Jesse Littlejohn applied for disability retirement benefits pursuant to the City of Barnesville’s “City” retirement plan. Benefits were denied, and Littlejohn filed suit in the Superior Court of Lamar County. Each party filed a motion for summary judgment. Without asserting a factual basis, the superior court denied both motions, finding that “there are remaining issues of material fact for jury resolution.” We granted the City’s application for interlocutory appeal in order to consider certain provisions in the City’s disability retirement plan which are susceptible to misinterpretation. In so doing, we affirm the denial of the City’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal from the grant of summary judgment this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.1 With these precepts in mind, the record shows that Littlejohn began working for the City in the middle 1970s as an equipment operator and meter reader. Over the course of this employment, it is undisputed that he twice suffered debilitating back injuries. In the mid-1990s, Littlejohn’s back problems prevented him from performing his duties as an equipment operator, and the City modified his employment to compensate for his injuries. In 1997, however, the City determined that Littlejohn’s employment should be terminated. The record contains a letter in which the City Manager confidentially sought legal advice from the City’s attorney about the termination: The City of Barnesville has made great efforts to support the rehabilitation of Mr. Jesse Littlejohn with continued hope that he would eventually be able to return to full and productive employment. However, as we discussed in our phone conversation today, the restricted duty-part-time work that Mr. Littlejohn has been assisting with is complete and we have no other assignments suitable for his condition. Therefore, we propose to terminate Mr. Littlejohn on Thursday, October 16, 1997. Please advise me regarding this matter and particularly the proper manner in which to serve notice of the proposed termination. During a subsequent meeting with several City officials, Littlejohn was terminated effective January 5, 1998.
The next month, February of 1998, Littlejohn went to the City offices in order to apply for a disability retirement. He was informed by a City benefits counselor that, under the City’s Ordinance governing retirement, he must first obtain a disability determination and award from the Social Security Administration “SSA”. The counselor told Littlejohn that she “needed the notice of award from social security declaring him disabled” before he could fill out an application form. It was explained that City benefits counselors “oftentimes typically don’t ask for an application —a disability application unless the notice of award indicates that they would be eligible to receive that disability benefit.”
