Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

GATESVILLE – The Gates County Elections Director is seeking in excess of $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages in a civil lawsuit filed on Monday of this week.

Specifically, Clytia Riddick is suing Gates County Manager Scott Sauer and Warren Perry, the county’s Human Resources Director, as well as Gates County local government.

Greenville attorney Ralph T. Bryant Jr. is representing Riddick.

Riddick has served as the Gates County Director of Elections since April 12, 2010. She was appointed to the position by the Executive Director of the State Board of Elections and is supervised by the Gates County Board of Elections. The county’s elections board is governed by the State Board of Elections rather than the county commissioners.

“There’s a lot of politics involved, but I don’t care about politics,” Riddick told the Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald on Friday. “What I do care about are the attacks on me personally and the county not paying me all of my salary.

“The issues as described in my compliant began with the new administration of county management and with those who hired them to carry out their agenda,” Riddick added.

As noted in the civil suit, the Gates County Manager and the Gates County Human Resources Director “[do] not have any supervisory authority over the plaintiff in her capacity as the Gates County Director of Elections.”

Even though Riddick does not fall under the supervision of county officials, her annual salary is paid using county funds, per state law. That salary is recommended by the county board of elections and approved by the county commissioners.

Since July 1 of last year, Riddick’s annual salary is $43,610.

The civil suit lists four claims of relief.

The first, filed against Perry and Sauer individually, is for tortious interference, which allows a plaintiff to claim damages against a defendant who intentionally interferes with a plaintiff’s business or contractual relationships.

Specifically, the suit alleges that Perry and Sauer “abused [their] positions and [acted] with malice and personal ill will toward the plaintiff [and] have engaged in the constant, repetitious and malicious intimidation and harassment of the plaintiff in the performance of her duties as the Director of Elections.”

Furthermore, the suit alleges that Perry and Sauer harassed the plaintiff by conducting constant and illegal surveillance of the plaintiff and used video security cameras to surreptitiously watch plaintiff and listen to the plaintiff’s oral conversations.

It also claims that Perry and Sauer, who allegedly have keys to the Elections office, have accessed the building themselves or by some other person on their behalf without Riddick’s knowledge or consent.

Through the security camera system at the Elections office, the suit alleges that Perry and Sauer have conducted illegal surveillance of the plaintiff to include illegally listening to the plaintiff’s phone calls, illegal listening to plaintiff’s private conversations, and other harassing surveillance to include photographing plaintiff’s vehicle as well as secretly obtaining and compiling photographs of the plaintiff during her work time and during her personal time away from the workplace.

Perry and Sauer are also alleged to have caused the Gates County Board of Commissioners to violate their statutory duty to compensate Riddick as required by state statute.

According to the suit, Riddick submits her timesheet to the Chair of the county’s Board of Elections who would sign the document and forward it to the county for payment.

“But, beginning in December 2023, the defendants Perry and Sauer began accusing the plaintiff of not working the hours that she had submitted on her timesheet. The defendant Perry stated that he reviewed security camera footage and made a determination as to when the plaintiff’s car was or was not in the Board of Elections parking lot, and that he deducted the hours from plaintiff’s paycheck based upon his arbitrary assumptions,” the civil suit alleges.

In turn, Riddick, according to the lawsuit, advised Perry that her job requires her to perform some duties away from the building and that his surveillance of her car did not mean she was not working in her capacity as director of elections.

The civil suit also stated that Riddick advised Perry “that since she is paid on a salary basis, it is inappropriate to deduct hours from her timesheet and pay her less than the predetermined salary amount. As a direct result of the conduct of the defendants Perry and Sauer as alleged herein, the plaintiff has suffered lost wages. In addition, the plaintiff has suffered stress as a result of the defendant’s conduct.”

The second claim for relief, showing Gates County government as the defendant, is for conversion.

That claim says the county was provided with the necessary documentation from the County Board of Elections that required the county pay the plaintiff the full amount of her salary.

“Rather than pay the full amount to the plaintiff, the defendant Gates County converted a portion of the funds by depriving the plaintiff of the money and converting the money to Gates County’s own use,” as stated in the claim.

The claim further stated that “the failure to pay the monies to the plaintiff constitutes conversion. The plaintiff is entitled to recover from Gates County the monies that have been illegally withheld.”

The third claim for relief, naming Perry and Sauer in their individual capacity, is for illegal surveillance.

This claim alleges that Perry and Sauer acted in violation of North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 15A 287 “by secretly listening to and/or recording the plaintiff’s conversations on a daily basis [through video security cameras that the defendant had installed in the Board of Elections office] and have attempted to use oral communication that they heard while illegally listening to the plaintiff’s conversations to harm the plaintiff in their effort to cause plaintiffs removal from her position as Director of the Gates County Board of Elections.”

This particular claim further cites NCGS 15A 296 which says a plaintiff is entitled to recover all damages allowed under the statute. Actual damages, but not less than liquidated damages, are computed at the rate of one hundred dollars ($100.00) a day for each day of violation or one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever is higher, punitive damages, a reasonable attorneys’ fee, and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

The fourth and final claim for relief, naming Perry and Sauer individually, is for interference with civil rights.

The claim alleges “that the defendants Perry and Sauer, motivated by the race of the plaintiff, have conspired to interfere with the exercise or enjoyment by the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitutions of North Carolina, as contained in Article I, Section 1 of the North Carolina

Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.”

The civil suit goes on to say that not only has Riddick suffered lost wages, but has also experienced mental and emotional stress and anguish as a result of the defendants illegal conduct as described herein.

The lawsuit demands a trial by jury.

In addition to the compensatory and punitive damages against Perry and Sauer, the lawsuit seeks recovery of funds converted by Gates County local government, an award of costs and attorney’s fees as may be recoverable under law, and such other and further damages and relief that the court deems appropriate. It also seeks an order enjoining the defendants from engaging in the illegal conduct described in the lawsuit.

Speaking to the News-Herald on Friday, Sauer said he and the county are aware of the lawsuit, but as of 12 noon they had not been formally served.

“The [commissioners] are aware of the matter,” Sauer stated. “We have had a brief discussion about this with our county attorney. Beyond that we have no further comment as we work through the process.”