Albers v. Georgia Board of Regents of the University System
330 Ga. App. 58
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Christopher Albers served as chief of police at Georgia Perimeter College (GPC) from March 2005 until termination effective December 11, 2009; he sued under Georgia's Whistleblower Statute alleging retaliation for objecting to administrative interference in criminal investigations.
- In October 2008 a student’s laptop theft prompted a criminal investigation; administrators (including HR and the dean of student services) instructed Albers to seek reduction or dismissal of charges; Albers refused and told his supervisor that influencing the DA would be unethical.
- Albers and his deputy objected to a concurrent HR investigation into the laptop incident, and Albers consulted an assistant district attorney who indicated the HR inquiry was improper; Albers continued to object to administrative interference in investigations.
- Relations between public safety and administration deteriorated; GPC disciplined Albers in June 2009 over beer-grain deliveries and suspended him; Carruth told him on June 25, 2009 to resign or be terminated and later sought a Letter of Understanding proposing a December 31, 2009 end date, which Albers refused.
- On November 19, 2009 Albers received a termination letter effective December 11, 2009; he sued on November 10, 2010 alleging retaliatory termination in violation of OCGA § 45-1-4.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on grounds that (1) no protected whistleblowing, (2) no causation, (3) legitimate reasons for termination, and (4) statute of limitations barred the claim; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Albers engaged in protected whistleblowing under OCGA § 45-1-4 | Albers objected to administration attempting to influence a criminal prosecution and to HR’s improper investigation — conduct he reasonably believed obstructed justice | Defendants say objections were speculative/future concerns not protected | Reversed: evidence (including ADA advice) supports that Albers objected to ongoing activity he reasonably believed violated law, so factual dispute exists on protected activity |
| Whether there is causal connection between protected activity and termination | Albers says termination followed sustained objections and deteriorating relations caused by the laptop incident | Defendants rely on time gap and assert termination due to legitimate performance/insubordination and beer-grain issue | Reversed: causation is broadly construed; testimony ties deterioration from laptop incident to termination, creating triable issue |
| Whether defendants offered legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for termination | Albers contends stated reasons are pretext and linked to whistleblowing conflicts with HR | Defendants point to insubordination, poor management, beer-grain conduct as legitimate reasons | Reversed: reasonable juror could find protected activity drove the adverse decision despite other asserted reasons |
| Whether the claim was time-barred under OCGA § 45-1-4(e)(1) (one-year after discovering retaliation) | Albers contends discovery occurred when he received the November 19, 2009 termination letter and sued within one year | Defendants argue discovery occurred earlier (June/August 2009) when Carruth threatened termination or offered the Letter of Understanding | Reversed: accrual occurs when plaintiff could first have maintained a successful action; here termination was not definitive until the November 19 letter, so the one-year period had not begun earlier |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 311 Ga. App. 155 (court described elements and summary judgment framework in whistleblower suits)
- Forrester v. Ga. Dept. of Human Svcs., 308 Ga. App. 716 (framework for establishing causation and prima facie elements under OCGA § 45-1-4)
- Freeman v. Smith, 324 Ga. App. 426 (discussion of timing and causation in whistleblower claims)
- Jones v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 262 Ga. App. 75 (circumstantial evidence may support inference of retaliatory termination)
- Tuttle v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 326 Ga. App. 350 (held accrual when employee received clear notice of termination; distinguished on facts)
- Kendrick v. State, 324 Ga. App. 45 (obstruction of law enforcement is a jury question; cited in analyzing alleged illegal conduct)