A dispute over the firing of a municipal employee has led to allegations that city officials retaliated against her for participating in an official administrative proceeding. The complaint, filed by Donna Fisher in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 9, 2026, names the City of Freeport, City Manager Danielle Kelly, and Councilmember Jeffrey Michael Pena as defendants.
According to the filing, Fisher served as Human Resources Director for the City of Freeport for four years and worked with the city for approximately nine years. The complaint states that in January 2026, Fisher was identified as a material witness in proceedings before the Texas Workforce Commission regarding the termination of former City Manager Jerry Lance Petty. After being sworn as a witness at a hearing on January 9, 2026, Fisher was placed on paid administrative leave just days later and ultimately terminated following an internal audit of her department.
The lawsuit alleges that Fisher’s removal from her position was directly linked to her participation in and anticipated testimony during the Texas Workforce Commission proceedings. The complaint outlines that Fisher’s expected testimony concerned facts relevant to the city’s justification for Petty’s termination. It further details that after being sworn as a witness alongside Mayor Jerry Cain and Councilman George Matamoros on January 9, 2026, both Cain and Matamoros were warned by city counsel that testifying could expose them to unspecified “personal legal consequences.” Both officials then declined to testify at a continued hearing on January 21, 2026. During this period, Councilmember Pena made public statements aimed at discrediting their anticipated testimony.
Fisher was placed on administrative leave by City Manager Danielle Kelly on January 15, 2026—between two scheduled hearing dates—pending a review of payroll and benefits administration within her department. She did not testify at the continued hearing held on January 21. An internal audit followed shortly thereafter; according to the city’s findings cited in the complaint, discrepancies in payroll and benefits administration justified Fisher’s termination. However, Fisher claims these issues had existed prior to January 2026 without any previous disciplinary action taken against her.
The timeline presented in court documents highlights several key events: On January 9, Fisher was sworn as a witness; between January 9 and January 21 warnings were issued to other witnesses; on January 15 she was placed on leave; by late January an internal audit began; and by February she was terminated based on audit results.
The lawsuit further alleges that after Fisher’s termination, Councilmember Pena publicly commented about ongoing disputes related to Petty’s firing through social media broadcasts directed at residents of Freeport. In one broadcast dated around March 9, Pena accused individuals involved in these proceedings—including Fisher’s counsel—of corruption and collusion using terms such as “corrupt collaboration,” “crooked scheme,” and “kickback grift.”
Fisher asserts five causes of action: First Amendment retaliation under federal law against Kelly and the city; interference with participation in an official proceeding under federal law against Kelly and the city; deprivation of liberty interest (stigma plus) under Fourteenth Amendment due process protections against Kelly and the city; municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services against the city; and defamation against Councilmember Pena individually.
The complaint argues that truthful sworn testimony constitutes protected speech under established Supreme Court precedent (Lane v. Franks), making adverse employment actions based on such activity unconstitutional. It also claims that public statements made by Pena falsely attributed misconduct to Fisher, harming her professional reputation.
As relief from the court, Fisher requests back pay with lost benefits or reinstatement (front pay), compensatory damages including those for emotional distress and reputational harm, punitive damages against individual defendants where appropriate, attorneys’ fees under federal statute (42 U.S.C. §1988), a name-clearing hearing regarding allegations made about her performance or conduct, as well as any other relief deemed just by the court.
The case is represented by attorney Clay Dean Thomas (SBN: 24088520) from Clay Thomas PC located in Douglass, Texas. The case is filed under Civil Action No. 3:26-cv-00072.
Source: 326cv00072_Donna_Fisher_v_City_of_Freeport_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
