WILMINGTON — The City of Wilmington’s former zoning administrator is alleging one honest misstep was used to push her out and make way for the city’s new organizational alignment, per a lawsuit filed on June 26.
As first reported by WHQR, the lawsuit says Kathryn Thurston, the city’s zoning administrator from 2015 to 2025, was wrongfully removed from her employment after being “forced” to resign in December 2025.
The lawsuit claims the city violated its own disciplinary policies, along with Thurston’s rights under Article I of the North Carolina Constitution. It outlines the principle of personal liberty and freedom to earn her livelihood “by any lawful calling and to pursue any legitimate business, trade or vocation.”
READ MORE: City manager talks first year, reorganization of city and employee departures
The lawsuit claims the city “predetermined [Thurston’s] removal, denied her meaningful notice and a meaningful opportunity to respond, compelled her involuntary resignation, publicly stigmatized her in connection with that separation, and thereby arbitrarily interfered with her occupational liberty and her right to enjoy the fruits of her own labor.”
Port City Daily asked Thurston for an interview; she directed Port City Daily to her attorney, Gary Shipman, who said he did not want her to answer questions.
The inciting incident came from an application Thurston filed in September 2025 to construct an accessory dwelling unit at her residence. The lawsuit states she, like any other property owner, applied for a building permit through New Hanover County’s COAST permitting system, which she also had administrative access to for work purposes. The lawsuit claims she filed properly and paid the fee associated with the permit.
To avoid a conflict of interest, Thurston asked her supervisor, Director of Planning and Development Linda Painter, be assigned to her ADU permit and “declined assistance from others” in obtaining the permit, though didn’t name who.
The lawsuit doesn’t state when Thurston filed for the permit, though it says at some point she noticed her permit was incorrectly categorized in the COAST system and decided to correct it, the lawsuit states. The change allegedly did not affect fees, approvals, inspection results, development entitlements, timing, or the ultimate outcome of the permit.
Shipman told Port City Daily the permit was listed as “new construction” in the COAST system. While Thurston was tracking the status of her permit, Shipman said she changed the designation from “new construction” to “ADU.”
The lawsuit claims City Manager Becky Hawke, brought in on June 30, 2025, found out about the change and used it as grounds for termination for violating city policy 204 and Chapter 8, Article III of the city code. According to the lawsuit, Hawke could either resign or be terminated; when presented with a termination letter, Thurston chose to resign instead.
Under Hawke’s leadership, the city underwent a restructuring of its internal hierarchy, departments and processes, with the goal of reducing overlapping responsibilities and improving work efficiency.
As Hawke told Port City Daily earlier this month, the Wilmington City Council requested the new city manager take on the task when she was hired; as a result, 29 vacant positions were eliminated, though no one was fired in the endeavor. Over the same period, several high-ranking officials in the organization either resigned or were fired.
In the interview with Hawke, Port City Daily pointed out many of the resignations overlapped with areas of the most changes in the organizational realignment and asked if the former department heads struggled to get on board with the changes; Hawke maintained this connection was “happenstance.”
On the topic of dismissals, Hawke told Port City Daily she can’t apologize for holding people appropriately accountable.”
“I would expect the community to appreciate that there is accountability and understand that they can trust that everyone who’s walking around with the City of Wilmington logo deserves to be here and is doing a good job,” Hawke said.
However, Thurston’s theory is her COAST correction was used as an excuse to make way for Hawke’s departmental reshuffling, as evidenced by the city’s decision to make code enforcement and permit its own department not under the planning department. The city hired Suzanne Russell as the new department’s director, who now oversees all of Thurston’s former duties.
“Thurston is informed and believes that the City’s decision to create the Compliance Director position was part of a larger restructuring plan already under consideration before Thurston’s forced resignation,” the lawsuit states.
A city spokesperson, speaking generally to the reorganization as a whole, said any disciplinary measures are “wholly separate from the realignment and are based solely on documented violations of City policy, for which all employees should be held appropriately accountable. All assertions to the contrary are demonstrably false.”
