Brandon N. Voelker
bvoelker@gatlinvoelker.com
Fax: (888) 456-9179
Via First Class Mail and Electronic Mail:
Demetrus Liggins
Superintendent of Fayette County Public Schools
demetrus.liggins@fayette.kyschools.us
450 Park Place Lexington, Kentucky 40511
Tyler Murphy
Chair of Fayette County Public School Board
Tyler.Murphy@fayette.kyschools.us
450 Park Place Lexington, Kentucky 40511
August 27, 2025
RE: Ann Sampson Grimes Administrative Leave
Dear Dr. Liggins and Board Chair Murphy:
I have been retained to represent the interests of Ann Sampson Grimes (“Ms. Grimes”), regarding her retaliatory placement on fictitious administrative leave. Please forward all future correspondence regarding this matter to my office at the e-mail provided above or reach me directly at (859) 802-8690.
I. Factual Background
Ms. Grimes entered into a contract with Fayette County School District (the “District”) on June 18, 2025, wherein she was employed as the Executive Director of Budget and Financial Planning for the District for the 2025-2026 school year (the “Agreement”), however, this was not the first time Ms. Grimes served in that position. Pursuant to the Agreement, Ms. Grimes was categorized as a “classified employee,” though this categorization is subject to disagreement. Among her stated duties and responsibilities, Ms. Grimes was required to (1) assist key administrators in review of the budget for the district, (2) assist in the execution of the enacted district budget, including recommending administration control when required, and (3) prepare analyses of District budget requests and district program proposals. Further, based on Ms. Grimes’ employment responsibilities, employment contract, and employee handbook, compliance with board policies, rules, and regulations was required and, thus, it was required that Ms. Grimes must
advise the Superintendent to remain compliant with those policies, rules, and regulations. Ms. Grimes has been employed with the District since 2000, with certain tenure rights associated therewith, whether as a Certified and/or Classified employee.
Kentucky law requires at least two percent (2%) of the General Fund budget to be provided for contingency. However, the District has a board policy requiring at least Six Percent (6%) of the General Fund be provided for contingency. Dr. Liggins and his staff are keenly aware of the Board’sdirectionandfinancialpolicyyethavechosennottofollowtheBoardpolicy. Ms.Grimes’ job responsibilities required proper budgeting pursuant to Board Policy. Throughout 2024 and 2025, Ms. Grimes consistently and frequently advised that budget cuts must be initiated to comply with Board Policy of Six Percent (6%) contingency. While Ms. Grimes took action pursuant to Board Policy, District leadership refused to comply, stating a request would be made to the Board to change the policy. This request has not been made to date, nor has proper disclosure been made totheBoard,placingtheBoardinapositiontohaveinaccurateinformation. EachtimeMs.Grimes advisedthat budget cuts must beenforced,herpeersandsuperiors pushedbackon her suggestions, claimed she was incorrect, or flat out ignored her sound and correct advice. A few of many examples include:
(i) On February 13, 2024, Dr. Barber advised Ms. Grimes that budget needed to be reduced by 5%, and Ms. Grimes advised that more than 5% was required. Dr. Barber did not accept Ms. Grimes recommendation; nor did he adhere to his 5% direction. Dr. Barber refused to allow required reductions to the tentative budget, even though Dr. Barber had acknowledged the need for at least 5%. Then in the fall, Dr. Barber advised that the working budget would not set forth required cuts, because Dr. Liggins needed to get a new contract and Board elections were looming.
(ii) On July 1, 2024, Ms. Grimes again informed Dr. Barber that reductions for the FY25 school year needed to be made.
(iii) During the July 2024 KASA conference Ms. Grimes advised Rodney Jackson and Dr. Barber that the fund balance was going to be much lower and the need to take action to reduce. Dr. Barber instructed Ms. Grimes that she was not to say that cash flow was going to be an issue and was directed not to speak of the issues. Ms. Grimes also advised that if spending was not reduced, the District would fall below the Board Policy 6% contingency, as well as State required 2% and eventually be under state management
(iv) On July 31, 2024, Dr. Barber instructed Ms. Grimes not to tell the public that cash flow was an issue for the District.
(v) On August 13, 2024, Dr. Barber took Ms. Grimes subordinate, giving him the same decision-making authority as Ms. Grime.
