Mecklenburg County Sheriff Faces Federal Lawsuit for Whistleblower Retaliation and Wrongful Termination

When government employees witness wrongdoing, reporting it shouldn't cost them their careers. Yet that's exactly what happened to Dr. Angelia Riggsbee, former Director of Business Operations for the Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office. After exposing racial pay disparities and refusing to falsify public records, she faced swift retaliation from Sheriff Garry McFadden. The federal lawsuit filed by Doyle Dennis Avery LLP represents more than just one wrongful termination case—it's about protecting the rights of all public servants who dare to speak truth to power.

The Case Against Sheriff Garry McFadden: A Pattern of Retaliation

The lawsuit filed in federal court in Charlotte reveals troubling allegations about the internal operations of one of North Carolina's largest sheriff's departments. Dr. Riggsbee's case demonstrates how whistleblowers face severe consequences when they challenge powerful officials. After just eight months of exemplary service, her 35-year career in accounting and business management came to an abrupt end when she refused to compromise her ethics.

The termination occurred on November 13, 2024, shortly after former Chief Deputy Kevin Canty resigned in protest of Sheriff McFadden's leadership. The timing raises serious questions about the department's treatment of senior staff who challenge the status quo. Dr. Riggsbee describes being escorted from headquarters by armed deputies in what she characterizes as a deliberately humiliating display of force.

Understanding Workplace Retaliation in Government Agencies

Workplace retaliation occurs when employers punish employees for engaging in legally protected activities. In government settings, this protection extends to reporting violations of law, financial irregularities, discrimination, and other forms of misconduct. Federal civil rights laws and North Carolina whistleblower statutes provide robust protections for employees who report wrongdoing in good faith.

The elements of a strong retaliation claim include: protected activity by the employee, adverse employment action by the employer, and a causal connection between the two events. Dr. Riggsbee's case appears to meet all these criteria, particularly given the temporal proximity between her refusal to alter documents and her termination.

Racial Pay Disparities: The Initial Discovery That Started Everything

During her tenure as Director of Business Operations, Dr. Riggsbee conducted routine salary reviews that uncovered significant compensation inequities. The discovery centered on a longtime Black female manager earning substantially less than white colleagues in comparable or even subordinate positions. This finding prompted immediate action from Dr. Riggsbee, who understood both the legal and ethical implications of such disparities.

In June 2024, she issued a formal memorandum highlighting these concerns and explicitly warning that failure to address the disparities could result in legal action against the department. Her proactive approach demonstrated the exact type of diligence and integrity expected from someone in her position. Former Chief Deputy Kevin Canty initially approved salary adjustments to correct these inequities, but Sheriff McFadden allegedly denied the corrections without explanation.

The Legal Framework for Pay Equity Claims

Federal law prohibits compensation discrimination based on race through multiple statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Section 1981. These laws require employers to provide equal pay for substantially similar work, regardless of an employee's race or other protected characteristics. When disparities exist, employers must demonstrate legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the differential treatment.

Documentation becomes crucial in these cases. Dr. Riggsbee's formal memorandum warning about potential legal consequences establishes a clear paper trail showing she fulfilled her fiduciary duty to the county while also protecting employee rights. Her actions align with best practices for human resources professionals facing systemic pay inequities.

Document Falsification Demands: The Breaking Point

The situation escalated dramatically in September 2024 when The Charlotte Observer submitted a public records request for Sheriff McFadden's expense reports. According to the lawsuit, the sheriff's assistant approached Dr. Riggsbee with an extraordinary request: alter the expense reports because McFadden did "not want all of that" "to go out" to the media.

This simple refusal to engage in what could constitute falsification of public records marked a turning point. Public records laws exist to ensure government transparency and accountability. Altering official documents before their release to media outlets would potentially violate multiple federal and state laws, including obstruction of justice statutes and public records regulations.

For a professional with Dr. Riggsbee's credentials—including a doctorate and decades of experience in financial management—the request represented an unconscionable breach of professional ethics. Her refusal to comply demonstrated the moral courage that whistleblower protection laws are designed to encourage and protect, similar to cases where employees face wrongful termination for refusing to perform illegal activity.