After making the alleged correction in COAST, Thurston was called into a meeting with her supervisor, Linda Painter, and former Human Resources Director Clayton Roberts, who resigned in February. A day after his resignation, Roberts was also named in a lawsuit from another city employee, former DEI Director Kimberly Carson.
Thurston claims she wasn’t told what the meeting was about beforehand and thus was unprepared to defend herself when called into it on Dec. 3, 2025. During the meeting, she learned it was a pre-disciplinary hearing for violating city policy and code. Thurston was subsequently put on administrative leave.
The lawsuit added Roberts nor Painter explicitly stated what she was in trouble for and that she committed a “major violation,” which according to the lawsuit, numerous are listed as “work rules” and include:
- “Any negligent act that might endanger the safety or lives of others, or that might result in risk, damage to, or destruction of City property
- “Insubordination or refusal to perform work assignments properly
- “Willfully falsifying any institution records
- “Clocking out and leaving work during working hours without permission of a supervisor
- “Fighting while on duty
- “Sexual misconduct or conduct of a sexual nature that is nonconsensual or has the effect of threatening, intimidating, or coercing a person while on duty
- “Failure to report to work for three consecutive workdays without prior approval
- “Misappropriating public funds
- “Gambling while on duty
- “Possession, use, or under the influence of alcohol or narcotics while at work
- “Possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons on City premises.”
A second meeting was scheduled for Dec. 8, in which the lawsuit stated Thurston was given an ultimatum: resign or be terminated. Thurston was allegedly handed a termination letter and told she must decide that day.
The lawsuit states: “Thurston’s resignation was not the product of free and deliberate choice. It was coerced by time pressure, reputational duress, and the City’s predetermined decision to remove her from employment.”
Thurston says she doesn’t think Roberts or Painter were the decision-makers in her case; the lawsuit states she asked both if they believed she made the COAST change with malintent, to which they allegedly said no.
The lawsuit also states Roberts told Thurston in the Dec. 8 meeting the “new manager does things differently” and was demanding a “higher level of accountability.”
Assuming an appeal of her termination would end up before Hawke, Thurston didn’t see an appeal to be successful at the time, the lawsuit states. However, she tried to rescind the handwritten resignation same-day but was told Painter already accepted it. Thurston tried to appeal the decision within the seven-day period outlined in policy, but was denied because she was not terminated.
However, the lawsuit suggests Thurston’s resignation under threat of termination produced, in effect, the same outcome as a firing. Thus, the lawsuit states Thurston should have been entitled to the city’s “progressive system of discipline” where she was given proper notice to respond and the opportunity to appeal a decision.
“Even if some discipline had been warranted, immediate dismissal was not,” the lawsuit states, further noting Thurston had not been cited for misconduct before.
The lawsuit also states Thurston’s absence from the city was well-noticed due to her often front-facing role, with several individuals inquiring why she was no longer employed with the city.
The lawsuit does not name these people; however, it claims the city told them there was “sufficient cause” to terminate Thurston, that there was no involuntary resignation, and, in reference to all city employees who had resigned, described them as “not high-performing.”
Thus, the lawsuit alleges the characterization of Thurston’s departure “impaired her ability to pursue her chosen occupation.” Thurston is currently employed as a long range planner at the Town of Leland.
Port City Daily asked Thurston’s attorney for more information on the COAST correction, who the city was telling it had “cause” to terminate Thurston and how the circumstances of her departure impacted Thurston’s career. He did not answer these questions by press.
Port City Daily also asked the City of Wilmington about its communication regarding Thurston and for the termination letter allegedly provided to her.
A city spokesperson told Port City Daily the city does not comment on pending litigation, but “denies the claims in the lawsuit, looks forward to the full details emerging through the discovery process, and will defend itself accordingly through any upcoming court proceedings.”
At Port City Daily, we aim to keep locals informed on top-of-mind news facing the tri-county region. To support our work and help us reach more people in 2026, please, consider helping one of two ways: Subscribe here or make a one-time contribution here.
We appreciate your ongoing support.
