[DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 2- 12 22 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 0- cv -0 00 37 -J RH-WLB PAMELA JORDAN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , ver su s COLUMBIA C OUNTY BOARD OF ED UCATION, COLUMBIA C OUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, CHARLES R. NAGEL, Supe rin te nd en t o f Sch oo ls , DEWAYNE PORTER, Dire ct orof Tra ns po rta ti on , ROBERT J ARRELL, Ass is ta ntSupe rin te nd en t, etal., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 1 of 9__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Oct ob er 2 4, 2 01 2) Befo re MAR CUS, WILSON an d P RYOR, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Pam el a Jo rd anap pe al s fr om th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng de fen da nt Co lu m bi a Co un ty Boardof Educ at io n’s (t he “ Bo ard ”) m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Onap pe al , Jo rd anco nt en ds th atsu m m ary jud gm en t was im

pr op er be cau se ge nu in e is su es of m at eri al factex is t as to he r ri gh ts as acla ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyee. Forth e rea so ns th atfol lo w, th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng th e Bo ard ’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t i s af

firm ed . I. Back gr ou nd Jo rd anwas fo rm erl y

em pl oyed b y th e Co lu m

bi a Co un ty Scho ol Dis tri ct(th e

“ Dis tri ct ”) as a bu s d riv er. Sh e was term in at edon Sep te m be r 29 , 20 09 . Jo rd an was term in at edba se d o n ahi st ory of e m pl oym en t m is co nduc t cu lm in at in g i n a vi ol at io n o f th e Dis tri ct ’s po li cy ba nn in g c el l-p ho ne us e whi le op erat in g abu s. Jo rd andi d n otha ve anem pl oym en t co ntractwith t he Dis tri ct ; i ns te ad , sh e was co ns id ereda cl as si fie d “ at -wil l” em pl oyee un de r th e Dis tri ct ’s em pl oym en t 2 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 2 of 9sc he m e. Cla ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyees wi th in th e Dis tri ctare n on -certi fie d s ta ff in cl ud in g c us to di an s, b us -driv ers , sec ret ari es , par ap ro fes si on al s, an d nut rit io n em pl oyees. Ce rti fie d e m

pl oyees, t he ot he r cat eg ory of e m pl oyees u nd er the Dis tri ct ’s em

pl oym en t s ch em e, in cl ud e te ach ers , adm in is tra to rs , andcert ifi ed educ at or s. The Dis tri ctm ai nt ai ns sep arat e an d d is ti nc t p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es for cert ifi edan d c la ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyees. Th e p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es ad dr es si ng co m pl ai nt s an d g rie va nc es of c ert ifi edem pl oyees a re co de d “ GAE.” Cert ifi ed em pl oyees a re en ti tl edto anap pe al he ari ng in fro ntof t he Bo ard . The p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es ap pl ic ab le to th e su sp en si on an d t erm in at io n o f cl as si fie d a t-wi ll pe rs on ne l ar e co de d “ GCK.” Cl as si fie d a t-wi ll em pl oyees a re n oten ti tl edto an ap pe al he ari ng in fro ntof t he Bo ard . Howev er, wh il e th e GCK p la n d oe s n ot m an da te an ap pe al he ari ng in fro ntof t he Bo ard , cla ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyees c an ap pe al th ei r te rm in at io n a ndm eetwith t he ir s up erv is or (s ) to di sc us s t he ir app eal . Inth e cu rren t m atte r, Jo rd anm etwith Dewa yne Po rte r, Dire ct orof t he Co lu m bi a Co un ty T ran sp orta ti onDepa rtment, o n thr ee s ep arat e o ccas io ns to di sc us s t he vi ol at io n o f th e Dis tri ct ’s cel l-p ho ne po li cy . Jo rd anwas o fte n co m ba ti ve du rin g t he se m eet in gs . At th e en d o f th ei r la stm eet in g, Po rte r in fo rm ed Jo rd anof h is de ci si on to reco m m en d t erm in at io n. He al so advi se d J or da n o f he r

3 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 3 of 9rig htto ap pe al to Ro be rt J arre ll , Ass is ta ntSupe rin te nd en t o f th e Dis tri ct .

