City of Atlanta v. Bennett

In a class-action lawsuit alleging that a firefighter promotional examination was tainted by cheating, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of the owner of the company that developed the exam.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Following a trial by jury and the return of a verdict by special interrogatory in this class-action lawsuit brought by City of Atlanta firefighters “the appellees”, the Superior Court of Fulton County entered a judgment against the City of Atlanta “the City”, adopting the jury’s finding that a 2010 firefighter promotional examination was tainted by cheating and issuing a permanent injunction related to any promotions that would be made in the aftermath.1 On appeal, the City argues that 1 the trial court erred by excluding the testimony of a City witness, 2 the trial court erred by denying the City’s motion for directed verdict, 3 the jury’s verdict was not authorized by the evidence, 4 the trial court’s injunction was not supported by evidence, and 5 the trial court erred in submitting the appellees’ claim for OCGA § 13-6-11 fees to the jury when they failed to give ante-litem notice. Because we agree with the City that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of a City witness, we reverse and remand for a new trial.

This case arose when the appellees filed a class-action complaint in July 2010, contending that the City of Atlanta Fire-Rescue Department’s 2010 lieutenant promotional examination was tainted by cheating. Based on the appellees’ contention that the City failed to conduct a fair administration of the promotional examination, the lawsuit 1 alleged violations of statutory obligations, breach of contract, and equal protection on behalf of firefighters who “did not cheat,” and 2 sought equitable relief in the form of an injunction and OCGA § 13-6-11 attorney fees.

City of Atlanta v. Bennett

In a class-action lawsuit alleging that a firefighter promotional examination was tainted by cheating, the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of the owner of the company that developed the exam.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report