeKalb County Road Department; an award for damages in the amount of unpaid compensation to be proven at trial, an award of interest and liquidated damages shown to be owed to her pursuant to the (FLSA); an order of reinstatement; an award of attorneys’ fees; and such other further and general relief to which she may be entitled.

The attorney for Road Supervisor Hale and the DeKalb County Road Department, A. Ryan Simmons of Farrar & Bates, LLP in Brentwood, in answer to the lawsuit, denies that the defendants took any employment action toward the plaintiff (Suffridge) because of her age adding that she was not subjected to any form of discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and that any employment action was based on legitimate and non-discriminatory reasons. Simmons further contends that Suffridge’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; that no act or omission on behalf of the defendants violated the plaintiff’s rights under federal or state law; and that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.” The defendants further allege, according to Simmons, that “to the extent the evidence shows the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), she should be barred from now bringing her claims in whole or part” and that “all money due and owed to her by the defendants has been paid. The defendants deny all liability for any claims asserted by the plaintiff and respectfully request that this action be dismissed and that costs be taxed to the plaintiff”, stated Simmons in his answer to the lawsuit on behalf of the defendants.

Road Supervisor Hale, in response to the lawsuit, issued the following statement:

“I, Danny Hale, have been advised by my attorney to not speak of the case. I will say that some business decisions had to be made and in making those the DeKalb County Highway Department had a perfect audit in 2021. This is the first time in 15 plus years the highway department has had a perfect audit. I will always run this office with the integrity, you the taxpayer entrusted me to do,” said Road Supervisor Hale.

The case is set for a jury trial on September 20, 2022, beginning at 9 a.m. at the United States Courthouse in Cookeville. A Pretrial Conference will be September 9.

According to her complaint, filed on August 30, 2021, Suffridge went to work for the DeKalb County Road Department in January 1997 and continued to work there “until her discharge on March 31, 2020”.
The lawsuit goes on to state that “at the time of her discharge, plaintiff (Suffridge) worked as a payroll clerk”

“At the time of her employment with the defendants, the plaintiff performed her assigned job duties in an acceptable and satisfactory manner”. The defendants deny this claim.

“Beginning in January of 2020, when plaintiff (Suffridge) was 85 years old, defendant (DeKalb County Road Department) through its manager Danny Hale made derogatory and discriminatory, age-based comments in the workplace and discriminated against plaintiff because of her age with respect to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, including asking plaintiff when she was going to retire, telling plaintiff that she could not hear and was old and telling plaintiff that it was time for her to retire. Defendant’s actions were in violation of ADEA,” according to Suffridge’s complaint. The defendants deny this claim.

“Despite the fact that plaintiff was performing her job duties in a satisfactory manner, defendant through its manager Danny Hale offered plaintiff’s job to a substantially younger person and hired that person to replace plaintiff on April 1, 2020”.

“Defendant through its manager Danny Hale informed coworkers that plaintiff was retiring, and he held a retirement party for plaintiff, even though the plaintiff did not retire and did not voluntarily leave her employment,” the lawsuit continued. The defendants admit that coworkers were informed that the plaintiff was retiring and that a retirement party was held for her but the defendants deny the remaining allegations.

“The plaintiff filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and received notice of suit rights on August 27, 2021”.

“During her employment, the defendants classified the plaintiff as a salaried employee exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA”.

“The defendants have been solely or substantially responsible for failing to pay the plaintiff correct overtime compensation under FLSA. During the statutory period, defendants have been persons acting directly or indirectly in relation to the plaintiff and thus are “employers” within the meaning of the FLSA”. The defendants deny these claims except that the county was the plaintiff’s employer until the end of her employment.

“During her employment as a payroll clerk, plaintiff was not paid for all of the time she worked or for the time she worked in excess of 40 hours per week”. The defendants deny this claim.

“The plaintiff was not paid minimum wage or an overtime premium of time and half for over 40 hours. This was the common pay practice of the defendants”. The defendants deny this claim.

“The defendants did not pay the plaintiff for all of the time she worked”. The defendants deny this claim.

“Hourly employees who work more than 40 hours per week are entitled to overtime compensation for those hours worked in excess of 40”.

“Under the Fair Labor Standards Act” overtime must be compensated at a rate not less than one and a half times the regular rate at which the employee is actually employed during the first 40 hours of work”.

“The plaintiff was not compensated for overtime hours worked”. The defendants deny this claim.

“The defendants’ intentional failure to pay the plaintiff minimum wage for the time she worked and for overtime wages was in willful violation of the FLSA”. The defendants deny this claim.

“During the plaintiff’s employment, the defendants misclassified the plaintiff as a salaried employee exempt from the minimum wage and overtime wages of the FLSA”. The defendants deny this claim.

“During her employment with the defendants, the plaintiff regularly worked more than forty hours per week, but she was not paid minimum wage or overtime pay for all of the time she worked, and for which pay she was entitled”. The defendants deny this claim.

Suffridge is represented by attorneys Kerry E. Knox of Murfreesboro and Stephen W. Grace of Nashville.

« First ‹ Previous 1 827 917 925 926 927928 929 937 1027 2493 Next › Last »