Shelnutt v. Mayor & Aldermen
Decision Date | 14 March 2019 |
Docket Number | A18A1667 |
Citation | 826 S.E.2d 379,349 Ga.App. 499 |
Parties | SHELNUTT et al. v. The MAYOR and Aldermen OF the City of SAVANNAH et al. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Christopher Dorian Britt, Jeremy Springer McKenzie, Savannah, for Appellants
Jennifer Neison Herman, Shawn Anton Kachmar, W. Brooks Stillwell III, David M. Burkoff, Savannah, for Appellees
This is the second appearance of this case before this Court. In Shelnutt v. Mayor (" Shelnutt 1 "), firefighters from the City of Savannah appealed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah and Stephanie Cutter, the Savannah city manager (collectively, the "City") as to their claims for breach of contract.1 333 Ga. App. 446, 776 S.E.2d 650 (2015). We reversed the trial court’s decision and held, inter alia , that the issue of whether the City breached its contractual obligations to the firefighters could not be resolved at the motion to dismiss or motion for judgment on the pleadings phase. Id . at 452 (2), 776 S.E.2d 650. On remand, the City filed a motion for summary judgment that was granted by the trial court. Now on appeal, the firefighters assert the following three enumerations of error: first, that the pay policy in effect at the time each firefighter was promoted should control; second, that the firefighters promoted prior to March 31, 2008, were not time-barred from pursuing their claims; and lastly, that, at a minimum, a jury question exists as to whether the job description or schedule of allocations controlled when determining the minimum pay grade for the position of fire captain. For the reasons outlined in this opinion, we affirm.
"On appeal from the grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we review the evidence de novo, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from the evidence are construed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant." McCaskill v. Carillo , 263 Ga. App. 890, 890, 589 S.E.2d 582 (2003) (citations omitted). So viewed, we recite below the facts of Shelnutt 1 as is relevant to this appeal.
Shelnutt , 333 Ga. App. at 446-447, 776 S.E.2d 650 (footnote and punctuation omitted).
This Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the firefighters' complaint in Shelnutt 1 and held that although the firefighters are in a terminable-at-will employment relationship with the City—and promises of future change in compensation are generally unenforceable—each firefighter "may be able to point to the version of the pay policy in effect at the time he or she was hired and show that it provided for a definite percentage pay increase conditioned on promotion to a supervisory position." Shelnutt , 333 Ga. App. at 451-452 (2), 776 S.E.2d 650. After remittitur, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, on March 7, 2017, the trial court granted the City’s motion as to the claims of twenty-two of the fifty firefighters for whom there was no pay policy in place at the time they were hired. In that order, the trial court further held that the claims of seven firefighters were also barred because they each received promotions outside the six-year statute of limitations.
On June 15, 2017, the City filed a motion for summary judgment as to the remaining twenty-one firefighters. After a hearing on October 9, 2017, the trial court granted the City’s motion. In its order, the trial court found that for each firefighter promoted, the City complied with the pay policy in effect at the time he or she was hired and was thus entitled to summary judgment on the remaining claims. This appeal followed.
1. The firefighters first contend that the trial court erroneously interpreted this Court’s prior holding in Shelnutt 1 to mean that only the pay policy in effect at the time of a firefighter’s original hire could give rise to enforceable contractual rights. The firefighters assert that the issue of which particular version of the pay policy governs their claims was not an issue before this Court in Shelnutt 1 and thus our reference to any version of the pay policy was dicta. We disagree because as explained further below, for the Court in Shelnutt 1 to determine whether dismissal of the firefighters' claims was authorized, it was necessary for the Court to identify the source of the firefighters' contractual rights— that is, the version of the pay policy from which those rights arose.
As noted above, in Shelnutt 1 , we held that the firefighters were entitled to pursue their breach of contract claims against the City. 333 Ga. App. at 454, 776 S.E.2d 650. This holding was premised on the legal conclusion that at the time the firefighters initiated this litigation, the question of whether each firefighter could assert a contractual claim depended on whether they could demonstrate that the City failed to pay them in accordance with the version of the pay policy in effect at the time he or she was hired. Id . at 451-452 (2), 776 S.E.2d 650. Under OCGA § 9-11-60 (h), "any ruling by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals in a case shall be binding in all subsequent proceedings in that case in the lower court and in the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals as the case may be." Thus, because the trial court’s March 7, 2017 order was based on a legal conclusion that directly complies with this Court’s holding in Shelnutt 1 , we find no reversible error.
Id . at 451 (2), 776 S.E.2d 650 (footnote, citations, and punctuation omitted). Thus, we were compelled to examine the version of the pay policy from which the firefighters alleged rights arose. See South Ga. Med. Center v. Washington , 269 Ga. 366, 367 (1), 497 S.E.2d 793 (1998) () (citation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shields v. RDM, LLC
...Crisp Cty. v. City Cm'rs of the City of Cordele , 315 Ga. App. 696, 699, 727 S.E.2d 524 (2012) ; accord Shelnutt v. Mayor of Savannah , 349 Ga. App. 499, 505 (3), 826 S.E.2d 379 (2019).10 Bd. of Cm'rs of Crisp Cty. , 315 Ga. App. at 699, 727 S.E.2d 524 (punctuation and footnotes omitted); a......
- Exec. Cars, LLC v. W. Funding Ii, Inc.
-
Clayton v. Savannah Chatham Metro. Police Dep't, CASE NO. CV415-93
...by a legislative act of the General Assembly. Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. IX, Sec. II, Par. IX; Shelnutt v. Mayor of Savannah, 349 Ga. App. 499, 505, 826 S.E.2d 379, 384 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019), cert. denied (Nov. 18, 2019); Godfrey v. Ga. Interlocal Risk Mgmt. Agency, 290 Ga. 211, 214, 719 S.E.2d......
-
Ron D. Beal, P.A. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
... ... Capital Mgmt., Inc., 649 S.E.2d 779, 782 (Ga.Ct.App ... 2007); see also Shelnutt v. Mayor of Savannah, 826 ... S.E.2d 379, 384 (Ga.Ct.App. 2019) ("In contract actions ... ...
-
Local Government Law
...§ 20-2-2062(1) (2019).67. Learning Ctr. Found. of Cent. Cobb, 348 Ga. App. at 71, 821 S.E.2d at 131 (Ellington, P.J., dissenting). 68. 349 Ga. App. 499, 826 S.E.2d 379 (2019).69. Id. at 504, 826 S.E.2d at 384.70. Id. at 505, 826 S.E.2d at 384.71. 305 Ga. 342, 825 S.E.2d 142 (2019).72. Id. a......
-
Labor & Employment Law
...Inc., 244 Ga. App. 147, 148, 534 S.E.2d 533, 534 (2000).25. Balmer v. Elan Corp., 278 Ga. 227, 228-29, 599 S.E.2d 158, 161 (2004).26. 349 Ga. App. 499, 826 S.E.2d 379 (2019).27. This trial court decision was on remand from the Georgia Court of Appeals case of Shelnutt 1, wherein the Georgia......