FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MILLER and DILLARD, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
July 1, 2014
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A14A0223. GEORGIA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COMM. v. JAMES.
MILLER, Judge.
This appeal arises from the decision of the State of Georgia Professional
Standards Commission (“PSC”) to revoke the teaching certificate of former school
principal Joey Dewayne James. After an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) affirmed
the PSC’s decision, James filed a petition for judicial review in the Superior Court of
Dougherty County. The superior court reversed, finding that the PSC violated James’s
due process rights because the PSC based its decision to revoke James’s teaching
certificate on grounds other than and different from those contained in the hearing
notice that the PSC served on James. This Court granted the PSC’s application for
discretionary review. On appeal, the PSC contends that, in reversing the ALJ’s decision, the superior court ignored the any evidence standard required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq. For the reasons that follow,
we agree and reverse.
Judicial review of an administrative decision requires the court to determine that the findings of fact are supported by any evidence and to examine the soundness of the conclusions of law that are based upon the findings of fact. When this Court reviews a superior court’s order in an administrative proceeding, our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior court’s decision but whether the record supports the final decision of the administrative agency.
(Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Davane v. Thurmond, 300 Ga. App.
474, 475 (685 SE2d 446) (2009).
So viewed, the record shows that James was the principal at Southside Middle
School in Albany. In March 2011, a paraprofessional (“parapro”), who also worked
at the school, reported that James told her he wanted to bend her over his desk,
brushed his groin against her buttocks, rubbed his hand along her panty line and
grabbed her breast. The parapro’s report was investigated by the Georgia Association
of Educators (“GAE”) and the local police. After the GAE began its investigation,
James pressured the parapro to “squash it.”
2 James was suspended for ten days with pay until the police investigation was
completed. Approximately one month later, James was suspended again for fifteen
days without pay.
James was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of misdemeanor
sexual battery. 1 The PSC notified James of its intent to revoke his teaching certificate.
James contested the proposed sanction and requested an administrative hearing. In
response, the PSC scheduled a hearing and provided him with notice of the matters
asserted, including detailed facts and circumstances relating to James’s conduct with
the parapro. The notice further informed James that the PSC found probable cause
based on those facts and circumstances, that he violated the laws, rules and
regulations of the PSC, including Rule 505-06-.01 (3) (j), which pertinently provides:
[a]n educator shall demonstrate conduct that follows generally recognized professional standards and preserves the dignity and integrity of the teaching profession. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to any conduct that impairs and/or diminishes the certificate holder’s ability to function professionally in his or her employment position, or behavior or conduct that is detrimental to the health, welfare, discipline, or morals of students.
1 James’s June 2012 criminal trial ended in a mistrial.
3 Following the required administrative hearing, the ALJ issued an order
affirming the PSC’s decision to revoke James’s teaching certificate. The PSC adopted
the ALJ’s conclusions of law and revoked James’s teaching certificate. In the order,
the ALJ specifically found that the PSC proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that James violated PSC Rule 505-06-.01 (3) (j). Notably, the ALJ found that the PSC
established that [James] engaged in unprofessional conduct that impaired his ability to function in his employment position. [James] engaged in sexual harassment and sexual battery of a subordinate employee. . . . a [parapro]. . . . Furthermore, [James] insisted on speaking with [the parapro] alone, despite admonitions from his assistant principal, he told [the parapro] to “squash” the allegations[.]
The ALJ also found that James received two suspensions related to his conduct
that removed him from the school and impaired his ability to function in his
employment. Finally, the ALJ found that Rule 505-06-.01 (5) (a) authorized the PSC
to revoke James’s teaching certificate based on the “egregious nature” of his unethical
conduct.
Rule 505-6-.01 (5) (a) pertinently provides:
[t]he [PSC] is authorized to . . . revoke . . . certificates . . . after an investigation is held and notice and opportunity for a hearing are provided to the certificate holder. Any of the following grounds shall be
4 considered cause for disciplinary actions against the holder of a certificate: 1. unethical conduct . . . 6. violation of any other laws and rules applicable to the profession; and 7. any other good and sufficient cause that renders the educator unfit for employment as an educator.
James appealed to the superior court. The superior court reversed, finding that
the hearing notice did not advise James that the PSC’s decision to revoke his teaching
certificate could be predicated on his administrative suspensions. The superior court
further found that the ALJ’s decision made those suspensions an integral part of the
rational for concluding that James engaged in unethical conduct that justified the
revocation of his teaching certificate.
