Drury Inn & Suites Atlanta South received an A, scoring 92 out of 100, in a Clayton County food-service inspection on Oct 8, 2026. The official report lists two findings. [1]
The report states: “PIC could not produce in a verifiable manner documentation of employees knowledge to inform of a foodborne illnesses.” [2]
The inspector also observed no inspection report displayed in the food service area. [3]
Two findings are marked as repeat violations. [4]
Showing 2 of 2 findings
PIC could not produce in a verifiable manner documentation of employees knowledge to inform of a foodborne illnesses. CA:Food employees and conditional employees are informed in a verifiable manner of their responsibility to report information about their health and activities as they relate to diseases that are transmissible through food.
Code 511-6-1.03(2)(o)
PIC could not produce in a verifiable manner documentation of employees knowledge to inform of a foodborne illnesses. CA:Food employees and conditional employees are informed in a verifiable manner of their responsibility to report information about their health and activities as they relate to diseases that are transmissible through food. Repeat Violation. Correct By: 10/18/2026Official report · Item 2-2A ↗
Correct by
Observed no inspection report displayed in the food service area. CA: The most current inspection report shall be prominently displayed in public view at all times.
Code 511-6-1.02(1)(d)
Observed no inspection report displayed in the food service area. CA: The most current inspection report shall be prominently displayed in public view at all times. Repeat Violation. Correct By: 10/11/2026Official report · Item 13A ↗
Correct by
Correction and repeat labels quote the report. An absent label leaves correction status unknown; a deadline does not confirm a correction.
Clayton County · Oct 8, 2026
02 / Same facility ↗Official inspection historyAvailable records for this official facility
03 / How scoring works ↗Georgia’s food-service rulesScores and findings describe the dated inspection, not current operating conditions. A correction deadline does not establish whether an issue remained unresolved afterward.
Findings quote the official report captured . “Corrected on site” and “repeat” reflect explicit report markers. “COS” and “CA” in the inspector’s notes refer to corrections and corrective actions; an instruction to act is not proof that it was completed.
History links the same official facility ID within the issuing authority and may omit intervening inspections. Same-day results have no inferred sequence. Report excerpts follow source order, not a severity ranking.
This report comes from Clayton County. History includes only this authority’s exact facility ID.
Checked