TIFTON, Ga. (WALB) - Former Tift County Schools Superintendent Natalie Gore has released documents to WALB News 10 detailing her dismissal proceedings, including the district’s charge letter, email exchanges over her legal representation, and her written response.

The Dismissal Charges

In an August 27, 2026 letter, Board Chairman Jonathan Jones notified Gore of the board’s intent to terminate her contract for cause, citing conduct “seriously prejudicial to the system” under four grounds: insubordination, incompetence, immorality, and other good cause.

The board claimed:

• The Trigger: On August 25, Gore emailed the board alleging “inconsistencies” in the district’s handling of two Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) cases—one involving a principal and another an executive—and recommended an independent audit.
• The Allegations: Chairman Jones asked if Gore had consulted the board’s attorney; the board deemed her responses nonresponsive and concluded she had not. Consequently, the board cited her for insubordination (evading questions), incompetence (giving unauthorized legal advice), and immorality (violating educator ethics codes on honesty).
• EEOC Notice: The board noted Gore’s email closely followed an August 17 notice that she had filed an EEOC claim regarding her own FMLA request.
• Gore was placed on paid administrative leave, barred from district property, ordered to surrender district devices, and told to appear before the board on September 2 in executive session.

Gore’s August 25 Email

Gore’s internal email outlined improper notices and procedures in two executive-level FMLA requests and noted district staff acknowledged an inconsistent understanding of FMLA rules. She proposed a four-point plan: a third-party audit of the past 12–18 months, a standardized tracking system, updated policy guidelines, and staff retraining. Gore noted she was personally affected by these practices, was using independent oversight to avoid impropriety, and pointed out she had already announced her retirement.

Denial of Legal Representation

District counsel Megan Murren Rittle barred Gore’s attorney, Nina Gupta, from attending or participating via video in the September 2 executive session. Gupta objected on the record, calling the exclusion a violation of Gore’s rights.

Gore’s Response

In her September 2 written rebuttal, submitted under protest, Gore:

• Objected to Procedures: Argued that Georgia Open Meetings law (O.C.G.A. § 50-14-3(b)(2)) prohibits executive sessions when hearing evidence to discipline or dismiss a public employee, and protested the denial of her attorney.
• Refuted the Charges: Denied giving legal advice, stating her warnings drew from 30+ years in education and recent training by the board’s own counsel. She denied evading questions, asserting she merely sought clarification.
• Alleged Retaliation: Claimed her dismissal was a pretextual, defamatory retaliation for opposing unlawful FMLA practices and exercising her rights, noting she had already withdrawn her own FMLA request and announced her retirement.

Contract and Prior Records

• Employment Terms: Under a three-year contract signed in June 2025 (effective through June 30, 2028), Gore earned a $225,000 base salary plus benefits, including an $850/month vehicle stipend and retirement contributions.
• Severance vs. Cause: A termination “for cause” forfeits remaining compensation, whereas a “termination for convenience” requires the district to pay a scheduled percentage of remaining pay (100% in year one, 75% in year two, 50% in year three).
• Prior Records: Documents show Gore was named sole finalist under a December 2023 MOU and received performance bonuses in 2025 ($10,000) and June 2026 ($4,500).

Notice of Dismissal and Terminal of Contract

Natalie Gore’s Full Response:

Dear Members of the Board,

I am here to submit my formal response and submit evidence regarding the decision to dismiss me and terminate my employment. I am prepared to offer evidence and argument regarding this personnel decision. I have also reduced this evidence and argument to writing. I request and expect that this written document will be made part of my personnel file, as well as any investigative or similar file in the District’s possession.

Before I begin my submission of evidence and argument, I must register some objections. First, the Board counsel is present today, but I have been told that I am not allowed to have my counsel present. I object to this denial of my rights to have counsel present and be on an equal footing with all parties here. Second, I object to this process occurring in executive session, as it is a violation of the Open Meetings Act. The Open Meetings Act -- to which this District and Board are subject, irrespective of charter system status -- allows for executive session for discuss personnel matters. However, executive session is explicitly not allowed for when receiving evidence or when hearing argument on personnel matters, including whether to impose disciplinary action or dismiss a public officer or employee. See O.C.G.A. Section 50-14-3(b)(2). Because are receiving evidence and hearing argument, this discussion should be held only in a properly noticed public meeting, and your insistence that I participate in this process, without counsel, violates the law.

