Two former Columbus County sheriff’s deputies say the department denied Black employees promotions, applied discipline unevenly and retaliated against people who raised concerns about discrimination.
The allegations are now in formal complaints before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They are not findings of wrongdoing, and the Columbus County Sheriff’s Office denies discriminating or retaliating against either employee.
That distinction matters. So does the history hanging over the department.
Former deputies Destiny Curby and Colborn Antoine Freeman filed their EEOC complaints during Sheriff Bill Rogers’ administration, roughly three years after Columbus County resolved an earlier racial-discrimination lawsuit tied to former Sheriff Jody Greene. The earlier case ended in a $500,000 settlement, including $300,000 from the county’s general fund.
Now the same office faces new allegations from two former employees who say the leadership changed but the treatment did not.
Curby says she was repeatedly passed over
Curby joined the sheriff’s office in 2023 and wanted to become a detective. According to WECT’s September 22 investigation, her EEOC filing says she was passed over for promotion nine times even after earning one of the stronger scores in the interview process.
The Border Belt Independent reported that Curby was told she had earned the second-highest score on a detective exam in early 2024. A detective nameplate was ordered for her, but the promotion never came. Her attorneys say nine white employees moved into the criminal-investigations division between April 2024 and August 2025.
Curby was named a corporal in January 2025, but she alleges the added responsibility came without added pay. She later says she was passed over for a shift-sergeant position and pressured to transfer into the civil division.
The sheriff’s office disputes her account. In a response to the EEOC, the office said the sheriff does not discriminate and did not retaliate against Curby. The county’s response also accused her of failing to perform her duties during two incidents. Curby’s attorneys contest those claims.
Curby went on medical leave and was fired in March 2026. She has since joined the Fairmont Police Department.
Freeman alleges a demotion and a roughly $25,000 pay cut
Freeman began working for the Columbus County Sheriff’s Office in 2015. He rose through the ranks to patrol lieutenant and later became the agency’s accreditation manager, responsible for helping the office meet professional standards.
His complaint says he repeatedly raised concerns beginning in 2024 about the treatment of nonwhite officers, including promotion decisions that allegedly favored less-qualified white employees with personal or family connections to leadership.
Freeman alleges he was reassigned to a bailiff position in June 2025 and that his salary fell from about $72,000 to just under $50,000. His filing says he was told the sheriff could do what he wanted when he asked why.
The sheriff’s office says Freeman was reassigned because he failed to complete work needed for the department’s accreditation effort. His attorneys dispute that explanation and cite a January 2025 performance review that they say showed he met or exceeded expectations.
Freeman went on medical leave and was fired March 30, 2026. His lawyers characterize the termination as retaliation and an effort to avoid his disability claim. The office denies retaliation.
The complaints describe unequal discipline and pressure to stay quiet
The filings go beyond two personnel decisions. Freeman’s attorneys allege the office tolerated serious policy violations by white officers while scrutinizing and punishing Black employees more harshly.
They also say Freeman received reports that current employees were warned against discussing possible discrimination or communicating with the EEOC and attorneys. Curby and Freeman further allege that other law-enforcement agencies were discouraged from hiring them.
Those are allegations, not established facts. But they are specific allegations that can be tested against records: promotion scores, pay tables, disciplinary files, accreditation assignments, performance reviews, internal messages and the treatment of similarly situated employees.
That is exactly why a blanket statement about professionalism cannot be the end of the public conversation.
The sheriff’s office says the complaints belong in the proper process
Rogers declined to discuss the pending complaints in detail. In a statement reported by WECT, he said they would be addressed through the proper legal and administrative processes and that the office remains committed to fairness, integrity and professionalism.
The office has asked that the complaints be dismissed.
An EEOC charge is not a ruling that discrimination occurred. The EEOC explains that a charge starts an administrative process in which the employer can submit a position statement and evidence, investigators can request records and interview witnesses, and both sides may pursue voluntary mediation.
At the end of an investigation, the EEOC may find reasonable cause to believe the law was violated and attempt conciliation. It may also close the charge without such a finding and issue a notice allowing the employee to pursue a lawsuit. Either way, filing a charge by itself proves neither the employee’s case nor the employer’s defense.
Federal law does, however, prohibit retaliation for participating in an EEOC proceeding. The agency says employees are also protected when they reasonably oppose workplace discrimination. That protection does not immunize an employee from legitimate discipline, but an employer cannot punish someone because they raised a discrimination concern.
A prior settlement makes the new allegations harder to dismiss as routine personnel drama
The Columbus County Sheriff’s Office has been here before.
In 2023, county commissioners settled former Sgt. Melvin Campbell’s federal lawsuit alleging that Greene fired him because he was Black. WECT reported that Columbus County paid $300,000 from its general fund while insurance covered the remainder. A later release of the settlement terms showed the total payment was $500,000.
The settlement did not establish liability. It did establish that the county and its insurer were willing to pay a substantial amount to end the case.
Campbell had been named in a recorded call in which Greene made racially charged statements about Black employees. The recording triggered intense public scrutiny and contributed to state and federal investigations. Greene resigned in January 2023.
Those investigations have moved slowly and largely outside public view. In February, the State Bureau of Investigation confirmed to WECT that its investigation remained active. No one had been indicted in connection with the broader inquiry as of the recent reporting.
The new EEOC complaints concern Rogers’ administration, not Greene’s. Treating one sheriff’s record as proof against another would be unfair. Pretending the agency’s recent history has no relevance would be equally unserious.
The unanswered question is whether the institution changed
Rogers took office promising improved morale and equal treatment. Curby and Freeman’s attorneys argue the new complaints show that replacing the person at the top did not erase the department’s culture.
That claim has not been proven. It can be investigated.
The public should eventually be able to see clear answers to basic questions:
- What objective criteria governed detective and supervisory promotions?
- How did Curby’s scores compare with the employees who received those positions?
- Why was Freeman given accreditation responsibility without the rank and pay his predecessor allegedly received?
- What unfinished accreditation work did the office identify, and when was Freeman told his performance was deficient?
- Were comparable policy violations disciplined consistently across employees?
- Did anyone warn employees against speaking with the EEOC or outside counsel?
- What reforms followed the Greene scandal and Campbell settlement, and how has the office measured whether they worked?
WECT’s September 24 follow-up reported that attorneys have heard from other current or former employees and that additional complaints could follow.
If that happens, each claim will still need evidence and each accused party will still deserve a fair chance to respond. Accountability does not require deciding the case before the records are examined. It requires making sure the records are examined at all.
The sheriff’s office says the process should be allowed to work. Fair enough. But after a half-million-dollar settlement and another round of formal complaints, “trust the process” is not a substitute for showing the public what the institution learned.
Continue reading Killjoy Media’s police accountability coverage.