(vi) On August 26, 2024, Ms. Grimes again informed Dr. Barber that budget cuts of at least Ten Percent (10%) or more must be made for FY25.
(vii) On April 23, 2025, Ms. Grimes informed both Dr. Barber and Rodney Jackson that expenditures were outperforming revenues and federal funds may be decreasing.
(viii) On May 2, 2025, in a meeting between Dr. Barber, Rodney Jackson, and Ms. Grimes, Ms. Grimes was effectively prevented from suggesting to the Board that budget cuts may be a suitable method in order to effectuate the Board’s desired One Percent (1%) raise for teachers. Instead, Dr. Barber and Rodney Jackson reported that the only way to achieve the One Percent (1%) raises was through OLT.
(ix) On May 2, 2025, Ms. Grimes reported to Dr. Barber and Mr. Jackson that the District could not afford a One Percent (1%) raise for teachers and needed to make an additional Three Million Dollar ($3,000,000.00) budget cut Ms. Grimes attempted to bring these matters before the board, but was silenced by Dr. Barber and Superintendent Liggins, who changed key parts of Ms. Grimes’ dialogue and presentation to omit any need of budget cuts.
(x) On May 5, 2025, Ms. Grimes advised Superintendent Liggins that adding an additional Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00) in Medicaid could not be reincluded into the budget, but Superintendent Liggins made Jessica Williams reinstate the item, effectively subverting Ms. Grimes’ recommendation.
(xi) On May 19, 2025, Ms. Grimes informed Dr. Barber that she did not have the authority to add OLT because it is not an approved revenue source and, in turn, Dr. Barber asked to keep that information confidential.
(xii) On May 27, 2025, Dr. Barber amended the FY26 Salary Schedule to include the One Percent (1%) pay increase which Ms. Grimes repeatedly advised could not be afforded.
(xiii) On June 6, 2025, Rodney Jackson received a new title of Senior Executive Director without an interview as part of a reorganization. Neither Ms. Grimes, nor any other female, was informed about the creation of this new role nor provided an opportunity to interview, despite being well-qualified.
(xiv) On August 6, 2025, advised that the Board would need to consider changing its 6% contingency to 2%.
(xv) On August 7, 2025, Ms. Grimes and her team were supposed to meet with Superintendent Liggins to discuss the FY26 Working Budget, but Superintendent Liggins refused to meet with them.
Ms. Grimes was also subject to sexual/age discrimination during her time of employment, as described in the events above. Such instances date as far back as August 13, 2024, when a younger man, was promoted to the same position as Ms. Grimes, which effectively diminished Ms. Grimes’ decision-making authority and weakened the decisiveness of the department. However, such instances occurred as recently as June of 2025, when Ms. Grimes was not afforded an opportunity to interview for the newly created position of Senior Executive Director, despite being more than qualified, and no other female candidates were considered for the role. Specifically, a person was placed in the position by Dr. Liggins, who would not adhere to Board Policy regarding financial management.
On August 15, 2025, Ms. Grimes received a letter signed by Demetrus Liggins, placing her on administrative leave with pay for a period of Twenty (20) workdays. The provided reason for placing Ms. Grimes on leave was alleged “inappropriate conduct.” However, this alleged misconduct, if any, was not further detailed or explained. Furthermore, when Dr. Barber, Ms. Grimes’ then superior, spoke to her about her administrative leave on August 13, 2025, Dr. Barber reported that the reason for the administrative leave was “an issue of leadership and not an issue of [Ms. Grimes’] performance.” This letter and the administrative leave stemmed from a long history of Ms. Grimes reporting waste within the Fayette County School District’s budget, her persistent advocacy for budget cuts, and her mere existence as a woman in the workplace.
II.
Legal Standard
Under the facts presented above, Ms. Grimes has several colorable claims in this case, including claims under Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act, discrimination and harassment claims, and violations of Ms. Grimes due process rights.
a. Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
Pursuant to K.R.S. §61.102(1), “No employer shall subject to reprisal…in any manner whatsoever, which tends to discourage, restrain, depress, dissuade…any employee who in good faith reports…any facts or information relative to an actual or suspected violation of any law, statute,executiveorder,administrativeregulation,mandate,rule,orordinanceoftheUnitedStates, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, or any of its political subdivisions, or any facts or information
relative to actual or suspected mismanagement, waste, fraud, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety.” Such actions of an employer provide the employee with appropriate remedies under K.R.S. §61.103(2), including injunctive relief, punitive damages, or both.