I have no trust that this is a good faith process, that this is a good faith “discussion,” or that anything I have to say will be meaningfully considered. Please know that I am participating out of obligation, but under protest. I also want to state explicitly that the decision to dismiss me and terminate my employment has been made in retaliation for me opposing unlawful practices and without any just cause. The ostensible cause stated in the letter is pretext.

First, I disagree that I issued a “legal opinion.”

• I am not an attorney and do not practice law, of which you all are keenly aware.
• I do, however, have over 30 years of experience as an educator, over 20 years of which are at the executive levels, including as your superintendent.  
• As a result of my professional experiences over the years, I am educated on a host of legal requirements and processes to include FMLA.  As a professional,  I have continued to educate myself on legal guidelines and requirements affecting education both through participation in professional association meetings, participation in legal issues/updates at conferences, reading federal and state guidance documents, and reading legal cases and judicial opinions of education related topics.  
• In fact, annually, Tift staff provides the Board with a Board Meeting presentation on legislative updates to educate you on new legislation and its implications for our practices that has never involved the Board attorney, never been questioned as anything more than professional knowledge, and never been construed as legal opinion.
• Through my own experience while applying for FMLA, I noted FMLA guidelines were not being followed, learned that HR staff was not familiar with FMLA guidelines/process, and I identified that these gaps needed to be addressed for the benefit of the organization.
• Please note that since my time in Tift, Board counsel has provided legal issues/updates training for District & School leaders (including me) and has herself warned that failures to comply with FMLA’s requirements can lead to FMLA interference and retaliation claims—her presentation referenced those exact words in her most recent training which occurred in July of this year.
• Instead, what I presented was my professional knowledge- knowledge of gaps/inconsistencies in our processes, gaps/inconsistencies in the understanding of the key staff who supervise and implement FMLA of the required processes and timelines, and my knowledge of how such gaps can lead to exposure for the organization, naming the terms the Board’s attorney educated us all on in July.
  • These gaps and inconsistencies came to light as I asked clarifying questions about my own FMLA paperwork to ensure I understood what was being asked of me, so I could provide the requested information and/or make informed decisions when presented with decisions to make.
• To illustrate how professional knowledge gained from experience and training, I point to Board members themselves. I have personally witnessed some of you pronouncing, during executive session, that a discussion topic is not legally appropriate as it is outside the bounds of executive session discussion. You have done so without legal counsel present and without consulting any legal counsel. When you did so, you were not offering a legal opinion or offering legal analysis, but instead were sharing your educated opinion informed by all the Board Trainings and Workshops you have attended in your time as a Board member.
• To utilize another example, last month, the Board chair sent me an email on the morning of the Thursday board meeting directing me to add items to the agenda.  I emailed back indicating I was unable to do that as we were outside of the bounds of timelines established by sunshine laws/open meetings act.  I didn’t need to consult with legal counsel about this nor was I accused of making a legal opinion when I offered my professional knowledge about legal practices/requirements.
  • In fact, it is a good thing I did not consult with legal counsel in advance or we likely would have received a wrong legal opinion.  In advance of the meeting that night, I took a copy of the Board chair’s email and my response to the Board attorney who asked me why I could not add those items to the agenda.  I referred her to the date/time of the request.  I prompted her with “Open Meetings Act requirements” to which she retorted, “Oh, I’m sorry, I’m still learning”, and indicated she would research those requirements.
• As part of my professional duties and responsibilities, I am to maintain an overview of the district in order to determine problems and needs and make recommendations for improvement when gaps come to light.  I am also to recommend programs to protect the school district…against loss resulting from any liability. 
• I’ve done just that. Yet you are seeking to fire me for performing my duties.

That said, I stand by my actions. My professional duties require that, when I note systems or practices that create exposure for the District, I notify the Board and take steps to address them. I did just that. Failure to do so would appropriately constitute immorality as I would have failed to preserve the dignity and integrity of the profession. In short, I contend it would have been unethical for me to not bring these issues to light.

