Hamilton v. Telfair County School District

455 S.E.2d 23, 265 Ga. 304, 95 Fulton County D. Rep. 1111, 1995 Ga. LEXIS 150

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: March 17, 1995
• Docket: S94A1703
• Status: Published

Opinions

Hunt, Chief Justice.

Susan Hamilton was transferred from her position as assistant principal at Telfair County High School to the position of principal of Telfair Alternative Center. Believing that her transfer constituted a demotion, Hamilton asked for a hearing before the school board. The school board denied her request on the ground that she had in fact been promoted. Hamilton then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the school board to conduct a hearing. The trial court denied the petition, finding that Hamilton had failed to prove that she had been demoted. Hamilton appeals, and we affirm.

In order to establish that a transfer constitutes a demotion, one must show that there has been an adverse effect on one’s salary, responsibility, and prestige, OCGA § 20-2-943 (a) (2) (C); Rockdale County School District v. Weil, 245 Ga. 730 (266 SE2d 919) (1980). Unless all three features are affected, the transfer will not be considered a demotion. Id. at 732.

In this case, Hamilton fails to establish, as a threshold issue, that she has suffered a reduction in pay. In her previous job, Hamilton had a 12-month contract including a $2,400 local vocational education supplement for total compensation of $49,126. However, the record supports the trial court’s findings that had she continued in that job, she would have been reduced to an 11-month contract and would not have received the $2,400 local supplement, for a total annual compensation of $44,273.44. In her position at Telfair Alternative Center, Hamilton has an 11-month contract with total compensation of $45,671. Accordingly, having failed to show an adverse effect on her salary, Hamilton cannot demonstrate that her transfer constitutes a demotion. Therefore, we need not compare the responsibility and prestige in Hamilton’s former and present jobs.¹

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Benham, P. J., and Hunstein, J., who dissent.

1 In any event, resolution of these two prongs of the test would be for the trial court as a factfinder and if that decision were supported by any credible evidence, it would be affirmed. The word “prestige” might be somewhat ambiguous, but it is usually consistent with the idea of rank, and in that context, the office of principal would seem more prestigious than the office of assistant principal. We are also mindful of Carlyle’s admonition: “All work [even manual] ... is noble; work is alone noble. . . .” Thomas Carlyle, Past and Present, Bk. Ill, Ch. 4.