TIFTON, Ga. (WALB) — Former Tift County Schools Superintendent Natalie Gore’s final pay of $21,616.61 is set to process Sept. 30, capping months of dispute that ended with the Tift County Board of Education voting to terminate her contract. Gore disputed the charges before the vote, calling them pretext for retaliation, and said the decision was “designed to damage me, my financial future, and my reputation.”

The final payment includes $16,116.61 in earned salary and $5,500 in bonus pay, according to an HR email. Gore had 39.5 certified sick days reported to the state retirement system, with benefits active through Oct. 31.

The board’s case

The board’s Aug. 27 dismissal notice cites an Aug. 25 email in which Gore flagged “two distinct FMLA leave matters” handled under “conflicting protocols” and recommended an independent compliance audit. Gore’s email cited “recent federal precedent established by Foster v. Echols County School District,” warning that inconsistent FMLA handling could expose both the district and individual board members to personal liability.

When Chair Jonathan Jones asked whether she’d consulted the board’s attorney and whether her opinion reflected the attorney’s, Gore responded that “the Board attorney is aware of these compliance issues” but did not answer yes or no. Jones asked again; Gore instead asked him to clarify which part of her correspondence he meant. The board called her response “nonresponsive and misrepresentative” and charged her with insubordination, incompetence, immorality and “other good and sufficient cause,” citing Standards 4 and 9 of the Code of Professional Ethics for Educators. The notice also states Gore used “work hours and the resources of the District” to advance recommendations tied to her own pending EEOC claim, which the board said caused it to “lose confidence” in her leadership. Gore was placed on paid administrative leave, barred from board property, and required to surrender her badge, keys and district-issued devices pending a Sept. 2 hearing, where the board voted to terminate her contract.

Gore’s response

Gore denied issuing a “legal opinion,” stating she is not an attorney and citing more than 30 years as an educator. She said she identified the FMLA inconsistencies herself while seeking clarification on her own leave paperwork, noting the board’s attorney had separately warned, in a July training, that such gaps could expose the district to “FMLA interference and retaliation claims.” She said her recommendation for a third-party audit was made “without regard to my self-interest,” since she had already announced her retirement.

Gore said she was never given the clarification she needed to answer accurately: “You refused to provide clarification. You made it impossible for me to accurately answer your question.” Her written response called the termination “made in retaliation for me opposing unlawful practices and without any just cause,” adding the board’s decision was “designed to damage me, my financial future, and my reputation.” She also argued that holding the hearing in executive session, and barring her personal attorney from attending, violated Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, O.C.G.A. Section 50-14-3(b)(2).

Allegations of physical aggression

Records show the dispute turned volatile during an April 14 executive session. Gore said board member, Rusty Harrelson, tried to remove a folder of confidential personnel records from the room after the meeting. When she told him the records couldn’t leave, he “whipped the folder at me from across the room” from roughly 10 to 15 feet away, then “never said anything,” “just stared,” and walked out. In a same-day email to the full board, Gore described a member as “physically aggressive towards me, throwing a thick folder of paper directly at me across the room.”

In that same email, Gore wrote that Harrelson had a documented history within the board of alleged inappropriate conduct, stating there was “a history of this Board member being accused by other board members of making racially insensitive comments, which were called out and came to a head during a previous executive session.” Gore also wrote that other board members had described Harrelson to her as a “bully.” The independent investigative report does not address this claim as a separate finding.

Gore’s attorney, Nina Gupta of Parker Poe, repeatedly pressed board attorney Megan Murren Rittle of Smith, Welch, Webb & White to bar Harrelson from Gore’s physical presence entirely, including at a May 2026 graduation ceremony. Rittle said Harrelson, an elected official, was required to attend but had been instructed not to interact with Gore.

An independent investigation by attorney Nathan Lee of Glover & Davis, P.A. found sharply conflicting accounts. Gore maintained Harrelson “aggressively whips it across the room.” Harrelson said he “tossed” the folder so it would slide to Gore and “totally denies throwing or forcibly flinging” it — an account backed by board members Jamie Hill and John Waddell, who both called any suggestion it was thrown a “total exaggeration.” Vice Chair Marilyn Burks, however, told investigators Harrelson “forcibly flung the folder,” though she said it caused no real disturbance and considered it “no big deal” at the time.

Citing O.C.G.A. Section 16-5-20(a), Lee concluded the incident did not meet the legal standard for assault under Georgia law, but wrote: “I believe that it is a fair statement that throwing or forcibly flinging a folder at a superintendent is unprofessional.” Harrelson called Gore the next day and apologized, acknowledging his conduct “was not professional.” Gore told investigators she never accepted the apology.

Questions about the investigation’s scope

A source told WALB that the board’s attorney only interviewed members of the Tift County Board of Education during the investigation, and that neither Gore nor the individuals she identified as people who should be interviewed were contacted.

Correspondence in the record shows a more layered picture. Gore’s May 29, 2026, email to HR states that “just today I was interviewed by an external attorney” — Lee — but that he described the investigation’s scope as “solely the instance of workplace violence,” adding he “was not directed to investigate the whistleblower claims.” Despite that interview, Gore’s attorney wrote to board counsel five days later, on June 3, 2026: “I am actually not aware that you conducted any investigation into any matter... I know that you have not made any attempt to interview Ms. Gore, the complainant.” On the separate question of witnesses, board counsel confirmed on June 1, 2026, that interviews with Gore’s other named witnesses — including Jennifer Howell, Klinton Guess and Christina Robitzsch — were still being “scheduled,” more than two weeks after Lee was retained. Lee’s final June 26, 2026, report lists only Gore and the seven board members as interviewees; it does not indicate any of Gore’s additional named witnesses were ever contacted.

