Atwater v. Tucker

Decision Date24 October 2017
Docket NumberA17A0722
Parties ATWATER et al. v. TUCKER.
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

343 Ga.App. 301
807 S.E.2d 56

ATWATER et al.
v.
TUCKER.

A17A0722

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

October 24, 2017


807 S.E.2d 58

Smith, Welch, Webb & White, A. J. Welch, Jr., Megan M. Pearson, Janet C. Scott ; Reinhardt, Whitley, Summerlin & Pittman, Ross H. Pittman III, Larry B. Mims, for appellants.

Craig A. Webster, for appellee.

Mercier, Judge.

343 Ga.App. 301

Kelly H. Tucker (a middle school teacher), filed a complaint for damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 against Patrick Atwater, Jr. (the Superintendent of Tift County Public Schools), and Kim Rutland (the Chairperson of the Tift County Board of Education), alleging that they violated her constitutional right to free speech by suspending

343 Ga.App. 302

her for five days and requiring her to attend diversity training after she posted a particular comment on a social media website.1 Atwater and Rutland filed a "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice" asserting, inter alia, that they were entitled to official and sovereign immunity. The trial court considered the pleadings, arguments, affidavits and transcript of the suspension hearing and, expressly treating the motion as one for summary judgment, denied the motion. We granted Atwater's and Rutland's application for interlocutory appeal. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.

"[B]ecause the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings, the motion [for judgment on the pleadings] was converted to one for summary judgment." Sims v. First Acceptance Ins. Co. of Ga., Inc., 322 Ga. App. 361, 363 (3) (a), 745 S.E.2d 306 (2013) (citation and punctuation omitted). "[S]ummary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Navy Fed. Credit Union v. McCrea, 337 Ga. App. 103, 105, 786 S.E.2d 707 (2016) (punctuation and citation omitted). "On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, we construe the evidence most favorably towards the nonmoving party, who is given the benefit of all reasonable doubts and possible inferences." Nguyen v. Southwestern Emergency Physicians, P.C., 298 Ga. 75, 82 (3), 779 S.E.2d 334 (2015).

So construed, the evidence shows the following. During the 2014–2015 school year, Tucker was employed as a middle school teacher in the Tift County Public School

807 S.E.2d 59

System; the school system was managed by the Tift County Board of Education ("the Board"). On December 6, 2014, a Christmas parade was held in Tifton, Georgia, at which demonstrators displayed signs that read "Black Lives Matter," in what was "commonly known as a ‘Ferguson protest.’ " A local radio show host posted a question on Facebook regarding the appropriateness of the demonstration. Tucker posted a comment in response to the question, then engaged in a "posting dialogue" with another person. As part of that dialogue, Tucker posted the following public comment on Facebook, which comment precipitated the underlying disciplinary proceeding:

It's turned into a race matter. What about the thugs that beat the father in his vehicle because he didn't slow down. What about the thugs that shot the college baseball player
343 Ga.App. 303
because they were bored. The list can go on and on. If the dude hadn't have stolen [sic], he would be alive. I think the signs should read, TAKE THE HOOD OFF YOUR HEAD, AND PULL UP YOUR DANG PANTS, AND QUIT IMPREGNATING EVERYBODY. I'm tired of paying for these sorry *&^ thugs...I would much rather my hard earned money that the government takes go to people who need it, such as abusive [sic] adults and children, not to mention the animals they beat and fight too...That's all I'm saying...[.]

Tucker's comment (the "post") "went viral," and many people in the community saw, shared, forwarded, and discussed the post. On about December 8, 2014, several individuals contacted Atwater to express concern about Tucker's post, including a Board member, a high school student, and a county commissioner. The commissioner expressed her concern and her constituents' concern that "a teacher ... would post such a message." Later that month, several other individuals contacted Atwater and expressed their concerns about the post; some parents requested that their children be removed from Tucker's class; and several teachers and administrators at the school where Tucker taught lodged complaints with the school principal regarding the post.

