*1 17, Decided March Summer, & Taylor, E. Summer McIntyre, Charles K. Michael Summer, A. appellant. Daniel for Parks, Jr., As- Sartain, Attorney, Leonard C. District
Lydia J. General, Bowers, Su- Attorney Attorney, Michael J. District sistant General, D. Attorney Michael Assistant Boleyn, san Senior V. General, Groves, Attorney Assistant appellee. Mears,
Michael curiae. amicus SCHOOL S94A1703. HAMILTON v. TELFAIR COUNTY DISTRICT et al. (455 SE2d Justice. Chief Hunt, position as assistant
Susan was transferred from her Hamilton principal of County High School to the principal at Telfair Believing that her transfer constituted a Telfair Alternative Center. demotion, hearing before the school board. The Hamilton asked for a she had in request ground her fact school board denied promoted. petition then for a writ of manda- been Hamilton filed compel hearing. to conduct a The trial court mus to the school board petition, prove had failed to finding denied the that Hamilton appeals, Hamilton and we affirm. she had been demoted.
In
one
order to establish that a transfer constitutes
salary,
on one’s
re-
must show that
there has been an adverse effect
(a) (2) (C);
Rockdale
sponsibility,
prestige,
OCGA §
County School District v.
In this as a threshold Hamilton fails to pay. previous job, her Hamilton had she has suffered a reduction $2,400 education including a 12-month local vocational contract $49,126. However, the record supplement compensation of for total job, in that supports findings court’s that had she continued trial 11-month contract and would not she would have been reduced to an $2,400 compen- supplement, for a total annual have received the local Center, $44,273.44. Alternative sation of her at Telfair compensation Hamilton has an 11-month contract with total $45,671. show an adverse effect on Accordingly, having failed to salary, that her transfer constitutes Hamilton cannot demonstrate Therefore, compare responsibility and demotion. we need not prestige present Hamilton’s former jobs.1 Judgment concur, Benham, All except the Justices affirmed. J., Hunstein, J., P. who dissent. Justice, Presiding dissenting.
Benham, I disagree with the affirmance of the judgment. trial court’s *2 Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
1. Appellant Hamilton, Susan an educator with 28% of ex- perience, was in April notified 1993 that being reassigned she was position from her as principal/vocational assistant director at Telfair County High School principal to the of Telfair Alternative Center, county’s Viewing personnel alternative school. move (a) (2) (C)2 as a demotion under OCGA 20-2-943 being and a § teacher certificated the Professional Standards Commission who accepted at least four school-year consecutive contracts from the education, same appellant local board of sought process rights the due Law, afforded her under the Georgia Fair Dismissal OCGA 20-2- §§ (b).3 940 and 20-2-942 When the school district denied re- quest, sought hearing pursuant to OCGA 20-2-1160 to deter- § had, fact, mine whether she Upon been demoted. notification from counsel for the school district that the school district not did consider appellant petition transfer a filed a for a writ of man- damus requiring the school district to afford her the hearing man- dated OCGA 20-2-940 and 20-2-942 when a teacher is demoted. §§
After holding evidentiary hearing petition pur- mandamus 9-6-27, suant to OCGA petition, court denied the § conclud- ing appellant had failed to establish that the reassignment had caused her to suffer a in salary or respon- a diminishment of sibility. By making appellant the determination that had not suffered in salary responsibility, diminishment and implicitly trial court 1 any event, prongs resolution of these two of the test would be for the trial court as a supported by any evidence, factfinder and that decision were credible it would be affirmed. “prestige” might ambiguous, usually The word be somewhat but it is consistent with the idea rank, context, prestigious and in that the office of would seem more than the principal. Carlyle’s office of assistant We are also mindful of admonition: “All work [even noble; Present, Carlyle, Ill, ... manual] work is alone noble. . . .” Thomas Past and Bk. Ch. 2 provides The statute that a local board of education is authorized to “demote a teacher system . . . from having one the school to another in the school responsibility, prestige, salary.” “demotion,” less While the statute does not define this (a) (2) (C) requiring court has salary responsibility, prestige, viewed § reductions in County in order for a transfer to be considered a demotion. Rockdale School Dist. v. (266 730, 245 Ga. A teacher of 732 SE2d appellant’s standing is entitled to written notice of the intention to de her, accompanied mote guards outlining procedural sent certified mail and with a statement safe teacher, including right available to the to notice of the reasons action and right (b) (2). hearing. ato “transfer,” action experienced a held teacher affording the affected could take without district hearing. trial court whether analysis launching into an
2. Before in mind that relief, keep must we denying mandamus erred reassigned. wrongfully appellant was us is not whether issue before was entitled to the Rather, the issue is whether hearing concern Law: a Georgia Fair Dismissal rights granted *In Ellis- reasons therefor.4 and notice of the reassignment (356 Ed., 463, County Bd. App. v. 182 Ga. Adams Whitfield 909,5 219) den., our Court of (1987), App. 182 Ga. cert. procedural fosters observance “a rule sought than the Dismissal Law rather Georgia Fair safeguards under “respect enforced process expresses them.” Since due avoidance of through has . . . evolved just treatment which feeling for that law history civilization” Anglo-American constitutional centuries of McGrath, (Joint S. Refugee Committee 341 U. Anti-Fascist (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring)), deci LE95 SC rendered when process should be the exercise of due sions favor of possible. ever concerning to a to be entitled order for *3 a action, job the action constituted to establish that
the
she had
in
i.e.,
salary,
in
a decrease
suffered a decrease
that she had
(a) (2)
in
OCGA 20-2-943
prestige, and a decrease
§
County School Dist.
