X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In these consolidated cases, Maria Colon and Gwendolyn Warren filed separate lawsuits against their employer, Fulton County, pursuant to Georgia’s whistleblower statute, OCGA § 45-1-4. Colon and Warren alleged that they were retaliated against after they jointly disclosed to their supervisors and refused to cover up that County employees were violating laws, rules, and regulations, thereby fraudulently wasting and abusing County funds and public money. The County moved to dismiss the actions based on sovereign immunity and moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Colon’s and Warren’s retaliation claims under OCGA § 45-1-4 could not lie against the County because their complaints did not relate to a “state program or operation.” See OCGA § 45-1-4 b “A public employer may receive and investigate complaints or information from any public employee concerning the possible existence of any activity constituting fraud, waste, and abuse in or relating to any state programs and operations under the jurisdiction of such public employer”. The trial court denied both motions.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that the cause of action set forth in OCGA § 45-1-4 unambiguously expresses a specific waiver of sovereign immunity and the extent of such waiver, even though the statute does not expressly state that sovereign immunity is waived. See Fulton County v. Colon, 316 Ga. App. 883, 885 1 730 SE2d 599 2012. However, the Court of Appeals nevertheless vacated the trial court’s order denying the County’s motion to dismiss, finding that the trial court erred in its determination that Colon and Warren had stated claims under OCGA § 45-1-4 d.1 Id. at 889 3. Specifically, the Court of Appeals concluded that, although § 45-1-4 d talks solely in terms of preventing retaliation against a public employee for “disclosing a violation of or noncompliance with a law, rule, or regulation,” the legislature did not intend for subsection d to be read alone. Instead, subsection d was to be read in conjunction with the language of subsection b. When reading these subsections together, the Court of Appeals determined that subsection b was intended to limit the statute’s reach so that it only provides protection to the extent that a public employee’s complaints relate to “state programs or operations” under the public employer’s jurisdiction. See generally id. at 2. The Court of Appeals then turned its attention to what was meant by “state programs or operations” under the facts of this case and held that where an employer qualifies as a “public employer” under the statute only because it received funds from the state a situation it found to be undisputed by the parties in this case, the statute provides protection from retaliation only if the employee’s complaints related to a “state-funded program or operation under the jurisdiction of the public employer.” Id. at 889 2. It then stated that state programs or operations under a county’s jurisdiction are those that are “funded at least in part by the state but need not be of state origin.” Id. Thus, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether Colon’s and Warren’s complaints related to a state-funded program or operation under Fulton County’s jurisdiction.

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now
Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now
Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now
July 22, 2024 - July 24, 2024
Lake Tahoe, CA

GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.


Learn More
September 05, 2024
New York, NY

The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.


Learn More
September 06, 2024
Johannesburg

The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.


Learn More

Our client, a multi-state full-service boutique, is seeking to add an insurance coverage associate or counsel to work closely with one of th...


Apply Now ›

Our client, an Atlanta-based and family-owned commercial construction services firm, has engaged us to identify an in-house attorney for the...


Apply Now ›

The Office of the Special Commissioner of Investigation for the New York City School District ( SCI ) has broad authority to investigate wro...


Apply Now ›
06/27/2024
The American Lawyer

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/21/2024
Daily Business Review

Full Page Announcement


View Announcement ›
06/14/2024
New Jersey Law Journal

Professional Announcement


View Announcement ›