Tuttle v. Georgia Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.

Garry L. Tuttle sued the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia the “BOR”, alleging that the BOR terminated him in retaliation for his whistleblower activities in violation of the Georgia Whistleblower Act “GWA”, OCGA § 45-1-4. The trial court granted the BOR’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Tuttle filed his claim outside the one-year statute of limitation period and that there was no evidence that the BOR retaliated against Tuttle for engaging in protected activity. Tuttle appeals, contending that there are disputed issues of material fact concerning whether 1 the complaint was barred by the applicable statute of limitations, 2 he disclosed specific violations of law to the Georgia Perimeter College “GPC” administrators, and 3 his termination was a violation of the GWA. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On a motion for summary judgment, it is the movant’s burden to show that no jury question remains as to any material fact and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. To obtain summary judgment, a defendant need not produce any evidence, but must only point to an absence of evidence supporting at least one essential element of the plaintiff’s claim. Our review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo, and we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.