The evidence was uncontroverted $2,400 in form of $49,126.16 position, of which came the her former $45,679.87 assignment. Instead of in her new supplement,6 a local and 4 legitimate gives Law rise to a Circuit has held that the Fair Dismissal The Eleventh applies. Amendment Process Clause of the Fourteenth claim of entitlement to which the Due 1987). (11th &c., Ed. 1551 Cir. Hatcher v. Bd. Public 809 F2d only precedent holding physical of the six- since two in Ellis-Adams serves as The (b), judgment only. judge majority Rules of the Court of Rule 35 concurred Georgia. leg 20-2-212, may supplement the local units of school administration Under OCGA § employees, professional islatively-imposed of certificated salaries responsibility performed, tak[ing] to the nature of duties be into consideration experience held, taught, subject grades to be and the matter or of the salary supplemented. being performance particular employee of the whose and comparing positions’ the two salaries to determine whether pay, compared appellant’s had suffered the trial court salary salary with the the court she would have re- new determined position. court had she remained her former The trial ceived opined position, that, in her she remained former optional supplement $2,400 not have and would would have received With received of a 11-month contract instead 12-month contract.7 included, factors those court concluded salary paid $1,400 was than new more what she would have been County High she remained at Telfair School. summary sup-
I cannot endorse trial court’s exclusion plemental pay majority’s consideration, from and the affirmance pursuant that action. Since to had been the director vocational board of a contract entered into same local education (see (a) (b) (1)), (4), § four consecutive hearing, could not be removed since her from without director termination vocational constituted demotion as she was pay deprived supplemental prestige responsibili- and the along being ties that went vocational See OCGA 20-2- director. (2) (C). (a) any court, federal, has state or Never before decided supplemental determining pay is that local not to be considered employee pay, good whether reasons trial court. has suffered a loss in and there are why approach espoused no other has taken court convoluted, The trial court’s of calculation is time-con- method contrary subject suming, manipulation officials, to to school provision simple, prompt, fair the Fair Dismissal Law’s method of a whereby professional employees teachers and certificated challenge to the con- could dismissals and demotions. As matter of a procedure, employee, requesting voluted hearing, before salary po- portion must of her her former determine what supple- any, portion, state-mandated, was sition and what system. employee deter- mented mine if the local supplement local school must then the same intends year. following so, If em-
for that *4 change ployee must then whether the will its determine school employee qualifications to receiv- mind as whether the meets the supplement. clairvoyance part employee is Such employee since to make a nonsensical would have determination year budget the school for the next school to board’s before board itself made such a determination. Ellis-Adams, brought supra, working the decreased hours about a shorter Under salary. in is evidence of a contract the Fair Dis- process. in the Under
Promptness also be lost would by both Law, that must be met requirements are time missal there thereunder. employee who seeks school board and the (b) (2) of the intention requires a teacher notified days there- hearing, and within request to to demote the teacher the teacher with written after, must furnish the local school board (s) the names of witnesses of the cause of the notification evidence; place summary of the time and a concise require to witness at- availability compulsory hearing; the production. tendance or document court approach allowed greatest victim under discriminatorily manipulate may
is fairness. The school board way employee’s right to a pay in such a as to thwart an supplemental in to the intent of the Fair Dis- process hearing, direct contrast easily Law, contemplated approach un- missal a common-sense by ordinary people. Common sense dictates derstandable money in than what she employee making is less her current employee suffered a decrease previous position, made in her has pay. in County School Dist.
