Langton v. Department of Corrections
| Decision Date | 05 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. A95A1984,A95A1984 |
| Citation | 469 S.E.2d 509,220 Ga.App. 445 |
| Parties | LANGTON v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Putnam Superior Court. Before Judge Prior.
Ann Langton, pro se.
Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Jeffrey L. Milsteen, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
HAROLD R. BANKE, Senior Appellate Judge.
Ann Langton, a former pre-release coordinator at a Department of Corrections Boot Camp, commenced this pro se action against the Department of Corrections ("DOC") and several of its employees (collectively "defendants") alleging several theories of recovery for wrongful termination of her employment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and this appeal followed.
Langton worked at the DOC for approximately four months in 1992 when she was terminated due to a less than satisfactory performance review and her failure to submit to a psychological evaluation ordered by her supervisors. After her discharge, Langton filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was rejected by an administrative law judge, who determined she had been terminated for cause. The Department of Labor's Board of Review subsequently affirmed this decision. Langton then appealed the decision to the superior court which also affirmed, finding no constitutional or statutory impropriety related to her discharge.
Almost two years later, Langton filed a complaint in federal court against the DOC alleging employment discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment to the DOC, finding that the judicial affirmance of the decision to deny Langton unemployment benefits precluded her from relitigating the issue of whether she was discharged for cause, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed.
Langton filed the instant pro se action during the pendency of her action for unemployment benefits. Defendants moved for summary judgment on essentially the same ground asserted in the federal action, arguing that Langton's claims were inconsistent with the prior judicial finding that she was fired for cause and were therefore barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. Defendants also sought summary judgment based on Langton's failure to pursue her tort claims under the Georgia Tort Claims Act by filing the mandatory notice under OCGA § 50-21-26. The trial court granted summary judgment. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. The doctrine of collateral estoppel "precludes the re-adjudication of an issue that has previously been litigated and adjudicated on the merits in another action between the same parties or their privies." (Footnote omitted.) Waldroup v. Green County Hosp., 265 Ga. 864, 866-867, 463 S.E.2d 5 (1995). Privies Pinkard v. Morris, 215 Ga.App. 297, 298(1), 450 S.E.2d 330 (1994). When collateral estoppel applies, the issue may not be relitigated even as part of a different cause of action. Waldroup, supra; Norris v. Atlanta & West Point R. Co., 254 Ga. 684, 685, 333 S.E.2d 835 (1985).
Langton's claim for unemployment benefits in 1993 was denied based on the finding that the DOC terminated Langton's employment for cause. We agree with the district court's finding that the superior court's determination that Langton was terminated for cause precludes her from relitigating the issue. Compare OCGA § 34-8-122(b) (). Although Langton asserts multiple theories of recovery, the gravamen of her complaint in the instant action was that the DOC discharged her without cause....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...a ruling premised on something other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case); Langton v. Dept. of Corrections , 220 Ga. App. 445, 447 (3), 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996) (concluding that party’s claim of judicial bias was not properly before appellate court, where party faile......
-
Brewer v. Schacht
...to have such an identity of interest that the party to the judgment represented the same legal right." Langton v. Dept. of Corrections, 220 Ga.App. 445, 446(1), 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996). In Langton, we affirmed a grant of summary judgment to the Department of Corrections and several of its emp......
-
Howard v. State, A97A1453
...is a bar to any right of action. See, e.g., Mattox v. Bailey, 221 Ga.App. 546, 472 S.E.2d 130 (1996); Langton v. Dept. of Corrections, 220 Ga.App. 445, 446, 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996); see also USAA Ins. Co., supra at 21, 438 S.E.2d 137; City of Atlanta v. Barrett, 102 Ga.App. 469, 471, 116 S.E.......
-
Tharp v. Vesta Holdings I, LLC, A05A1037.
...over the case." In the Interest of C.C.C., 188 Ga.App. 849, 850(1), 374 S.E.2d 754 (1988). See also Langton v. Dept. of Corrections, 220 Ga.App. 445, 447(3), 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996). Judgment BLACKBURN, P.J., and MILLER, J., concur. 1. The tax fi.fa. was issued in the name of NCO, Inc., the p......
-
Travers v. Jones: Is "fact Preclusion" a Death Knell for Section 1983 Employment Claims Against Local Governments by Civil Service Employees?
...of the collateral estoppel doctrine.307 In Swain v. State,308 the court of 297. See supra notes 289-303 and accompanying text. 298. 469 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. Ct. App. 1996). 299. Id. 300. Id. 301. Id. at 510; see also Waldroup v. Green County Hosp., 463 S.E.2d 5 (Ga. 1995); Pinkard v. Morris, 450......
-
Labor and Employment Law - W. Melvin Haas Iii, William M. Clifton Iii, and W. Jonathan Martin Ii
...545 S.E.2d at 900. 209. Id. at 774, 545 S.E.2d at 898-99. 210. Id. at 778, 545 S.E.2d at 901 (citing Langton v. Dep't of Corrections, 220 Ga. App. 445, 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996)). 211. Id....
-
Administrative Law - Martin M. Wilson
...at 899-900. 189. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 (1995). 190. 273 Ga. at 776-77, 545 S.E.2d at 900. 191. Id. at 774, 545 S.E.2d at 898-99. 192. 220 Ga. App. 445, 469 S.E.2d 509 (1996). 193. 273 Ga. at 777, 545 S.E.2d at 901. 194. Id. at 777-78, 545 S.E.2d at 901. 195. Id. at 778, 545 S.E.2d at 901. 19......