The PSC contends on appeal that the superior court clearly erred in reversing
the ALJ, because the ALJ found that James violated the PSC Rules by engaging in
sexual harassment and sexual battery of the parapro and by pressuring her to
withdraw her complaint. The PSC further contends that James had notice of those
allegations. For the following reasons, we agree that James had sufficient notice of
the matters presented at the administrative hearing.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, review of an ALJ’s decision by a superior court is done without a jury and is confined to the evidence and testimony received by the ALJ. The [superior] court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the
5 evidence on questions of fact. The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by any evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Professional Standards Comm. v. Smith, 257 Ga.
App. 418 (571 SE2d 4443) (2002). The superior court may, however, reverse or
modify the ALJ’s decision if James’s substantial rights
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FOURTH DIVISION DOYLE, P. J., MILLER and DILLARD, JJ.
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules/
July 1, 2014
In the Court of Appeals of Georgia A14A0223. GEORGIA PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS COMM. v. JAMES.
MILLER, Judge.
This appeal arises from the decision of the State of Georgia Professional
Standards Commission (“PSC”) to revoke the teaching certificate of former school
principal Joey Dewayne James. After an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) affirmed
the PSC’s decision, James filed a petition for judicial review in the Superior Court of
Dougherty County. The superior court reversed, finding that the PSC violated James’s
due process rights because the PSC based its decision to revoke James’s teaching
certificate on grounds other than and different from those contained in the hearing
notice that the PSC served on James. This Court granted the PSC’s application for
discretionary review. On appeal, the PSC contends that, in reversing the ALJ’s decision, the superior court ignored the any evidence standard required by the
Administrative Procedure Act, OCGA § 50-13-1 et seq. For the reasons that follow,
we agree and reverse.
Judicial review of an administrative decision requires the court to determine that the findings of fact are supported by any evidence and to examine the soundness of the conclusions of law that are based upon the findings of fact. When this Court reviews a superior court’s order in an administrative proceeding, our duty is not to review whether the record supports the superior court’s decision but whether the record supports the final decision of the administrative agency.
(Citations, punctuation and footnote omitted.) Davane v. Thurmond, 300 Ga. App.
474, 475 (685 SE2d 446) (2009).
So viewed, the record shows that James was the principal at Southside Middle
School in Albany. In March 2011, a paraprofessional (“parapro”), who also worked
at the school, reported that James told her he wanted to bend her over his desk,
brushed his groin against her buttocks, rubbed his hand along her panty line and
grabbed her breast. The parapro’s report was investigated by the Georgia Association
of Educators (“GAE”) and the local police. After the GAE began its investigation,
James pressured the parapro to “squash it.”
2 James was suspended for ten days with pay until the police investigation was
completed. Approximately one month later, James was suspended again for fifteen
days without pay.
James was subsequently arrested and charged with two counts of misdemeanor
sexual battery. 1 The PSC notified James of its intent to revoke his teaching certificate.
James contested the proposed sanction and requested an administrative hearing. In
response, the PSC scheduled a hearing and provided him with notice of the matters
asserted, including detailed facts and circumstances relating to James’s conduct with
the parapro. The notice further informed James that the PSC found probable cause
based on those facts and circumstances, that he violated the laws, rules and
regulations of the PSC, including Rule 505-06-.01 (3) (j), which pertinently provides:
[a]n educator shall demonstrate conduct that follows generally recognized professional standards and preserves the dignity and integrity of the teaching profession. Unethical conduct includes but is not limited to any conduct that impairs and/or diminishes the certificate holder’s ability to function professionally in his or her employment position, or behavior or conduct that is detrimental to the health, welfare, discipline, or morals of students.
1 James’s June 2012 criminal trial ended in a mistrial.
3 Following the required administrative hearing, the ALJ issued an order
affirming the PSC’s decision to revoke James’s teaching certificate. The PSC adopted
the ALJ’s conclusions of law and revoked James’s teaching certificate. In the order,
the ALJ specifically found that the PSC proved by a preponderance of the evidence
that James violated PSC Rule 505-06-.01 (3) (j). Notably, the ALJ found that the PSC
established that [James] engaged in unprofessional conduct that impaired his ability to function in his employment position. [James] engaged in sexual harassment and sexual battery of a subordinate employee. . . . a [parapro]. . . . Furthermore, [James] insisted on speaking with [the parapro] alone, despite admonitions from his assistant principal, he told [the parapro] to “squash” the allegations[.]
The ALJ also found that James received two suspensions related to his conduct
that removed him from the school and impaired his ability to function in his
employment. Finally, the ALJ found that Rule 505-06-.01 (5) (a) authorized the PSC
to revoke James’s teaching certificate based on the “egregious nature” of his unethical
conduct.