Throughout 2024 and 2025, Ms. Grimes has advised of required financial budgeting/reporting to comply with Board and/or State policy/law. Ms. Grimes consistently provided advice in good faith, based on readily identifiable accounting practices, which set forth waste or mismanagement of the District’s funds. The placement of her on administrative leave in retaliation for her reports of possible waste or mismanagement, was in retaliation and prohibited under the Kentucky Whistleblower Act.
b. Discrimination and Harassment Claims
Pursuant to the Employee Handbook of Fayette County Public Schools (revised January 2025), the Superintendent must “adhere to a policy of equal employment opportunity in all personnel matters. No person shall be subjected to discrimination in regard to employment, retention, promotion…because of race, color, religion, sex… age or disabling condition or limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”
This policy, as well as K.R.S. §344.040(1)(a), were violated when Dr. Barber was promoted to the same position as Ms. Grimes without providing her notice, thus undermining her and her department’s decision-making capacity, and when Ms. Grimes was not afforded an opportunity to interview for the newly created position of Senior Executive Director, despite being more than qualified. Discrimination is keenly evidenced by the fact that no female candidates were considered, nor offered the opportunity to interview for, the Senior Executive Director position. Instead, Rodney Jackson, a younger man, was provided the position.
Refusing to permit qualified female employees to interview for the new supervisory positions posits a clear goal of sexual harassment in the workplace. Depending on the ages of the other qualified employees not considered for the position, age discrimination may also be present.
c. Violation of Due Process in Discipline
Pursuant to the Employee Handbook for Fayette County Public Schools (revised January 2025), prior to the termination of any contract for certified personnel, the Superintendent must furnish to the employee a written statement specifying in detail the charge against the employee. This section of the Handbook is required to comply with K.R.S. §161.790, which provides for the same rules.
Although the Agreement states that Ms. Grimes is a classified employee, this definition is blatantly incorrect. Pursuant to Petett v. Bd. Of Educ., 684 S.W.2d 7 (Ky. Ct. App. 1984), an administratorisa“certifiedemployee,belowtherankofsuperintendent, whodevotesthemajority of his or her employed time to service as a principal, assistant principal, supervisor, coordinator, director, assistant director, administrative assistant, finance officer…” (emphasis added). In this case, Ms. Grimes’ position was as Director for Budget and Staffing and she devoted primarily all her employed time in this role, a role which bears remarkable resemblance to “finance officer,” as contemplated by Petett
Thus, as a certified employee of the District, Ms. Grimes was entitled to a specific statement of the charges against her, not the mere “inappropriate conduct” generalized by Demetrus Liggins in the August 15, 2025, letter. My client can provide detailed notes of meetings and other information, that will confirm all her financial findings/conclusions, which the Board is entitled to be presented with. The matters set forth herein are only a few instances, the conduct was daily, with a planned approach to not comply with Board Policy and proper budgeting.
On August 19, 2025, Dr. Liggins called Ms. Grimes and advised that “he knew we weren’t supposed to be talking” and her administrative leave “is not an issue of my performance.” Illustrative of the fact that Ms. Grimes knows the financial issues of the Fayette County Board of Education and has been suspended to ensure her information is not presented to the Board. If she did not have any “performance issues,” what is reason for her “administrative leave,” when Board Policy requires a reason.
The actions directed to Ms. Grimes are retaliatory and discriminatory in violation applicable law and/or policy. The actions against Ms. Grimes continue and she remains on “administrative leave,” for no colorable reason, other than to continue to ensure the Board is not properly advised of the financial situation of the District. Along, with the leave, Ms. Grimes has been directed that she is not to be on District Property, speak at a Board Meeting, all in violation of rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Based on the facts and applicable law, Ms. Grimes demands a full reinstatement of her previous position, with no further retaliatory and/or discriminatory practices directed towards my client. We will be anxiously awaiting your correspondence.
Respectfully Submitted,
GATLIN VOELKER, PLLC
/s/ Brandon N. Voelker
Brandon N. Voelker
BNV/ACD
Cc: Ann Sampson Grimes