Terry Riggins v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Terry Riggins v. City of Atlanta

798 S.E.2d 730, 340 Ga. App. 895, 2017 WL 1100926, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 154

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedMarch 23, 2017

DocketA17A0194

StatusPublished

This text of 798 S.E.2d 730 (Terry Riggins v. City of Atlanta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Terry Riggins v. City of Atlanta, 798 S.E.2d 730, 340 Ga. App. 895, 2017 WL 1100926, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 154 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Ellington, Presiding Judge.

Terry Riggins appeals from the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County that dismissed her complaint alleging that the City of Atlanta and named City employees acting in their official capacities violated the Georgia Whistleblower Act (“GWA”), OCGA § 45-1-4, when they allegedly had her employment terminated for complaining about irregularities in the City’s water system. The City argued, and the superior court found, that Riggins’ suit was barred because she failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a plaintiff provide ante litem notice before asserting certain claims against a *896 municipality pursuant to OCGA § 36-33-5. Riggins appeals, contending that the municipal ante litem notice requirement does not apply to claims brought pursuant to the GWA. For the following reasons, we agree.

Decided March 23, 2017. The Holloway Firm, Samantha A. Holloway; Harry M. Daniels, Jr., for appellant. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Anita W. Thomas, Dennis A. Horn; R. Roger Bhandari, for appellees.

After this appeal was docketed in this Court and briefed, the Supreme Court of Georgia addressed this issue in response to a certified question from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and it held “that the pre-suit notice requirement contained in the municipal ante litem notice statute does not apply to a whistleblower claim brought pursuant to the GWA.” West v. City of Albany, 300 Ga. 743 (797 SE2d 809) (2017). Given this recent precedent, we must conclude that Riggins was not required to provide the City with ante litem notice of her GWA claim. Consequently, the superior court’s order must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Andrews and Rickman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Ellington, Presiding Judge.

Terry Riggins appeals from the order of the Superior Court of Fulton County that dismissed her complaint alleging that the City of Atlanta and named City employees acting in their official capacities violated the Georgia Whistleblower Act (“GWA”), OCGA § 45-1-4, when they allegedly had her employment terminated for complaining about irregularities in the City’s water system. The City argued, and the superior court found, that Riggins’ suit was barred because she failed to comply with the statutory requirement that a plaintiff provide ante litem notice before asserting certain claims against a *896 municipality pursuant to OCGA § 36-33-5. Riggins appeals, contending that the municipal ante litem notice requirement does not apply to claims brought pursuant to the GWA. For the following reasons, we agree.

Decided March 23, 2017. The Holloway Firm, Samantha A. Holloway; Harry M. Daniels, Jr., for appellant. Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, Anita W. Thomas, Dennis A. Horn; R. Roger Bhandari, for appellees.

After this appeal was docketed in this Court and briefed, the Supreme Court of Georgia addressed this issue in response to a certified question from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, and it held “that the pre-suit notice requirement contained in the municipal ante litem notice statute does not apply to a whistleblower claim brought pursuant to the GWA.” West v. City of Albany, 300 Ga. 743 (797 SE2d 809) (2017). Given this recent precedent, we must conclude that Riggins was not required to provide the City with ante litem notice of her GWA claim. Consequently, the superior court’s order must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Andrews and Rickman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 S.E.2d 730, 340 Ga. App. 895, 2017 WL 1100926, 2017 Ga. App. LEXIS 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-riggins-v-city-of-atlanta-gactapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack