This report presents a comprehensive, policy-aligned analysis of the performance evaluation dispute involving Jess Croya, Electrical Supervisor in Gwinnett County Government's Support Services Department, and his supervisor Brian Edward Greene.
| Area | Finding | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Post-Greene Evaluation Trend | Below-average ratings correlating specifically with Brian Greene's supervision | High |
| Corroborating Witnesses | Angel Cortinas and Frank Lau both provide formal statements contradicting Brian Greene's characterization | High |
| 2024 PA Objective Data | Metrics show STRONG results (98.4% SLA, 4.97 survey, 86.3% utilization) yet rating suppresses compensation | High |
| Policy Compliance | Multiple violations of CA HR Policy Chapter 3 and Merit System Rules Chapter II identified | High |
| Documentation Standards | Brian Greene failed to provide written clarification of PA expectations despite repeated requests | High |
| Career & Compensation | Ratings directly impact pay-for-performance increases under §306.000 | High Impact |
Core Issue: A supervisor cannot simultaneously acknowledge these metrics while rating the employee below expectations without specific, documented justification for the discrepancy.
| Full Name | Clifford E. "Jess" Croya |
| Title | Trades Supervisor (Electrical Supervisor) |
| Grade / Class Code | B32 / 7429 (Salary Range: $54,288–$86,861) |
| Department | Support Services — Operations & Maintenance Division |
| Date of Hire | March 18, 2013 |
| Years of Service | 13+ years |
| Work Location | 75 Langley Dr, Lawrenceville, GA 30046 |
| Required Competency | Evidence of Proficiency |
|---|---|
| Supervisory principles | Manages team achieving 98.4% SLA, 4.97 customer satisfaction |
| Budgetary principles | Completed 5 library LED projects within budget after bids came in over |
| Inspection/troubleshooting | Proactively added electrical panel thermal scans to budget |
| Preventative maintenance | Team achieves 98.4% PM SLA completion rate |
| Installation principles | Led Galaxy security system installation across multiple facilities |
| Communication | 349 "Excellent" customer survey responses out of 355 total |
Review Period: 03/28/2023 to 03/27/2024 | Supervisor: Brian Edward Greene
| Goal | Target | Actual | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Routine SR within SLA | ≥98% | 98.4% | Exceeds |
| Small project requests within SLA | ≥95% | 93% | Slightly Below (2pts) |
| Enhancement requests within SLA | ≥98% | 98.6% | Exceeds |
| Employee utilization rate | ≥80% | 86.3% | Exceeds |
| Customer satisfaction | ≥4.95 | 4.97 | Exceeds |
| PM completion rate | ≥90% | 98.4% | Exceeds |
Analysis: Jess met or exceeded 5 of 6 measurable objectives. The single shortfall (93% vs. 95%) represents a 2-percentage-point variance. This profile strongly supports "Generally Meets" to "Often Exceeds."
| Attribute | Brian Greene's Comment | Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Decision Making | "Jess is proactive in scheduling work outside business hours. Added thermal scans to budget." | Positive |
| Communication | "Clear and concise... At times, his tone and communication can be perceived as harsh. Must work on word choice and tone." | Vague — No incidents cited |
| Leadership | "Drives performance... Must focus on leading the team and promoting proper adherence to all County policies." | Vague — No specifics |
| Planning | "Aligned staff capabilities with needs of assigned sites — driving factor in high SLA and survey scores." | Positive |
| Staff Development | "Provides training in regular team meetings. Must encourage team members to take training courses." | Minor note |
Brian Greene's own comments acknowledge strong SLA performance, proactive scheduling, effective staff alignment, and hands-on management — yet the overall tone of the evaluation suppresses Jess's rating. The negative comments ("tone can be perceived as harsh," "must focus on leading") cite no specific incidents, dates, or witnesses, violating the requirement for objective criteria under §303.000(2).
The following chart plots Jess Croya's documented performance data across five evaluation cycles. Brian Greene became Jess's supervisor in the 2022–2023 cycle. The chart reveals a defining pattern: supervisor language escalated to its harshest while customer satisfaction reached its highest — an inverse relationship that is the hallmark of pretextual evaluation.
