Freeman v. Smith, 324 Ga. App. 426

Smith, a former Albany State University administrator, was terminated in May 2011 by Freeman and Ojemakinde after a failing performance period and a May 2011 meeting; she claimed due process violations and whistleblower retaliation, and she asserted a Board of Regents breach of contract.
She was hired April 2009 as interim associate vice president for research and sponsored programs, later offered noninterim status in October 2009 under an appointment letter stating the position was “at the pleasure of the President” and subject to annual renewals.
The appointment letter did not specify a definite term; the court treated the language as at-will employment despite references to annual renewals.
Ojemakinde, as Smith’s supervisor, implemented a performance improvement plan in early 2011 and an unfavorable annual evaluation in March 2011, preceding her May 2011 dismissal.
Smith appealed to the Board of Regents, which affirmed the termination; she sued Freeman, Ojemakinde, and the Board, alleging due process violations, contract breach, and whistleblower retaliation.
The trial court denied summary judgment to all parties; on appeal, the court reversed some denials and granted summary judgment to the Board on whistleblower and contract claims, and to all defendants on due process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board is entitled to summary judgment on whistleblower retaliation.	Smith argues disclosures of federal grant violations were protected.	Board contends no causal link between disclosures and adverse action.	Yes; no causal link shown; Board entitled to summary judgment.
Whether Smith had a contract, and if so, whether termination breached it.	Appointment letter created a justified expectation of continued employment.	Language shows at-will employment.	Assuming a contract, employment was at will.
Whether Smith had a protected property interest entitling due process rights.	Termination without hearing violated due process.	As at-will employee, no property interest.	No due process violation; defendants entitled to summary judgment.

Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga., 311 Ga. App. 155 (Ga. App. 2011) (summary judgment framework for employment claims)
Jones v. Bd. of Regents of Ga. Univ. Sys., 262 Ga. App. 75 (Ga. App. 2003) (burden-shifting framework and proof requirements for retaliation claims)
Forrester v. Ga. Dept. of Human Svcs., 308 Ga. App. 716 (Ga. App. 2011) (adoption of McDonnell Douglas framework in whistleblower cases (discussed))
Pennington v. City of Huntsville, 261 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (causal connection elements for retaliation claims)
Higdon v. Jackson, 393 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2004) (causal proximity emphasized in timing of protected activity and adverse action)
Clark County School Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. 2001) (requirement of very close temporal proximity to establish causation)
Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) (three to four month gap not enough to prove causation without more)
Donnellon v. Fruehauf Corp., 794 F.2d 598 (11th Cir. 1986) (early limitation on causation evidence in retaliation cases)
Brown v. Alabama Dept. of Transp., 597 F.3d 1160 (11th Cir. 2010) (three-month interval with no additional evidence insufficient)
Spalding v. Southeastern Personnel of Atlanta, 222 Ga. 339 (Ga. 1966) (contractual interpretation context (inapposite to at-will analysis))