Joiner v. Glenn
288 Ga. 208
Ga.2010Background
- Glenn, former chief of police, sued Joiner, Jefferson's mayor, city council members, and the city manager for alleged liberty interest violation due to denial of a name-clearing hearing after termination.
- Glenn sought damages under OCGA § 36-33-4 and the Georgia Constitution's due process clause, claiming the hearing denial was 'without authority of law.'
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mandamus was an available procedural remedy to cure the denial, which the trial court denied; interlocutory appeal followed.
- The Court assessed whether the adequate state remedy doctrine applies to a liberty interest claim for damages under OCGA § 36-33-4, drawing on Camden County v. Haddock and Cotton v. Jackson.
- The majority held that a writ of mandamus is a procedural remedy that cures the failure to provide a name-clearing hearing, making the 36-33-4 damages claim precluded by the adequate state remedy doctrine.
- The dissent argued Glenn's claim is not a procedural due process claim precluded by the doctrine, and that the 36-33-4 action remains viable; the court reversed the judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the adequate state remedy doctrine bar OCGA § 36-33-4 damages for denial of a name-clearing hearing? | Glenn | Joiner/City | Yes for majority; doctrine bars unless ministerial-duty remedies are non-constitutional. |
| Is mandamus a cure for the denial of a name-clearing hearing in this context? | Glenn | Joiner/City | Yes; mandamus provides the adequate procedural remedy, precluding damages claim. |
| Should Glenn's claim be treated as a procedural due process claim to invoke the adequate state remedy doctrine? | Glenn | Joiner/City | No; Glenn's complaint seeks damages under 36-33-4 for failure to perform a ministerial duty, not a constitutional due process claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Camden County v. Haddock, 271 Ga. 664 (1999) (adequate state remedy doctrine governs procedural due process claims under state constitution)
- Cotton v. Jackson, 216 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2000) (mandamus can cure reputational due process claims; adequate procedures matter)
- Brewer v. Schacht, 235 Ga. App. 313 (1998) (deprivation of reputational liberty elements; name-clearing context)
- City of Buford v. Ward, 212 Ga. App. 752 (1994) (ministerial duty and damages under OCGA § 36-33-4)
- Gilbert v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 744 (1994) (damages for failure to perform ministerial duties recognized)
- Gaskins v. Hand, 219 Ga. App. 823 (1996) (OCGA § 36-33-4 actions; ministerial duties context)
- Reese v. City of Atlanta, 261 Ga. App. 761 (2003) (OCGA § 36-33-4 damages; ministerial duty application)
- Atlanta City School Dist. v. Dowling, 266 Ga. 217 (1996) (adequate state remedy doctrine applicable to procedural due process under federal constitution)