Seven former city of Atlanta employees are suing the city and Atlanta’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). They allege the OIG unlawfully obtained and exposed their personal bank records during internal investigations conducted between 2022 and 2024.
The lawsuits were brought by Rita Braswell, Charlie Helton, Christopher Helton, Carla Lipscomb, Commodus Morgan, Duvwon Robinson, and Eugene Williams on Jan. 28 in Fulton County Superior Court.
Each plaintiff is seeking compensatory and punitive damages, based on claims of invasion of privacy, negligence, emotional distress, and violations of Georgia banking law. In a March 2025 demand notice to the city, the plaintiffs each asked for $5 million in compensatory damages.
Between 2022 and 2024, former Inspector General Shannon Manigault’s office issued dozens of subpoenas to financial institutions for the personal banking records of people under investigation. The subpoenas asked the banks not to notify the account holders in order not to impede the investigations. However, that notice is required under Georgia law.
In their lawsuits, the plaintiffs cite public statements by city officials acknowledging the subpoenas were improper. Then-City Attorney Patrise Perkins-Hooker publicly issued a cease-and-desist letter to the OIG on Feb. 3, 2025, instructing it to stop asking banks not to notify account holders. The city issued a press release the same day, saying the OIG had issued “at least 50” subpoenas that violated state banking law — and that, going forward, the OIG would notify account holders before issuing such subpoenas.
The same day, Manigault publicly admitted the error, saying the subpoenas were issued “in good faith.” She added that her office was unaware of the statewide notice requirement until alerted by the city on Jan. 30, 2025, when it immediately updated its policies.
The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Michael Sterling, told Atlanta Civic Circle that his clients only learned their bank records had been subpoenaed after their names and financial information appeared publicly. “The harm is the invasion of privacy. It’s the reputational harm to individuals whose records were subpoenaed without notice — and they became subjects of [news] articles that still come up when they do job interviews,” he said.
Sterling said he has not yet uncovered evidence that city officials knew the subpoenas were unlawful at the time they were issued. However, he added, the sheer number of times the city erred amounts at least to negligence. “We don’t have any specific evidence today,” Sterling said. “We can figure out, when we get into discovery, what was known.”
In a statement to Atlanta Civic Circle, interim Inspector General LaDawn Blackett said the OIG is compliant with subpoena procedures. “We have established internal processes and procedures to request subpoenas from municipal court as required by the [city] code. We remain committed to ensuring that all OIG investigations are thorough, fair, and conducted in a manner that respects the due process rights of all parties involved,” Blackett said. She added in the statement that the OIG would not comment further on the lawsuits while litigation is ongoing.
Atlanta City Attorney Marquetta Bryan declined to comment, citing the pending litigation.
The current lawsuits are not the first stemming from the OIG’s subpoena practices. Bernard Tokarz, a lobbyist and city contractor, sued the city of Atlanta, Manigault, and the OIG in December 2024 in Fulton County Superior Court for invasion of privacy over subpoenas for his bank records. He filed a similar lawsuit in federal court two months later. Tokarz voluntarily dismissed the Fulton lawsuit on Jan. 21. The federal lawsuit was stayed in July, pending a ruling on Manigault’s and the city’s motions to dismiss.