Rule 505-6-.01 (5) (a) pertinently provides:
[t]he [PSC] is authorized to . . . revoke . . . certificates . . . after an investigation is held and notice and opportunity for a hearing are provided to the certificate holder. Any of the following grounds shall be
4 considered cause for disciplinary actions against the holder of a certificate: 1. unethical conduct . . . 6. violation of any other laws and rules applicable to the profession; and 7. any other good and sufficient cause that renders the educator unfit for employment as an educator.
James appealed to the superior court. The superior court reversed, finding that
the hearing notice did not advise James that the PSC’s decision to revoke his teaching
certificate could be predicated on his administrative suspensions. The superior court
further found that the ALJ’s decision made those suspensions an integral part of the
rational for concluding that James engaged in unethical conduct that justified the
revocation of his teaching certificate.
The PSC contends on appeal that the superior court clearly erred in reversing
the ALJ, because the ALJ found that James violated the PSC Rules by engaging in
sexual harassment and sexual battery of the parapro and by pressuring her to
withdraw her complaint. The PSC further contends that James had notice of those
allegations. For the following reasons, we agree that James had sufficient notice of
the matters presented at the administrative hearing.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, review of an ALJ’s decision by a superior court is done without a jury and is confined to the evidence and testimony received by the ALJ. The [superior] court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the
5 evidence on questions of fact. The superior court’s review of evidentiary issues is limited to determining whether factual findings are supported by any evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Professional Standards Comm. v. Smith, 257 Ga.
App. 418 (571 SE2d 4443) (2002). The superior court may, however, reverse or
modify the ALJ’s decision if James’s substantial rights
have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error of law; (5) Clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (6) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.
(Citation omitted.) MXenergy, Inc. v. Ga. Public Svcs. Comm., 310 Ga. App. 630, 633
(1) (714 SE2d 132) (2011); see also OCGA § 50-13-19 (h) (1).
Once the State issues a teaching certificate, it may not be revoked without
procedural due process. See Gee v. Professional Practices Comm., 268 Ga. 491, 493
(1) (491 SE2d 375) (1997). The procedural due process required to revoke a teaching
6 certificate is set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), OCGA § 50-13-1
et. seq. Those procedures were followed in this case.
Notably, in contested cases, such as the present case, the APA provides for a
hearing after reasonable notice. See OCGA § 50-13-13 (a) (1). The notice must
include “[a] short and plain statement of the matters asserted.” OCGA § 50-13-13 (a)
(2) (D); see also OCGA § 50-13-18 (c); Ga. Public Svcs. Comm. v. Alltel Ga.
Communications Corp., 244 Ga. App. 645, 648 (1) (536 SE2d 542) (2000). “Mere
vagaries or generalities are insufficient, and the notice must be sufficiently specific
and detailed to convey to the employee the substantial nature of the charge without
requiring speculation on his part as to the precise complaint he must answer.”
(Citation and punctuation omitted). Swafford v. Dade County Bd. of Commrs., 266
Ga. 646, 648 (5) (469 SE2d 666) (1996).
Here, in response to James’s request, the PSC scheduled a hearing and
provided James with notice pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-13 (a) (2), including a
statement of the matters asserted (“SMA”) pursuant to OCGA § 50-13-13 (a) (2) (D).
The SMA specifically alleged that James made inappropriate physical contact with
and comments to the parapro, and that James pressured her to “squash everything and
act like nothing happened.” The SMA set forth the incidents involving the
7 inappropriate contact and comments in specific detail, including James’s actions in
rubbing his crotch against the parapro’s buttocks, fondling her breast and pressuring
her to “squash everything;” The SMA further provided that based on the “facts and
circumstances set forth above, the [PSC] found probable cause that [James] violated
the laws, rules and regulations of the [PSC],” including Rule 505-06-.01 (3) (j).
Contrary, to James’s contention and the superior court’s findings, the SMA provided
sufficient detail to identify the alleged wrongdoing and the incidents and persons
involved. See Swofford, supra, 266 Ga. at 648 (5).
Moreover, contrary to the superior court’s finding, James’s administrative
suspensions were not an integral part of the ALJ’s rationale for finding that James
engaged in unethical conduct which justified the revocation of his teaching
certificate. Notably, the ALJ’s order specifically provided that James engaged in
unprofessional conduct—sexual harassment and sexual battery of the parapro—in
violation of PSC Rule 505-6-01 (3) (j). While ALJ also noted that James received two
suspensions that impaired his ability to function in his employment, the ALJ
ultimately concluded that revocation of James’s teaching certificate was appropriate
based on the “egregious nature of [James’s] conduct.” The evidence supported the
8 ALJ’s finding. Accordingly, the superior court erred in reversing the PSC’s final
decision revoking James’s teaching certificate.
Judgment reversed. Doyle, P. J., and Dillard, J., concur.