Norris v. Henry County
| Decision Date | 11 June 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. A02A0710.,A02A0710. |
| Citation | 255 Ga. App. 718,566 S.E.2d 428 |
| Parties | NORRIS v. HENRY COUNTY. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
William F. Mitchell, Atlanta, for appellant.
O'Quinn & Cronin, Michael A. O'Quinn, Atlanta, Donald A. Cronin, Jr., McDonough, for appellee.
Henry County fired Anthony Norris when a county track hoe under his supervision became stuck in the mud, requiring great time and expense to extricate and repair. He appealed the termination decision to the county manager, to the board of commissioners, and to the superior court, all to no avail. Pursuant to a petition for a discretionary appeal, the appellant's request was granted. Following a thorough review of the proceedings, we now affirm on the grounds that he was afforded due process and that some evidence supported the county's decision to terminate him for cause.
A ten-year employee of Henry County, Norris was serving as a pipe crew foreman when his crew was assigned to clear out a swamp area behind a county building. He directed his track hoe driver to begin clearing the area, but the track hoe soon sank in the mud and became stuck. Over the next two days various efforts to extricate the track hoe were unsuccessful, and on the third day a wrecker finally extricated the now-damaged track hoe.
The next week Norris's supervisor called him in and gave him a letter of termination based on Norris's incompetence as exhibited by the track hoe incident and by his long history of job performance problems. Norris appealed the termination to the county manager, who then held a two-day evidentiary hearing with Norris and his attorney present. Based on the oral and written evidence presented as well as a review of Norris's personnel records, the county manager upheld the termination. Norris filed a discretionary appeal with the county board of commissioners, which declined to hear the appeal but which moved Norris's termination date to the date of the county manager's decision. Arguing that the county did not follow proper procedure and that no evidence supported the termination decision, Norris petitioned the superior court to review the matter. The superior court affirmed the county's decision, which ruling he now appeals.
On appeal Norris enumerates three errors: (1) the trial court erred in ruling he received due process; (2) the trial court erred in evaluating the case under the "any evidence" standard; and (3) the trial court erred in ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support the termination decision. We hold that the two-day hearing afforded Norris due process, that the "any evidence" standard is the correct standard, and that evidence supported the decision to terminate Norris. Accordingly, we affirm.
1. Under the due process clauses of both the Georgia and federal constitutions, the State "must give notice and an opportunity to be heard to a person deprived of a property interest." (Footnote omitted.) Camden County v. Haddock, 271 Ga. 664, 665(1), 523 S.E.2d 291 (1999). "[A] public employee has a property interest in continued employment for due process purposes when a personnel manual provides that an employee can only be terminated for cause." (Footnote omitted.) Id. Here the personnel manual contained such a provision.
After giving notice, Henry County afforded Norris a two-day hearing (attended by him and his attorney), in which the county manager received evidence, allowed questions and argument by Norris's attorney, and reconsidered the termination decision. Such clearly met the demands of due process.
Nevertheless, Norris complains about the timing of the hearing, in that he was not afforded a hearing prior to being terminated. Although due process entitles the public employee to a pre-termination hearing, the employer's failure to provide one is not a constitutional violation under the due process clause if the employer (as here) provides a later procedural remedy. Camden County, supra, 271 Ga. at 665(1),523 S.E.2d 291; see Jones v. Chatham County, 223 Ga.App. 455, 457(3), 477 S.E.2d 889 (1996).
Norris next argues that Henry County failed to follow its own personnel manual when Norris's supervisor gave him the termination letter (effective immediately) without first affording him a personal meeting, in which the supervisor was to provide Norris oral notice of the charge and proposed disciplinary action. At that personal meeting, which was to take place before the imposition of any disciplinary action, Norris under the personnel procedures was to have the opportunity to orally respond. Within three days the supervisor could notify the employee and the county manager in writing of the disciplinary action, to become effective at the time specified in the written notice.
The county failed to follow its own personnel manual procedures when Norris was not afforded the required personal meeting with his supervisor with oral notice and discussion prior to the delivery of the written termination notice. Although we do not condone the county's actions, the question is whether this failure deprived Norris of his procedural due process rights where the county afforded Norris notice and an opportunity to be heard when he appealed the matter to the county manager....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE JULY-AUGUST, 2003 DEKALB CTY.
...a public employee has notice and an opportunity to be heard either prior to or subsequent to termination); Norris v. Henry County, 255 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 566 S.E.2d 428 (2002) (public employee after termination given a hearing). Thus, protection by the superior court to prevent the public......
-
Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
... ... Keel directed an investigation ... This was sufficient opportunity to respond. Norris v ... Henry Cnty. , 566 S.E.2d 428, 430 (Ga.Ct.App. 2002) ... (finding no violation of ... employee had "an opportunity to be heard when he ... appealed the matter to the county manager") ... Regardless ... of if there was a deficiency in the ... ...
-
Doss v. City of Savannah
...due process standards. Id. See also Camden County v. Haddock, 271 Ga. at 665-666(1), 523 S.E.2d 291; Norris v. Henry County, 255 Ga.App. 718, 719(1), 566 S.E.2d 428 (2002). Further, interpreting Doss's claim as one under 42 USC § 1983, the City was also entitled to summary judgment because ......
-
Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
... ... Keel directed an investigation ... This was sufficient opportunity to respond. Norris v ... Henry Cnty. , 566 S.E.2d 428, 430 (Ga.Ct.App. 2002) ... (finding no violation of ... employee had "an opportunity to be heard when he ... appealed the matter to the county manager") ... Regardless ... of if there was a deficiency in the ... ...
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...825. The court thus reversed the trial judge's dismissal of the officer's petition for certiorari. Id. at 620, 571 S.E.2d at 826. 199. 255 Ga. App. 718, 566 S.E.2d 428 (2002). 200. Id. at 718-19, 566 S.E.2d at 429. Plaintiff, a county pipe crew foreman, was in charge of a project in which a......