Wolfe v. Board of Regents
300 Ga. 223
| Ga. | 2016Background
- Tenured professor Lome Wolfe was accused of sexual and workplace harassment after explicit comments to students and other inappropriate conduct; an investigation found he created a hostile environment.
- Georgia Southern’s provost placed Wolfe on administrative leave, a faculty hearing committee held an evidentiary hearing and recommended sanctions short of termination.
- University President Brooks Keel disagreed, terminated Wolfe for cause, and the Board of Regents denied Wolfe’s request for review, making the president’s decision the operative agency action.
- Wolfe sued Keel and the Board in Fulton County Superior Court for breach of contract and mandamus seeking reinstatement; the superior court granted summary judgment to defendants.
- Wolfe filed a direct appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court without filing a discretionary application under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board of Regents is a “state administrative agency” under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1) | Wolfe impliedly disputed applicability | Board is a state agency by statute and practice | Board is a state administrative agency |
| Whether the Board/President made an adjudicative “decision” for § 5-6-35(a)(1) purposes | Wolfe argued decision not of that character | Defendants: decision applied rules to specific facts of Wolfe’s case | The termination was adjudicative in nature and a “decision” |
| Whether Wolfe’s superior-court breach of contract/mandamus action constituted review of the agency decision such that § 5-6-35(a)(1) applies | Wolfe argued his contract action was not judicial review of agency action (citing Laskar) | Defendants: substance of the suit attacked the agency decision and sought reversal/reinstatement | The superior-court proceedings substantively reviewed the agency decision; § 5-6-35(a)(1) applies |
| Whether the appeal to the Supreme Court required a discretionary application and consequences of failing to file one | Wolfe urged direct appeal or attempted to rely on other cases allowing direct appeals | Defendants: statutory scheme requires application for discretionary appeal here | Court: Wolfe was required to file an application; failure to do so deprives this Court of jurisdiction — appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- State of Ga. v. Intl. Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 299 Ga. 392 (2016) (explains what constitutes a "state administrative agency," an adjudicative "decision," and what it means for a superior court to review an agency decision under OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1))
- Selke v. Carson, 295 Ga. 628 (2014) (agency officer may constitute the agency’s decisionmaker for § 5-6-35(a)(1) purposes)
- Developers Surety & Indem. Co. v. State Dept. of Corrections, 295 Ga. 741 (2014) (breach-of-contract context referenced but did not address appeal-jurisdiction issue)
- Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264 (2006) (OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1) applies based on substance of proceedings challenging agency action)
- Laskar v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. System of Ga., 320 Ga. App. 414 (2013) (Court of Appeals discussion of available procedures for initial judicial review in superior court; did not resolve § 5-6-35(a)(1) appeal-route question)