You allege that I refused to answer a question and that refusal constituted insubordination, immorality, and other good and sufficient cause. These allegations are without foundation.

• As you note, I asked for clarification from you. You asked me whether my legal opinion was that of the Board’s attorney. As already explained, I did not provide a legal opinion. But I did disclose that I was aware that the Board’s attorney (or at least the one who is here at some meetings, though there are other attorneys who cycle through, so I cannot even be entirely certain to which attorney you were referring) knew of the issues and actually brought it to staff’s attention to help us improve.
• I again asked for clarification to determine which part of my correspondence you referred to so I could accurately address your inquiry. That was a legitimate need as I was unclear what you were construing as a legal opinion.  Were you referring to the indisputable fact that the District is not consistently following FMLA procedures? If so—then, yes, the Board attorney must agree with that, as the one who reviewed my FMLA packet brought it to staff’s attention and recommended swift action to get processes in compliance (as I knew at the time I wrote the correspondence). Were you referring to the indisputable facts that failure to follow FMLA procedures can create exposure for the District? If so—then, yes, the Board attorney must agree with that, since she herself has provided training in July stating this very opinion that inconsistencies create the opportunity for claims of FMLA retaliation & interference. Further, this “legal opinion” of the potential consequences for failure to provide timely notice is also plainly articulated in the DOL’s FMLA guidance for employees, which she pointed HR and the FMLA administrator to leverage to guide Tift’s processes.  Or were you referring to my recommendations for an third-party audit and training? If so—then I submit that these recommendations fall outside of the purview of any attorney. Rather the responsibility is mine, and mine alone, for making these recommendations. This is included in my job description in several of the delineated duties and responsibilities, (which I will also note none of which include—anywhere—any reference of working with the Board attorney at all nor a directive to always consult with the Board attorney first).
• You refused to provide clarification. You made it impossible for me to accurately answer your question. You refused to provide any more information or even allow me the opportunity to discuss the matter fully. Simply put, there is nothing in my responses to you that was misleading, nonresponsive, or misrepresentative. Rather, you refused to provide the clarification I needed to provide you with accurate and complete information.
• Given these facts, I was not insubordinate to you. I acted with no incompetence or immorality. I have always acted within my ethics.
• Further, for you to characterize my actions as unethical or immoral or anything of the sort is false and defamatory.

As already established, nothing in my correspondence constituted a “legal opinion,” and I acted fully within the scope of my professional knowledge & experience, my authority, and my duties & responsibilities as a superintendent.

I have devoted my full time, and more, to the District. In fact, I had taken a personal day last Friday but decided to reschedule some appointments I had to be able to come in, on my day off, to have a personal meeting with the Board chair and vice-chair, upon their request.

I do acknowledge that I have researched FMLA requirements on my District-issued laptop. I did so because I received information that the District was inconsistently implementing these requirements, and that the Board attorney had also brought those same inconsistencies to light before I did, albeit she never brought these issues to my attention. I did so to review the guidelines against my professional knowledge and understanding to determine which District processes were appropriate/up to date with current guidance, where needs existed to inform the next steps we needed to take as an organization, and to identify resources available to support employee education and system processes. Failure to do so would have been a neglect of my duties.

Additionally, my recommendations were made without regard to my self-interest. Quite frankly, if I had acted in my own self-interest, I would not have brought these issues to light at all nor would I have made any recommendations for improvements, let alone suggest an independent third party expert be employed to help. I also noted, accurately, that I will never see the benefit of any improved processes, as I have already announced my retirement (and withdrew my request for FMLA leave prior to documenting the needs and recommending next steps).

In sum, this termination notice is full of mischaracterizations, misstatements, and outright falsehoods.

Again, however, I have to repeat that this process has not been in good faith by you. I fully understand that you have already made your decision, irrespective of any facts that I provide you, and that your decision has been made based on pretext designed to damage me, my financial future, and my reputation and in retaliation against me for exercising my rights, opposing unlawful activity, and protecting myself.

As stated above, I request and expect that this response will be made part of my personnel file, as well as any investigative or similar file in the District’s possession.

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.