As Brian Greene's supervisory negative characterizations escalated from "tone can be perceived as harsh" (2024 PA) to "adopts a drill sergeant demeanor" + "bypassed chain of command" (2026 PA), Jess Croya's customer satisfaction score improved from 4.97 → 4.99 and Excellent survey responses increased from 349 → 382. An inverse relationship between escalating supervisory criticism and improving objective performance is the hallmark of pretextual, bad-faith evaluation.
| Cycle | Brian's Negative Language | Customer Satisfaction | Excellent Surveys |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023–24 | "Tone can be perceived as harsh" | 4.97 / 5.0 | 349 |
| 2025–26 | "Drill sergeant demeanor" + "Bypassed chain of command" | 4.99 / 5.0 ▲ | 382 ▲ |
Source Document: evidence/20260429102627291.pdf — Scanned original, uploaded April 29, 2026 | Review Period: March 28, 2025 – March 27, 2026 | Final Rating: 47 / 22 = 2.14 (Generally Meets)
| Objective | Target | Actual | Status | Context |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Routine SR within SLA | ≥98% | 96.4% | Below (−1.6%) | Galaxy system delays consumed capacity |
| Small project requests within SLA | ≥95% | 94.2% | Slightly below (−0.8%) | Marginal miss |
| Enhancement requests within SLA | ≥98% | 89.2% | Below (−8.8%) | UPS battery process, Galaxy recovery consumed team bandwidth |
| Employee utilization rate | ≥80% | 78.88% | Slightly below (−1.12%) | Marginal miss |
| Customer satisfaction quality | ≥4.0 on 100% | 382 Excellent, 5 Good | Exceeds — 98.7% Excellent | Highest recorded — IMPROVED from 2024 |
| Weighted customer satisfaction | ≥4.95 | 4.99 | Exceeds — Record High | IMPROVED from 4.97 in 2024 |
Critical Note: The metrics that declined (SLA, utilization) are directly traceable to documented systemic disruptions caused by Brian Greene's management failures — Galaxy system delays (Angel Cortinas documentation) and 911 Center UPS authorization refusal (6-month email chain). The metrics Jess controls directly (customer satisfaction) improved.
| Comment | Violation | Counter-Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Communication: "At times, his tone and communication can be perceived as harsh. He must continue to work on word choice and tone." | §303.000(2) Same vague assertion — 2nd consecutive year; no specific incident, date, or recipient cited in either year | 382/387 Excellent surveys; McCarty: "directive, not harsh"; Tippens: "deeply committed" |
| RETALIATION: "Jess has bypassed normal communications by going directly to upper management with issues, which were not emergencies." | §210.100(4-5) §420.000(#28) — Explicit retaliation; escalations were documented safety failures Brian refused to address; Police Dept was inquiring; 911 certification at risk | UPS email chain (May–Nov 2025); Galaxy Cortinas statement; Brian rated Jess "Often Exceeds" for proactively identifying issues in the same PA |
| Supervisory Skills: "Jess adopts a drill sergeant demeanor with his team. Jess must improve his communication style... Everyone must be treated with respect." | §303.000(2) Language escalated from "tone can be harsh" to "drill sergeant" — more extreme, still zero specific incidents; escalation without new evidence | Tippens: "combines high accountability with deep respect"; Frank Lau: "dedicated leader who fosters growth"; 4.99/5.0 customer satisfaction |
In the same 2026 PA that contains "drill sergeant" and "bypassed chain of command," Brian Greene also wrote:
| Brian's Negative Comment | Brian's Own Positive in the Same PA | Contradiction |
|---|---|---|
| "Bypassed normal communications" | Rated 3 — Often Exceeds: "Jess uses his knowledge to proactively identify issues before they arise" | DIRECT — Cannot penalize the escalation of issues while rating "Often Exceeds" for proactively identifying them |
| "Drill sergeant demeanor with his team" | "Jess is very hands on with his team and meets regularly with them to discuss challenges and safety topics" | DIRECT — An engaged supervisor who holds regular safety meetings is not a drill sergeant |
| "Must improve communication style" | Rated 3 — Often Exceeds for Organizational/Planning: "Plans out items well in advance, ensuring proper coverage throughout the County" | INCONSISTENT — Cannot simultaneously excel at cross-team planning and have counterproductive communication |
Source: Email — "Jobs/Galaxy/Lighting" (April 9, 2026, Jess to Dave)
"During the discussion [Construction Manager interview], I was outlining several projects I have completed while serving Gwinnett County. When the library projects were mentioned, Morry stated that Brian had completed those jobs. I clarified that Brian handled the administrative and paperwork aspects, while the execution and delivery of the projects were led by me."
"The library projects initially went out to bid and returned significantly over budget. I became directly involved and worked alongside Ron Gainer to walk each facility, take light readings, and develop specifications... which ultimately allowed us to complete all five buildings within the approved budget."
Impact: Brian Greene communicated to upper management that he completed projects actually executed by Jess Croya. This directly undermined Jess's professional reputation and candidacy for promotion.
