Laskar v. Board of Regents of the University System
320 Ga. App. 414
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Laskar, a tenured Georgia Tech professor, faced dismissal following an internal audit alleging malfeasance and misappropriation of resources for Sayana Wireless, LLC.
- Georgia Tech initiated dismissal proceedings under the School’s faculty handbook and the Board’s policies; Laskar was suspended pending investigation.
- A Hearing Committee conducted a formal hearing; it found some charges proven but its findings were advisory, not binding on the president or Board.
- The Georgia Tech president eventually determined there was good cause to dismiss, revoking tenure and terminating employment, with the decision subject to Board review.
- Laskar appealed to the Board, which upheld the president’s dismissal; he then petitioned for certiorari in superior court, which dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The issue on appeal is whether certiorari is proper to review the president and Board’s administrative dismissal decision rather than a judicially bound adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether certiorari review was proper | Laskar contends certiorari jurisdiction existed to review a quasi-judicial decision. | Georgia Tech’s process was administrative, so certiorari is inappropriate. | Petition dismissed; approval of dismissal was administrative, not quasi-judicial. |
| Whether the Hearing Committee’s role rendered the process quasi-judicial | Hearing Committee findings were binding and thus quasi-judicial. | Committee findings were advisory; final decision rested with the president and Board. | Process was administrative; Hearing Committee was advisory, not judicial. |
| Whether the president’s final dismissal decision is judicial or administrative | Final decision follows formal findings resembling a judicial act. | Final decision is an executive action based on facts, not a binding judicial adjudication. | Final act is administrative; certiorari does not lie. |
| Availability of direct contract or due process remedies | Contract and tenure provisions provide a remedy other than certiorari. | The contract and state remedies do not require certiorari; due process claims could be raised in direct actions. | There are other judicial avenues, but certiorari jurisdiction remains unavailable here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 181 Ga. 75 (Ga. 1935) (administrative versus judicial action; final act determines nature of hearing)
- Goddard v. City of Albany, 285 Ga. 882 (Ga. 2009) (distinguishes judicial vs quasi-judicial powers based on process and notice)
- Mack II v. City of Atlanta, 227 Ga. App. 305 (Ga. App. 1997) (analysis of quasi-judicial function; focus on function over labels)
- What It Is, Inc. v. Jackson, 146 Ga. App. 574 (Ga. App. 1978) (license review board; administrative nature when not binding on mayor)
- Morman v. Pritchard, 108 Ga. App. 247 (Ga. App. 1963) (board proceedings quasi-judicial when decision binding or subject to appeal to higher board)