A lawsuit filed in Superior Court on Friday afternoon claims the City of Wilmington failed to follow its own personnel policies in dismissing the former zoning administrator, Kathryn Thurston.
Wilmington-based law firm Shipman, Wright, and Moore filed the suit against the city, which focuses largely on City Manager Becky Hawke because of her reorganization and restructuring of the city staff. That effort, now being called "One City," coincided with an increased number of dismissals compared to previous years – 39 dismissals and 4 resignations in lieu of dismissal, double the number from the previous year. Hawke has repeatedly said her reorganization would not involve layoffs and that the terminations were unrelated to the One City project.
The lawsuit centers on Thurston’s December 2025 non-voluntary resignation from her position at the city, where she had worked for 19 years. The cause of dismissal was related to a permit Thurston sought to build an accessory dwelling unit on her property within the city.
She applied through proper channels and added her supervisor to the permitting process to ensure transparency, according to her suit.
Things went awry when Thurston reviewed aspects of her own application through the county’s COASt system, “in part to understand the permitting process and the public-facing information available to citizens seeking assistance,” the lawsuit claims.
She realized a part of the permit had been classified incorrectly, corrected the classification, and unintentionally charged herself an invoice, the suit claims.
“That action did not reduce any fee, expedite approval, create any inspection advantage, alter the permit outcome, or provide any personal financial gain,” the lawsuit says. She never gained any favorable treatment or fee reduction through her interactions with the COAST system regarding the permit application, and the city’s dismissal did not allege that she had.
According to the suit, under the city’s standard disciplinary procedure, an employee would get a warning and a performance review with the opportunity to improve before dismissal, unless they were involved in a major violation. Examples include gambling while on duty, willfully filing falsified records, and sexual misconduct — seemingly far more egregious cases than the permit issue provided as the central cause for Thurston’s dismissal.
“Rather than follow the progressive discipline and appeal procedures the City had established for permanent employees, the City presented resignation as the only practical alternative to immediate termination for alleged serious misconduct,” the lawsuit alleges.
Before the incident, which ended in the termination of her employment, “Thurston performed competently and professionally, consistently received favorable evaluations, and had no history of discipline,” the lawsuit says.
According to the complaint, on December 3, 2025, Thurston was brought into a pre-disciplinary meeting with her supervisor, Linda Painter, and the HR Director at the time, Clayton Roberts. The suit claims Thurston was not informed of the nature of the meeting beforehand, nor was she told the factual basis of the accusation or even which policy she had violated. Thurston claims she was not given any explanation of how her conduct constituted a major violation warranting dismissal.
According to Thurston’s suit, she was not given access to the employee handbook, materials related to the investigation, nor records needed to respond fully to the allegations she faced. She was placed on administrative leave.
Thurston was asked to return for a second meeting on December 8, where Painter and Roberts presented a notice of termination signed by Painter, according to the lawsuit.
“The notice asserted that Thurston had used her position and access privileges to gain administrative entry to the COAST system for non-work-related personal purposes, that such conduct constituted a major violation of Policy 204 and Chapter 8, Article III of the City Code, and that termination was warranted because of the seriousness of the alleged violation and Thurston’s managerial position,” the lawsuit claims.
The lawsuit alleges Hawke made the substantive decision to terminate Thurston prior to the December 8 meeting.
According to the lawsuit, Roberts said that the “new manager does things differently” and was demanding a higher level of accountability during that final termination meeting.
Thurston claims she was still not provided investigative material, and, according to her complaint, both Roberts and Painter said they didn’t believe Thurston acted with malintent. Thurston says she was given the option to accept the termination or sign a resignation, without time to consider her options or consult with legal counsel. She signed the resignation, and lost her opportunity to appeal.
The lawsuit alleges the city’s statements after her resignation indicated she was “not high performing” and that there was sufficient cause to terminate her. That, the lawsuit said, harmed her professional reputation and credibility, and “materially stigmatized Thurston in her profession.”
Alleged ties to reorganization
Another section of the lawsuit discusses the creation of a new position following Thurston’s forced resignation. The city began advertising for a Compliance Director position as a senior management role with many overlapping duties assigned to Thurston’s prior position.
“The timing of the position's creation is significant because it followed closely after Thurston’s forced resignation and the departure of other senior City officials,” the lawsuit claims.
“Thurston is informed and believes that the City's decision to create the Compliance Director position was part of a larger restructuring plan already under consideration before Thurston’s forced resignation,” the lawsuit states. The complaint argues that Thurston’s removal was predetermined to clear the way for this new role, which her legal counsel expects to confirm in the discovery process.
The lawsuit also points to a number of other removals and exits by top directors and leadership within the city around the same time of Thurston’s removal, including Deputy City Manager Chad McEwen, Economic Development Director Aubrey Parsley, Public Works Director Dave Mayes, Recycling and Trash Services Superintendent Rick Porter, and Human Resources Director Clayton Roberts, who resigned subsequent to to his involvement in Thurston’s resignation.
Hawke recently stated in an interview with WWAY that the reorganization and the spate of firings and resignations are not related. “Related to the realignment, one of our absolute non-negotiables was that nobody loses their job,” Hawke said to WWAY.
Historically, the City of Wilmington, like most local governments, has declined to comment on pending litigation and personnel matters, including the recent federal discrimination suit filed by the city’s former DEI director. Nevertheless, WHQR has reached out to the city for comment and clarification on some of the more technical aspects of the complaint; we will update this article with the response.
Below: Thurston's legal complaint