Sources: Email — "2024 P-CARD" (April 9, 2026) + Angel Cortinas Statement (April 14, 2026)
"Angel and Jeremy were directed by Brian Greene to purchase Galaxy-related parts. Brian provided explicit instructions, along with a reference note containing the purchase number. These instructions were given in person, in the bullpen, where both Frank and I were present and witnessed the conversation." — Jess Croya
"I was acting under direct instruction from Brian Greene to use my procurement card for a specific transaction. However, I was later reprimanded by Zach Churney, who also confiscated my procurement card." — Angel Cortinas
Impact: Brian directed subordinates to make purchases, then allowed them to be disciplined without accepting accountability.
Source: Email — "Communication" (April 9, 2026, Jess to Dave)
"Brian texted and asked me to call him after my class. He stated that he needed Frank to attend a weeklong maintenance class in May... Brian then stated he needed a decision by 5:00 p.m. that same day."
"I advised that I would not contact Frank at home and place him under pressure to make an immediate decision."
"This has been ongoing pattern of short-notice requests and unproper planning from Brian for past 3 years now."
Source: Scanned email chains (May–November 2025)
Brian (11/6/2025): "You didn't send me either of these EOLA battery replacements last year when we were putting together our budgets and we don't have the funds."
Jess (11/7/2025): "On September 30, 2025, you were notified regarding the fan issues at the 911 Center... The RFP was resubmitted by Marie... 911 Center operates under national certification standards. The Police Department has inquired multiple times as to why it has not yet been resolved."
"In 2025, we held a meeting to address ongoing issues with the Galaxy system, specifically the significant delays in receiving panic alarms. This delay presents a serious safety risk to both the public and employees during emergency situations." — Angel Cortinas
"Brian stated that I, Angel, was responsible for not addressing the problem. However, the proposed solution had been communicated to him on multiple occasions, and no action was taken." — Angel Cortinas
"I met with Brian and explained what took place that Sunday morning at the 911 Center. His response surprised me — it was not what I expected from a section manager. He told me I shouldn't have been there during the shutdown. His words made me feel small and like I wasn't capable." — Frank Lau
Date: April 14, 2026 | Subject: Formal Documentation of Accountability Concerns
Date: April 8, 2026 | Subject: My conversation with Brian Greene - 911 Center 01.12.2026
| Dimension | Brian Greene's Characterization | Evidence | Discrepancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Work Quality | Below-average tone in evaluations | 98.4% SLA, 4.97 customer satisfaction | MAJOR |
| Communication | "Tone perceived as harsh" | 349/355 Excellent customer surveys | MAJOR |
| Leadership | "Must focus on leading the team" | Team achieves top SLA rates | MAJOR |
| Accountability | Implied Jess failed on budget | Email chain proves Brian was notified | MAJOR |
| Initiative | Goals rated below expectations | Proactive thermal scans, Galaxy recovery, library budget solutions | MAJOR |
Two primary policy documents govern this matter:
Per Merit Rules §110.350: "In the event of a conflict between the Merit System Rules and any policy of Gwinnett County... the Merit System Rules shall prevail."
"The EPAS provides for an objective and consistent system for providing specific feedback on job related performance... employees should have a clear understanding of what is expected."
| Policy Requirement | Violation | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| "Based upon job-related criteria" | Below-average ratings where objective metrics show strong performance | PA data vs. SLA metrics |
| "Objective and consistent system" | Subjective criticisms ("tone perceived as harsh") without specific instances | PA comments — no dates, witnesses, or incidents |
| "Clear understanding of what is expected" | Jess requested written clarification 4/29/2024 and 5/1/2024 — no response | Email evidence |
| "On-going day-to-day feedback" | No evidence of progressive feedback prior to annual evaluation | Absence of documentation |
"The supervisor and employee should make every effort to agree on the actual tasks performed, their relative importance, and the performance standards and measurements to be used."
Violation: Jess twice requested written clarification of expectations. No documented response was provided. This constitutes failure to "make every effort to agree on performance standards."
"The performance appraisal document shall enumerate the performance indicators relevant to the employee and shall indicate a rating based upon objective criteria."
Violation: Negative comments are not based on objective criteria:
"Supervisors shall create an employee development plan based upon the ratings contained in the document."
Assessment: An IDP was included listing LinkedIn Learning courses. However, one 1-hour course on communication is not proportionate to an evaluation that suppresses pay.
"Pay for performance compensation is contingent upon the final rating score. A final rating score reflecting unsatisfactory performance shall render the employee ineligible for pay for performance and may subject the employee to demotion and/or termination."