MORE COVERAGE ON NATALIE GORE

Other whistleblower allegations

Gore’s May 14 whistleblower complaint also raised several other claims of board misconduct. Gore accused Board Chair Jonathan Jones of “rank self-dealing” by steering construction projects to his company, Jones Construction. Jones told investigators the company never bid on or performed district work during his tenure, an account corroborated by every other board member; no supporting contract was found in district records.

Gore also alleged favoritism after a Superior Court judge’s child ran across a football field while possibly intoxicated, resulting in a 12-week student suspension. Board member, Sam Wright, admitted he personally called Gore to advocate for the student and spoke with the judge, who Wright said mentioned suing the district; Wright denied advising the judge to sue, saying he told them the student should go through the disciplinary tribunal process.

Gore’s remaining claims included a board member’s failure to recuse himself from a land-purchase vote — the seller shared board member Jamie Hill’s surname but was not related to him — a facility-naming policy dispute, which Waddell said the board followed; a cashless-payment policy dispute, which Waddell said he personally rewrote after raising concerns for the district’s Title I families; and an allegation the board tried to protect an employee facing termination over a domestic assault charge. Lee’s report found no evidence of “fraud, waste, [or] abuse” under the Whistleblower Act and no ethics policy violation.

Timeline: Both sides’ accounts

April 14 — Gore says board member Rusty Harrelson threw a folder at her during executive session. Harrelson later told investigators he “tossed” the folder onto the table so it would slide to her; board members Hill and Waddell backed his account, while Vice Chair Burks said he “forcibly flung” it but described the incident overall as “no big deal.”

April 16 — Gore verbally reports the incident to HR Director Christina Robitzsch and Deputy Superintendent Klinton Guess.

April 21 — The board’s attorney is notified, according to Gore’s counsel. The board’s own account of when it first learned of specifics is not detailed in the record.

May 14 — Gore documents the incident in writing and separately invokes the Georgia Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. Section 45-1-4, with the full board, listing the folder incident alongside construction, judge’s-child, land-purchase, facility-naming, cash-policy and domestic-assault allegations.

May 18 — Gore tells HR more than a month has passed with no investigation, Title IX process or law enforcement notification, and raises a separate concern about Harrelson’s post-incident greetings.

May 19 — The board retains attorney Nathan Lee to conduct an independent investigation. Gore’s counsel characterizes the more-than-monthlong gap before this point as itself evidence of retaliation; the board’s attorney had asked Gore’s counsel on May 18-19 for specific facts and legal citations underlying the allegations before proceeding, and said the board was “in the process of hiring a third party.”

May 20-21 — Board counsel offers what it calls “supportive measures,” including an attorney’s presence at board meetings and moving small-group prep meetings to a virtual format. Gore’s counsel calls these measures “inadequate” and asks that Harrelson be barred from Gore’s presence entirely, including at graduation. The board’s attorney confirms Harrelson, an elected official, will attend graduation but has been told not to interact with Gore.

May 29 — Gore is interviewed by Lee. She tells HR that Lee described his investigation’s scope as limited to the workplace violence incident and not her broader whistleblower claims; Lee’s later report does not dispute that characterization of his own scope.

June 1 — Board attorney Megan Murren Rittle tells Gore’s attorney that Lee’s investigation is “underway” and that interviews with Gore’s other named witnesses are being scheduled.

June 3 — Gore’s attorney writes that she is “not aware” any investigation has been conducted and says Lee had not attempted to interview Gore — a characterization that appears in tension with Gore’s own May 29 email describing having already been interviewed by Lee that day.

June 26 — Lee issues his report. He states he interviewed Gore and all seven board members, finds no evidence of fraud, waste or abuse under the Whistleblower Act, and concludes the folder incident does not meet the legal standard for assault under Georgia law — while separately writing that it is “a fair statement” the act was “unprofessional.” Board members told Lee they consider Gore an excellent superintendent and deny any retaliatory intent or gender-based motive.

Aug. 17 — Gore’s attorney notifies the district she has filed an EEOC claim over her own FMLA leave.

Aug. 25 — Gore sends the board an email recommending an independent FMLA compliance audit, which she says reflects professional knowledge developed over her career and knowledge the board’s own attorney had separately shared.

Aug. 26 — Chair Jones asks Gore twice whether she consulted the board’s attorney on that email. Gore does not answer directly either time, instead asking Jones to clarify his question; the board later states it independently determined she had not consulted counsel.

Aug. 27 — The board issues a notice of dismissal citing insubordination, incompetence, immorality and “other good and sufficient cause,” stating Gore’s Aug. 25 email “came on the heels of” her Aug. 17 EEOC notice and reflected self-interested use of district resources. Gore is placed on paid administrative leave pending a hearing.

Sept. 2 — Gore submits a written response calling the termination “pretext” for retaliation and objecting to the process. The board holds the hearing and votes to terminate her contract, standing by the grounds stated in its Aug. 27 notice.

Sept. 10 — The district issues Gore’s final pay documentation, totaling $21,616.61, set to process Sept. 30, 2026.

Timeline summary

Gore’s attorney argued the monthlong gap between her April 16 report and the board’s May 19 decision to investigate was itself evidence of retaliation, writing on May 21: “This delay and failure to take any remedial action for over a month, in and of itself, constitutes retaliation for her raising her concerns.” Gore’s Sept. 2 response applied the same argument to her termination, which the board finalized by vote that day — a decision now set to result in her final payment processing at the end of September, following months of dispute between Gore and the board.

Have a news tip or see an error that needs correction? Let us know. Please include the article’s headline in your message.

To stay up to date on all the latest news as it develops, follow WALB on Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and X. For more south Georgia news, download the WALB News app and add WALB as a preferred source on Google.

Copyright 2026 WALB. All rights reserved.