West v. Dooly County School District
729 S.E.2d 469
Ga. Ct. App.2012Background
- West filed suit under 42 USC § 1983 alleging officials violated Georgia Fair Dismissal Act when not renewing his administrative contract.
- West claimed he held tenure rights as a school administrator and was entitled to due process before nonrenewal.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court reviews de novo for summary judgment issues.
- West previously worked in Twiggs County (1989–1994) and then in Dooly County; he was an administrator who sought tenure protections under the Act.
- Amendments in 1995 separated administrator rights from teacher rights; the Act includes a grandfather clause for pre‑1995 rights, but they require strict compliance with notification and procedural requirements.
- The board’s actions to grant tenure in 1996 did not satisfy statutory procedures, rendering the tenure grant ineffective; thus West did not retain protected rights under the Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether West had a protected property interest in employment under the Act. | West asserts pre‑1995 tenure rights apply to him. | West did not obtain tenure rights before April 7, 1995; grandfather clause does not apply. | No; West had no tenure rights. |
| Whether West retained any rights under the grandfather clause. | West argues he retained rights through pre‑1995 tenure. | No pre‑1995 rights were acquired in Dooly County; no qualifying transfer. | Not preserved; not within grandfather clause. |
| Whether the 1996 tenure grant complied with statutory requirements and thus created enforceable rights. | Board’s 1996 vote purported to grant tenure. | Board failed to follow mandatory notice/public hearing requirements. | Board failed; grant ineffective; no protected rights. |
| Whether West had a protected expectation of prospective tenure independent of tenure rights. | He had an expectation of continued employment. | Non-tenured administrators do not have a constitutionally protected property interest. | No protected expectancy under law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patrick v. Huff, 296 Ga. App. 343 (Ga. App. 2009) (grandfather clause preserved rights for pre‑1995 tenure under certain conditions)
- Latimore v. City of Atlanta, 289 Ga. App. 85 (Ga. App. 2008) (tenure rights analysis and pre‑1995 amendments applied)
- Hall v. Nelson, 282 Ga. 441 (Ga. 2007) (fact pattern distinguished; administrator/teacher distinction matters)
- Dorsey v. Atlanta Bd. of Ed., 255 Ga. App. 104 (Ga. App. 2002) (pre‑1995 rights if stay with local board and contract renewal)
- Dodd v. Bd. of Ed. &c., 46 Ga. App. 235 (Ga. App. 1933) (public officer powers defined by statute; boards constrained by law)
- Roth v. Board of Regents, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests require a legitimate claim of entitlement under law)
- Ellison v. DeKalb County, 236 Ga. App. 185 (Ga. App. 1999) (no property right to be considered for promotion)
