An opinion by the Georgia Court of Appeals illustrates why local governments should exercise caution when making public statements about controversial incidents. The City of East Point terminated its City Manager after a cyber-attack on its email system. There were allegations that the City Manager did not inform the public and that the attack resulted in a loss of $700,000. The City made public statements about the loss and the alleged nondisclosure by the City Manager. The City Manager filed suit against the City and Mayor for breach of employment contract, defamation per se, and failure to correct public statements.
The parties counsel exchanged communications attempting to settle the matter. In one email, the City Manager’s counsel stated, “We have a deal as follows . . .” and listed severance and settlement payments, payment of the City Manager’s attorney fees, and publication of the following statement:
The comments, views or opinions expressed by unauthorized spokespersons from the City of East Point or the news media stating that former City Manager Deron King was terminated due to a cyber-attack event does not represent the official view or opinion of the City. Upon completion of our internal investigation, it has been found that there was no wrongdoing in connection to the cyber-attack in 2021 by any employees or Mr. King.
According to the City, the parties had reached a settlement. The City moved to enforce the settlement agreement, which the trial court granted. The trial court reviewed the correspondence, which indicated the parties reached a settlement, and the email exchanges satisfied the “writing” requirement.
The City Manager also argued that the agreement was not enforceable because the parties had not agreed on the method of disseminating the public statement about the incident. But the parties had not discussed the manner of publication, and thus, it was not a material term of the agreement.
Finally, the City Manager argued that the settlement should have resulted in a mutual release. He cited to the redlines of the settlement agreement as exchanges between counsel. However, these exchanges occurred after the date the parties had reached the settlement and could not undo the legitimacy and effectiveness of the settlement agreement.
The case is King v. City of E. Point, — Ga. App. –, A26A0836, 2026 WL 1429362 (May 21, 2026).
