🟠 Main Squeeze: A wage garnishment at Fort Pierce city hall has triggered a public dispute between the city manager and city attorney

A dispute between Fort Pierce's city manager and city attorney over how a wage garnishment was handled has spilled into the open, raising questions about whether a senior city employee was disciplined in potential violation of federal law and triggering further discussion among commissioners about who has authority over what inside city hall 🏛️.

Why it matters: Federal law, specifically 15 USC 1674, explicitly prohibits an employer from disciplining or terminating an employee because of a single wage garnishment. Violations carry penalties including fines and up to a year in jail. The question now before the Fort Pierce City Commission is whether that law was followed when the garnishment arrived at city hall earlier this month.

What the court records show 📋:

• 💳 JPMorgan Chase Bank obtained a final judgment against Johnna Morris, the City of Fort Pierce's finance director, on January 8, 2026 for $14,343.61
• 📄 A continuing writ of garnishment was served on the City of Fort Pierce on April 8, 2026, directing the city to begin withholding a portion of her wages
• ✅ The city filed its garnishee answer confirming her employment and began withholding $1,321.19 per pay period
• 📁 Those court records are public and available here

What happened inside city hall 🔍: According to what spilled out publicly at Monday night's commission meeting, after the garnishment arrived the city attorney raised concerns about it and a decision was made to suspend Morris. The city manager subsequently sought to consult the city's outside employment law attorney for a second legal opinion. The city attorney, through whose office that outside counsel is retained, either restricted or sought to be present on that call. The city manager pushed back, stating publicly that no one tells him who he can speak to.

Commissioner Chris Dzadovsky came to the meeting with a prepared packet of documents raising his concerns to what he called a very high level. He had already sent the city attorney a formal 12 question set on April 15th asking her to explain the legal basis for her recommendation, whether she was aware that federal law prohibits termination over a single garnishment, what financial information beyond the garnishment was reviewed, what legal authority exists for restricting the city manager from consulting outside counsel, and what the city's exposure would be if the action is deemed pretextual 👀.

Dzadovsky said directly at the meeting that his biggest concern was a statement from the city manager indicating he intended to exclude the city attorney's office from all employment matters going forward, calling it absolutely unacceptable and a step backward for the city.

What other commissioners said 🗣️: Commissioner Arnold Gaines cut to the heart of it, asking whether anyone knew about the federal law protecting employees before any decision was made. Commissioner Curtis Johnson called the situation a complete mess and said the charter officers are better than this. Commissioner Broderick said all legal matters fall under the city attorney's jurisdiction but acknowledged there is gray area that needs to be resolved through a charter review.

The city manager said publicly that he is a grown man, knows his role, has worked for five cities and two counties in Florida, and that no one tells him who he can speak to except the commission as his boss.

What's next: The commission agreed to come back together to address this dispute as a standalone agenda item, with May 4th being the target date, and commissioners made clear they want answers before that conversation happens 📅.

💬 What do you think about how this was handled? Tell us right here