Impact: Below-average ratings directly and materially affect compensation. If based on non-objective criteria in violation of §303.000, the pay suppression is an adverse action founded on a procedurally deficient evaluation.
| Policy Section | Requirement | Status |
|---|---|---|
| §301.000 | Objective criteria and specific performance ratings | VIOLATED |
| §301.000 | Clear understanding of expectations | VIOLATED |
| §301.000 | On-going day-to-day feedback | VIOLATED |
| §303.000(1) | Agreement on tasks, standards, measurements | VIOLATED |
| §303.000(2) | Rating based upon objective criteria | VIOLATED |
| §303.000(5) | Development plan based on ratings | PARTIAL |
| §303.000(6) | Upper-level review and consensus | UNVERIFIED |
| §306.000 | Pay linked to objective appraisal | AT RISK |
§210.000: "The most effective accomplishment of the work of Gwinnett County requires prompt consideration and equitable adjudication of employee grievances."
§250.000: "No supervisor shall deny any employee the right to take the complaint to the next step... Employee's job status shall not be threatened or changed because of the initiation of a grievance."
| Impact Area | Description | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Annual merit increase | Employees not meeting expectations are ineligible for full PFP increase | Material |
| Step progression | Must meet expectations for step increase per §306.100 | Direct |
| Cumulative earnings | Each year of suppressed increase compounds over remaining career | Significant |
| Promotion eligibility | PA directly impacted candidacy for Construction Manager position | Direct |
| Professional reputation | Brian's claim to have completed Jess's library projects | Moderate |
| Risk | Assessment | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Safety liability | 911 Center UPS delays, Galaxy panic alarm delays — public safety compromised | Critical |
| Multi-employee grievance | Jess, Angel, Jeremy all have documented concerns about Brian Greene | High |
| Merit Board appeal | Strong grounds for formal appeal if PA leads to adverse action | High |
| Procurement irregularity | Brian directed P-Card use then let subordinates be disciplined | Moderate |
| Employee morale | Frank Lau's statement indicates broader morale degradation | Moderate |
Under Merit Rules §350.200, Gwinnett County employees seeking promotion or transfer receive second priority in filling vacancies — a structural advantage. However, the PA record created by Brian Greene systematically undermines this advantage by embedding unsubstantiated negative characterizations that any hiring department director would review.
| PA Year | Official Record (as Filed) | Missing Context |
|---|---|---|
| 2023–24 | "Generally Meets"; tone perceived as harsh; must lead properly; must encourage training | 5 of 6 objectives met including 98.4% SLA; customer satisfaction 4.97/5.0; requests for written goal clarification went unanswered |
| 2024–25 | XFA format; presumed "Generally Meets"; likely similar criticisms | Cross-departmental commendation from Charles Welch (Section Manager); Galaxy project revival led by Jess |
| 2025–26 | "Generally Meets" (2.14); tone harsh; drill sergeant demeanor; bypassed chain of command | Customer satisfaction 4.99/5.0 — highest ever; escalations were documented safety failures; Brian Greene refused action for 6+ months; Police Dept. was inquiring |
| Impact Area | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Merit increases (2024–2026) | Two consecutive years suppressed under §306.000 based on non-objective ratings | Active — 2 Years |
| Construction Manager candidacy | Credit misappropriation by Brian Greene compromised Jess's candidacy with interviewer Morry | Already Occurred |
| Future internal applications | Any posting Jess applies for will be evaluated against 3 years of unsubstantiated negative characterizations | Ongoing — Every Application |
| Transfer approval risk | §530.200 requires releasing dept. approval; negative PA narrative may influence that decision | Active Risk |
| Permanent file record | "Drill sergeant" and "bypassed chain" comments exist permanently unless corrected via §305.000 | Requires §305 Action |
The 2024 PA documents metrics — 98.4% SLA, 98.6% enhancement SLA, 86.3% utilization, 4.97/5.0 customer satisfaction — demonstrating performance meeting or exceeding all established targets. Below-average narrative assessments lack quantitative support. This violates §303.000(2).
Two written requests (April 29 and May 1, 2024) for specific PA expectations went unanswered. This violates §301.000 and §303.000(1).
Multiple documented instances where Brian Greene failed to act (UPS batteries, Galaxy alarms, P-Card authorization), then attributed responsibility to subordinates, creating pretextual basis for negative evaluations.
Angel Cortinas and Frank Lau independently documented the same supervisory conduct concerns. Their statements were filed without coordination, strengthening credibility.
During Jess's Construction Manager interview, Morry stated Brian "completed" library projects that Jess actually executed — directly prejudicing candidacy.
The totality of evidence demonstrates that Brian Greene's performance evaluations of Jess Croya:
This case warrants immediate formal HR review and potential referral to the Merit System Board.
Request formal meeting with Brian Greene (copy HR), citing specific policy sections and requesting:
Submit formal request for HR review citing evaluation inconsistency, policy violations, corroborating evidence, credit misappropriation, and safety concerns. Attach all compiled evidence.
Per Merit Rules §240.000:
⚠ CRITICAL: All appeals must be filed within 7 calendar days of each decision.
Enter the upload key to access the evidence repository upload system.