Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System
311 Ga. App. 155
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Caldon worked as an administrative assistant at Macon State College (1993–1997) and for President Bell (1997–2008).
- She prepared Bell’s monthly leave reports, which Bell reviewed and signed, and she questioned his leave-reporting accuracy beginning in 2006.
- In 2008 Caldon raised concerns about under-reporting of Bell’s leave; in September 2008 she noted to Bell that he should complete his own personal leave reports.
- Caldon contends she engaged in whistleblowing by reporting Bell’s leave practices, a conflict of interest, and other conduct; Bell’s behavior toward her changed after her disclosures.
- On September 24, 2008 Caldon had a confrontational exchange with Bell, after which Bell terminated her employment; Caldon initially resigned but later sought review of termination.
- The Board moved for summary judgment, asserting Caldon’s termination was based on insubordination, and the trial court granted summary judgment for the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Caldon’s termination for whistleblower retaliation? | Caldon contends motive is contested fact. | Board asserts termination for insubordination, supported by direct evidence. | Summary judgment affirmed; no triable issue on pretext. |
| Did Caldon engage in whistleblowing activity under OCGA 45-1-4? | Activities alleged (leave reporting, conflicts, attendance at functions) constitute whistleblowing. | Pretermitted but ultimately dispositive only to the extent of showing insubordination; not a jury question on motive. | Court treats whistleblowing activity as potentially relevant but upholds judgment on basis of insubordination. |
| Can circumstantial evidence create a fact issue on the employer’s motive when direct evidence exists? | Temporal proximity and post-incident behavior suggest pretext. | Temporal proximity alone is insufficient where direct evidence shows it was for insubordination. | Not sufficient to overcome direct evidence of insubordination; no factual issue on motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 262 Ga.App. 75 (2003) (establishes framework for analyzing whistleblower retaliation under OCGA § 45-1-4)
- Forrester v. Ga. Dept. of Human Svcs., 308 Ga. App. 716 (2011) (discusses summary judgment standard in whistleblower claims)
- McNorton v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 619 F.Supp.2d 1360 (2007) (illustrates evaluating motive with circumstantial evidence in pretext showings)
- Furlong v. Dyal, 246 Ga.App. 122 (2000) (discusses circumstantial-evidence considerations in retaliation analyses)
- Jones v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga. (alternative pin cited in notes), 262 Ga.App. 81 (2003) (discusses direct vs. circumstantial evidence in retaliation cases)