Cassandra Smith, a former administrative employee at Albany State University, sued Everette Freeman and Abiodun Ojemakinde—respectively, the University’s President and Vice President for Academic Affairs—for violating her constitutional and statutory rights. She argued, among other things, that they fired her without due process of law. She also sued the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, alleging, among other things, that her termination was in retaliation for her role as a whistleblower and that the Board of Regents breached her employment contract. The defendants and Smith appeal the denial of their motions for summary judgment. We hold that because Smith has not presented evidence of a causal connection between her disclosures and any materially adverse action, the Board of Regents is entitled to summary judgment on the whistleblower claim. We also hold that Smith was an employee at will, so her termination did not breach the alleged employment contract and the Board of Regents is entitled to summary judgment on that claim. Moreover, as an employee at will, Smith had no property interest in her job so all of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on her claims for due process violations. Accordingly, we reverse the denial of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and affirm the denial of Smith’s motion for summary judgment.
“Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 c.” Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Georgia, 311 Ga. App. 155 715 SE2d 487 2011 citation omitted. “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.” Jones v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Georgia, 262 Ga. App. 75, 76 2003. “A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a ruling on summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Caldon, 311 Ga. App. at 155. citation omitted.