The Toxic Culture Inside Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office

The lawsuit paints a disturbing picture of the workplace environment under Sheriff McFadden's leadership. Multiple senior officials have resigned or been terminated under controversial circumstances, suggesting systemic issues beyond Dr. Riggsbee's individual case. The pattern includes two chief deputies resigning within a single year, both citing irreconcilable differences with the sheriff's management style.

Former Chief Deputy Kevin Canty's characterization of the department as operating like a "third-world dictatorship" provides context for understanding the hostile environment Dr. Riggsbee encountered. When senior law enforcement professionals use such stark language to describe their workplace, it signals deep-seated organizational dysfunction requiring immediate attention.

The Impact on Public Service and Taxpayer Interests

Attorney Mike Doyle emphasized during the press conference that these issues extend beyond individual employment disputes. The dysfunction affects every employee in the department and, by extension, all Mecklenburg County residents who depend on the sheriff's office for public safety services.

When fear pervades a government agency, it compromises the organization's ability to serve the public effectively. Employees who witness waste, fraud, or abuse may remain silent rather than risk their livelihoods. This culture of silence can perpetuate problems that ultimately harm taxpayers through mismanaged resources and degraded services.

Financial Irregularities and Insider Dealings

Beyond pay disparities and document alteration requests, the lawsuit references additional financial discrepancies involving department insiders. While specific details remain sealed pending court proceedings, the allegations suggest a pattern of financial mismanagement requiring thorough investigation.

Dr. Riggsbee's discovery that several employees were allegedly being paid for services not performed raises serious questions about fiscal oversight within the department. Such arrangements, if proven, could constitute fraud against taxpayers and violate numerous state and federal regulations governing public employment, similar to issues addressed in other whistleblower cases involving mismanagement of public funds.

The breadth of financial irregularities uncovered during Dr. Riggsbee's brief tenure suggests either longstanding problems that previous oversight missed or recent deterioration in financial controls. Either scenario demands accountability and reform to protect public resources.

The Personal Cost of Speaking Truth to Power

The human impact of whistleblower retaliation extends far beyond lost wages. Dr. Riggsbee, a single mother and grandmother, has applied for over 200 positions in the ten months since her termination without success. Despite holding a doctorate and maintaining an exemplary 35-year career record, she remains unemployed—a testament to how retaliation can effectively blacklist conscientious professionals.

The emotional and psychological toll of such experiences cannot be quantified easily. Professional reputation, carefully built over decades, can be destroyed in moments when powerful officials retaliate against those who challenge them. The stress affects not just the whistleblower but their entire family, creating ripple effects that last years.

Why Whistleblower Protection Matters for Democracy

Functioning democracies depend on transparency and accountability in government operations. Whistleblowers serve as crucial checks against abuse of power, especially in law enforcement agencies where authority concentration creates corruption risks. When retaliation goes unchecked, it sends a chilling message to other potential whistleblowers: stay silent or suffer the consequences.

The legal protections afforded to whistleblowers recognize their essential role in maintaining governmental integrity. These laws acknowledge that insiders often have unique access to information about wrongdoing that external oversight mechanisms might miss. By protecting those who report misconduct, society encourages ethical behavior and deters corruption. Our firm has successfully represented numerous clients in similar situations, including cases against government entities and private employers who retaliate against workers.

Legal Remedies and the Path Forward

The federal lawsuit seeks multiple forms of relief for Dr. Riggsbee, including back pay, lost benefits, future earnings compensation, and substantial damages for the harm caused. Additionally, the case requests attorney fees, which federal civil rights laws authorize to ensure victims of discrimination can obtain quality legal representation regardless of their financial circumstances.

Beyond monetary compensation, the lawsuit aims to establish accountability for the alleged violations. While the legal team clarified they're not seeking Sheriff McFadden's removal from office—a decision left to voters and elected officials—they emphasize the importance of holding public officials accountable for retaliatory actions.

The case proceeds under three distinct legal theories: violations of Section 1981 (racial discrimination in contracts), Title VII violations (employment discrimination), and wrongful termination violating North Carolina public policy. This multi-pronged approach provides multiple pathways to justice, increasing the likelihood of meaningful relief.