Taking instruction from Rockdale the re- supra, Appeals our Court of considered the issue whether Ellis-Adams, supra. salary satisfied in duction of element had been There, the court held: determining pay place, whether a decrease has taken
[I]n totality we must look to the of the circumstances to see impact on the whether there has been a measurable adverse employee’s pay. Determining go beyond factors must mere may changes, cosmetic include but are not limited pay, failure to normal increments of downward ad- hours, justments pay, working and decreases decreased employee benefits. &c., 1546, 1548,
Id. at In Hatcher v. Ed. Bd. Public 809 F2d (11th 1987), n. 9 Cir. the United States Court of opined Georgia teacher Eleventh Circuit that a had suffered de- salary impacted crease in since her retirement entitlement would be that, only position, the fact her new she would receive a fixed percentage of future raises instead of the full raise to which she had Thus, comparison position. been entitled her former more than a salary purportedly appellant’s current with what she would have necessary reassigned made she not to determine whether been salary. has suffered a decrease addressed prong three-part The other test for demotion appel- found that the trial court was The trial court *5 position principal princi- of upgraded lant was from the assistant responsibilities position increased at her new be- pal, and that her facility in her responsibility for a whereas cause she had “total at previous position she was subordinate to her Telfair responsibility for an entire fa- County High School and did not have position at the alternative cility.” appellant’s The fact that current teacher, formerly appellant’s not someone with school was held position to ability background, shows that administrative responsibility than the one assigned involved less addition, appellant placed evidence previously she had held. responsibili- objection comparing an extensive document without of her The most strik- job. ties of her new with those former example appellant’s responsibilities is that ing diminishment supervision thirty formerly she assisted staff members two; supervises formerly supervision assisted now that students, super- now program the school’s instructional for 480 formerly plans lesson program; vises a 12-student that she evaluated teachers, performs and she that task for one of 31 classroom now Testimony superintendent classroom teacher. from the school job by the job higher new was rated than her former he to be more re- school board and that considered new cold, sponsible subjective outweigh evidence which does not it determined hard facts outlined above.8 The trial court erred when re-assignment that her had re- had not established sulted in a decrease in prestige” “loss of Although the trial court did not reach the test,
prong replete of the demotion the record is with information present showing appellant prestige. suffered a severe loss floors, lunchroom, in- help mop she must clean the work with the institute, nearby with children mates from a correctional and work attendance, any discipline, problems. Under measur- and health scale, prestige. appellant has suffered a dramatic loss in determining Because the trial court erred not been demoted and was therefore not entitled to the due her, statutorily guaranteed judgment should be reversed with di- judgment requiring rection that the trial court enter the school dis- (a) (2) trict to conduct mandated OCGA § (C).
I joins am authorized to that Justice Hunstein this dissent. state questioned responsibility, superintendent admitted that When as to the issue responsible when he “We know the alternative alternative school was less stated: good regular point arguing as the school. There’s no that.” is not as Decided March denied March
Reconsideration Chasteen, Mills, Jr., appellant. & Ben B. Mills for McNatt, Thompson, Thompson, & S. appel- Greene Richard lees.
S94A1756. THE LAWRENCE v. STATE. Justice. Hunstein, Stephen guilty mentally James ill Lawrence was found but of fel- murder, assault, ony aggravated four counts of possession of a during appeals firearm the commission of crimes. He from the denial of his motion for a new trial.1
1. The evidence was uncontroverted that killed Eliza- seriously injured beth Van Alstine and shotgun. four others with a jury The sole issue before the guilty was whether was but mentally ill guilty by insanity or not reason pursuant to OCGA (delusional compulsion). evidence at trial established diag- had been having atypical psychosis 1984, nosed as delusions and chronic 1987, 1988, schizophrenia forms of and 1990. In 1988 he shot and wounded his mother under the delusion that the medication she was him administering poison. crimes, contained At the ap- time of the pellant receiving Haldol, was dosage antipsychotic drug low given monthly injections Community was at Mental (CMHC) Health Center County. morning Richmond On the day appointment he injection, appellant had an to receive an drove to (a drive) his father’s home one and one-half-hour and took his fa- shotgun ther’s and 15 to 20 (leaving buckshot shells behind bird- shot). He then began drove to the CMHC and firing at random at people parking and vehicles lot and shot out the car windshield psychiatric of a nurse who driving through parking was lot. He people shot the first three unsuspectingly who exited the main build- CMHC, fatally at the wounding Appellant Van Alstine. entered 8, April 14, The crimes occurred on October 1991. Lawrence was indicted 1992 Rich County. 22, guilty mentally mond He was found but ill on October 1992 and was sentenced day imprisonment murder, felony twenty years aggra to life each on the four counts, count, possession vated assault and five all sentences to run consecu tively. trial, 23, 21, 1993, His motion for new filed November 1992 and amended June 30, appeal 7, July appeal denied June 1994. A notice of was filed 1994. The was docketed August orally argued 1994 and was November