Georgia Professional Standards Commission v. James
327 Ga. App. 810
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Joey Dewayne James, principal at Southside Middle School, was accused by a paraprofessional of sexual touching and harassment and of pressuring her to "squash" the complaint. Police and Georgia Association of Educators investigated; James received two suspensions and was criminally charged (misdemeanor sexual battery).
- The Georgia Professional Standards Commission (PSC) issued a Statement of Matters Asserted (SMA) charging violations of PSC Rule 505-6-.01(3)(j) and notified James of a hearing to revoke his teaching certificate.
- An administrative law judge (ALJ) found by a preponderance of the evidence that James engaged in sexual harassment and sexual battery of a subordinate and pressured her to withdraw the complaint, concluding revocation was warranted based on the egregious nature of his conduct; the PSC adopted the ALJ’s decision and revoked his certificate.
- James sought judicial review in superior court, which reversed, holding the SMA did not provide notice that the PSC would rely on James’s administrative suspensions as part of its revocation rationale.
- The PSC appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reviewed whether the superior court properly substituted its judgment and whether James received adequate notice under the APA/constitutional due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (James) | Defendant's Argument (PSC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SMA provided constitutionally adequate notice of the charges | SMA was insufficient because it did not notify James that revocation could be predicated on his administrative suspensions | SMA detailed specific allegations of sexual contact, harassment, and pressure to "squash" the complaint, providing sufficient notice of the wrongdoing alleged | Court held the SMA was sufficiently specific; James had adequate notice under the APA/due process |
| Whether the superior court properly reversed the ALJ under the APA "any evidence" standard | Superior court erred by relying on absence of notice about suspensions and substituting its view for the agency | Superior court ignored that the record contained any evidence supporting the ALJ/PSC findings and improperly substituted its judgment | Court held superior court erred; appellate review is confined to whether any evidence supports the agency's final decision |
| Whether the ALJ relied on the suspensions as an integral basis for revocation | Suspensions were integral to the ALJ's rationale, so lack of notice was prejudicial | While suspensions were noted, the ALJ’s primary basis was the unprofessional/egregious sexual misconduct itself | Court held suspensions were not integral; revocation rested on proven sexual harassment/battery and egregious conduct |
| Whether revocation was supported by evidence of rule violations | James argued due process and notice defects made revocation invalid | PSC argued substantial evidence proved violations of PSC rules (unethical conduct) | Court held the evidence supported the ALJ’s finding that James violated PSC Rule 505-6-.01(3)(j) and justified revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Davane v. Thurmond, 300 Ga. App. 474 (explaining appellate review limits to whether any evidence supports administrative findings)
- Professional Standards Comm. v. Smith, 257 Ga. App. 418 (describing superior court’s limited role under the APA)
- Gee v. Professional Practices Comm., 268 Ga. 491 (procedural due process required before revoking a teaching certificate)
- Swafford v. Dade County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 646 (notice must be specific enough to inform employee of the substantial nature of the charge)
- Ga. Public Svc. Comm. v. Alltel Ga. Communications Corp., 244 Ga. App. 645 (requirements for SMA and specificity of notice)
- MXenergy, Inc. v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 310 Ga. App. 630 (statutory grounds for superior court reversal under APA)