In January 2015, Atwater issued a letter to Tucker notifying her that he was recommending to the Board that she be suspended for ten days and receive diversity training because of the post, and notifying her that a hearing would be held on the matter. Atwater wrote that Tucker had posted "an offensive message ... which went viral." Atwater wrote that "[t]hese stereotypes [in the post] ... are highly offensive to the African American community, and to members of our community as a whole"; that Atwater received complaints about the post from several of Tucker's colleagues, members of the community, former students, and parents; that her message "is very disturbing to [her] African American colleagues, students, and [her] students' parents and is disruptive to the educational environment at [the school]"; that Tucker's posting of the comment demonstrated "a lack of professional judgment" and "an inappropriate attitude toward" her students; that Tucker violated Board policies and Standard 10 of the Georgia Code of Ethics for Educators;2 and that disciplinary

343 Ga.App. 304

charges were being brought pursuant to OCGA § 20–2–940.3

The Board held a hearing at which Tucker and various school administrators, teachers, and parents testified. See OCGA § 20–2–1160 (a) (regarding the authority of county boards of education to conduct hearings). The testimony included the following: witnesses interpreted the post as referring to and "stereotyping" or unfairly characterizing African-American

807 S.E.2d 60

males; a parent requested to have her child removed from Tucker's class; several people brought copies of the post to the assistant principal and sought to involve him in the matter; a teacher at the school complained to the principal and said that, in light of the post, it would be difficult for her to continue to work with Tucker; the principal stated that 30 percent of the students at the school were African-American, and opined that the post would cause problems with the student disciplinary processes (as parents would have grounds to argue that Tucker was disciplining some students based upon their race); Atwater opined that the post disrupted operations by deteriorating the community's trust in the school system; several witnesses testified that they were concerned that, based on the views expressed in the post, Tucker would treat students differently based upon race; when asked if the post had any effect on the school, the assistant principal replied, "[n]ot directly. ...But, indirectly, it has," referred to the student class change and added that the post had the "potential" to cause problems.

In its decision, the Board found that the post showed a "clear lack of judgment on the part of a public school teacher presently teaching African American students," that it created a "toxic atmosphere at the school," and that it "had the effect of undermining the trust" that students, their parents, and Tucker's colleagues had in her ability to effectively teach and mentor the students. The Board found "good and sufficient cause" to suspend Tucker for five days and to require her to participate in diversity training.

Tucker filed the underlying complaint against Atwater, in his individual capacity and his official capacity as school superintendent, and Rutland, in her individual capacity and her official capacity as

343 Ga.App. 305

Board chairperson, seeking redress under 42 USC § 1983 for alleged violations of her right to free speech.4 The trial court denied Atwater's and Rutland's motion for judgment on the pleadings or to dismiss, finding that they were not entitled to immunity and that Tucker had made a proper First Amendment challenge.

1. Atwater and Rutland contend that they are entitled to official immunity because their actions did not violate any clearly established law. We agree.

"The doctrine of official immunity,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Brooks v. Palmer
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • April 27, 2022
    ... ... at ... 668-69 (2) (punctuation omitted); accord Austin , 294 ... Ga. at 775 ... [ 9 ] Atwater v. Tucker , 343 ... Ga.App. 301, 306 (1) (807 S.E.2d 56) (2017) ... [ 10 ] Although the terms "qualified ... immunity" and ... ...
  • Tucker v. Atwater
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 4, 2018
    ...her with an epithet, Tucker posted a lengthy message dismissive of the movement and derogatory of "thugs." See Atwater v. Tucker, 343 Ga. App. 301, 302-303, 807 S.E.2d 56 (2017). This message was plainly about a topic of public concern, with no obvious link to her employment in public educa......
  • Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n BR-027 v. Harris
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2017
  • Blue Ridge Auto Auction v. Acceptance Indem. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2017

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT