The City of Glennville’s “after the meeting meeting” may have violated Georgia’s Open Meetings Act, but the City and four elected officials say the lawsuit that followed should be dismissed on the basis that remarks made amounted to little more than name-calling.
The lawsuit was brought by Zuber Malek against the City of Glennville, Mayor Bernie Weaver, and council members Marcus H. Nobles III, Tammy Waters, and Gregory Janeczek back in July.
It followed an April 28, 2026 city council meeting and an ‘after the meeting meeting’ in which elected officials remained in council chambers to discuss various items, to include a fellow council member, city staff, citizens, and business owners, among other things. At times, they joked about violating state laws about quorums and open meetings.
During the discussions, the officials made statements about Malek, a business owner in Glennville and Tattnall County generally, referring to him as a ‘terrorist,’ presumably because of his Muslim faith. Notably, Malek was Weaver’s challenger in the mayoral race in 2023.
Malek “sought a public retraction and an apology that was rejected” before his lawsuit was filed in Tattnall County Superior Court. In it, he alleged slander per se, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and a violation of the Georgia Open Meetings Act. (Read more about the initial suit here)
Malek is represented by Brent Savage and Greg Gilluly of Savage Turner Pinckney Savage Sprouse & Gilluly.
Response from Elected Officials
Mayor Weaver and Council members Janeczek, Nobles, and Waters are collectively represented by Robert Luskin and Willie Black of Chartwell Law in Atlanta. They filed a response to the lawsuit on August 31.
Their response asks a judge to dismiss two of Malek’s three claims, arguing that allegedly referring to him as a “terrorist” and a “bad man” amounted to nonactionable name calling and opinion rather than legally actionable defamation.
Malek’s slander per se claim relies on two provisions of Georgia law: the suggestion of the commission of a crime and another that requires damage to someone’s trade or profession.
“[T]he alleged use of “terrorist,” considered in context, does not reasonably communicate a factual accusation that Plaintiff committed a criminal offense and does not, on its face, concern Plaintiff’s ability or competence in his trade or profession,” the response reads.
Malek’s suit alleges that elected officials referred to him as a “terrorist” during an after-the-meeting meeting in which he was also called a “bad man” and was the subject of a comment involving “holy water.”
Weaver, Janezeck, Nobles, and Waters argue that, when considering all of those things together, “terrorist” was being used as an insult or rhetorical hyperbole rather than as a literal accusation that Malek had committed terrorism. They claim a reasonable person would understand the word was “rhetorical abuse or name-calling,” not an accusation that Malek committed a prosecutable offense.
“”Terrorist” says nothing about Plaintiff’s skill, knowledge, competence, or ability to conduct his business. To get from the word to his profession, Plaintiff must supply the connection himself by arguing that the term “associates his business with terrorism.” That is innuendo, and the per se analysis does not allow it. The words must be injurious on their face, without extrinsic explanation.”
The response also says that the “alleged remarks were not directed at [Malek] and in any event, do not constitute the extreme and outrageous conduct required to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
“The distress must be severe – so severe that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it. Plaintiff alleges “humiliation” and generalized distress. That is a conclusion, not a fact, and it does not meet the standard.”
Response from City of Glennville
The City of Glennville as a government entity is represented by Tracy O’Connell and Laney Tuten of Ellis Painter in Savannah, a litigation firm* outsourced to handle the suit. The response for the City was also filed on August 31.
The City said following an inquiry by the Georgia Attorney General’s Office in May, it responded and acknowledged that the discussions after the April 28 meeting violated the Open Meetings Act. The City said an apology was offered and indicated that steps would be taken to prevent similar incidents in the future. The City claims the request for relief is, therefore, moot because no further action can be taken.
Notably, the letter referred to the Open Meetings Act violations as an “oversight” and “unintentional.”
Otherwise, the City asked a superior court judge to dismiss the suit, citing sovereign immunity and a legal requirement for the city to be named exclusively in the suit. Essentially, the City argues that Malek has to either sue the city or sue the council members, but he cannot sue both.
The City also cited Avery v. Paulding County Airport Authority, in which taxpayers sought a declaration from the court that a government entity had violated the Open Meetings Act. In that case, the City of Glennville said, the Georgia Court of Appeals concluded declaratory relief was inappropriate where the plaintiffs sought to punish a past violation and prevent future violations when they did not have uncertainty about their own legal rights.
What’s Next
No action has been taken by the court on either motion to dismiss and, as of publishing, there is no hearing scheduled. The case has been assigned to Superior Court Judge Brad Dixon, who was appointed to the bench by Governor Brian Kemp last month.
For now, the filings represent only the defendants’ requests for dismissal, and Malek’s allegations remain pending before the court.
*Andrew Johnson of Arnold & Stafford is the city attorney for day-to-day matters
