Jordan v. The Georgia Bd. of Pub. Safety

Although plaintiff couched his claim as a substantive due process violation that deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, he was attempting to assert a claim for violation of a property interest in his reputation and allegations of pretextual firing implicate only procedural due process concerns.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

When the Georgia Department of Public Safety “Board” terminated his employment as superintendent of the Georgia Police Academy, Bennett A. Jordan sued the Board and others for, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress. After Jordan obtained a $1 million judgment against the Board, the Board successfully appealed that judgment in Case No. A01A1328. In this cross-appeal, Jordan contends that the trial court erred in determining that he was collaterally estopped from litigating the findings of fact entered by an administrative hearing officer, findings that were subsequently embraced by the Board. Jordan also claims that the trial court erred by granting the Board’s motion to dismiss his claim for “a violation of his substantive due process rights based upon a liberty interest in his reputation.” After review of both issues and finding them lacking in merit, we affirm.

1. Jordan contends that the trial court misapplied and misconstrued the doctrine of collateral estoppel. He claims that the trial court erred in concluding that he was barred from litigating the reasons for his discharge because the same issues were not adjudicated at the administrative hearing since that hearing was limited to the eight charges lodged against him. He asserts that “the Board put forth its fabricated reasons for terminating him, selected a hearing officer, received a Recommended Decision from that hand-picked hearing officer, and then had the option of rejecting or adopting the hearing officer’s Recommended Decision, as it suited them.” In essence, Jordan asserts that he was denied independent review of his termination. He claims that after the trial court decided he was collaterally estopped from re-litigating the hearing officer’s findings of facts, he was forbidden by the trial court from asserting his innocence or uttering any refutation or challenge with regard to the charges raised against him by the Board.1

Jordan v. The Georgia Bd. of Pub. Safety

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report