Jo rd ansubs eque nt ly m etwith J arre ll to di sc us s Po rte r’s te rm in at io n reco m m en da ti on . Jare ll rev ie wedbo th Jo rd an ’s st at em en t as well as d oc um en ts co m pi le d b y Po rte r. Bas edonth is in fo rm at io n, an d i n a cco rd an ce wi th Jo rd an ’s hi st ory of d is ci pl in ary vi ol at io ns , Jarrel l d eci de d t o uph ol d t he de ci si on to te rm in at e Jo rd an . The Dis tri ctSupe rin te nd en t, Ro be rt Na gl e, th enrev ie wedth e te rm in at io n reco m m en da ti on s o f bo th Po rte r an d J arre ll . Nagl e uph el d t he term in at io n reco m m en da ti on s b as edon Jo rd an ’s hi st ory of m is co nduc t, i ns ub or di na ti on , and po li cy vi ol at io ns . Nagl e th ensubm it te d h is term in at io n re co m m en da ti on to th e Bo ard . He als o i nf

orm edJo rd anof h er ri gh t t o h av e h er t erm in at io n re vi ewedby th e Bo ard . Jo rd anreque st edth atth e Bo ardrev ie w herterm in at io n. Sh e al so reque st ed th atth e Bo ardco nduc t a h eari ng on he r ap pe al . Nagl e p ro vi de d t he Bo ardwith a co m pi la ti on of d oc um en ts rel at edto Jo rd an ’s cas e, in cl ud in g J or dan’s p ers on al st at em en t re ga rd in g t he cel l-p ho ne in ci de ntan d the reco m m en da ti on s o f Po rte r an d J arre ll . The Bo ardrev ie wedth es e m at eri al s an d v ot edto ap pr ov e th e te rm in at io n reco m m en da ti on . The Bo ardag reedth ata te rm in at io n h eari ng was u nn eces sa ry 4 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 4 of 9be cau se th e in fo rm at io n p ro vi de d was su ffi ci en t t o a ll ow i t t o m ak e a d eci si on .

The Bo ardterm in at edJo rd anba se d o n h er ex te ns iv e h is to ry of e m pl oyee m is co nduc t, v io la ti on s o f Sch oo l Di st ric t p ol ic ie s, an d i ns ub or di na ti on . In ad di ti on , th e Bo ardde te rm in edth atth e cel l-p ho ne in ci de nt , whi ch vi ol at edbo th Geo rg ialaw an d S ch oo l Di st ric t p ol ic y , con st itut edap pr op ria te gro un ds for te rm in at io n. On J anua ry

15 , 20 10 , Jo rd anfil eda co m pl ai ntin th e Supe rio r Co urt o f Co lu m bi a Co un ty andall eg edth atth e Bo ardvi ol at edhe r pr oc edur al an d subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s ri gh ts when sh e was term in at edfro m he r em pl oym en t as a bu s d riv er. Jo rd anso ug hta writof m an da m us to rem edy

th e Bo ard ’s all eg ed ly il le ga l co nduc t. The Bo ardsubs eque nt ly rem ov edth e cas e to fed eral co urt o n t he ba si s o f fed eral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti on an d m ov edforsu m m ary jud gm en t. The di stric t co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a g ran te d the Bo ard ’s m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t. Thi s ap pe al fol lo wed .

II. St an da rdof R ev ie w Thi s co urt re vi ews de no vo a d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t. Ord

wa y v. Uni te d Sta tes , 90 8 F .2d89 0, 8 93 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). W e m us t d et erm in e whe th er the re i s an y ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al factan d whe th er the m ov in g p art y is en ti tl edto jud gm en t as a m at te r of law. Cel ot ex Co rp . 5 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 5 of 9v. Ca tr et t , 47 7 U.S. 3 17 , 32 2, 1 06 S. Ct. 2 54 8, 2 55 2 (1 98 6) . Fact s ar e “ m at eri al ”

if t he y co ul d a ffec t t he ou tc om e o f th e su itun de r th e g ov ern in g s ub st an ti ve law. Ander so n v . Lib er tyLo bb

y, In c. , 47 7 U.S. 2 42 , 24 8, 1 07 S. Ct. 2 50 5, 2 51 0 (1 98 6) . The co urt m

us t v ie w th e fac ts inth e li gh t m os t favo rab le to th e n on -m ov in g p art y . Hin es vi ll e Ban k v. Pon

y Exp ress Co ur ie r C

or p. , 86 8 F .2d15 32 , 15 35 (11 th Cir . 19 89 ). Any

“ reas on ab le do ub ts ab ou t t he fact s ar e res ol ve d i n fa vo r of th e no nm ov an t.” Id . Sum

m ary jud gm en t i s n otap pr op ria te “ [i]f m or e th anon e in fere nc e co ul d b e co ns tru edfro m th e fac ts by a reas on ab le factfin de r, an d t ha t in fere nc e in tro du ces a ge nu in e is su e o f m at eri al fact. . . .” Ban nu m, Inc . v. Cit y o f For t La uderda le , 90 1 F .2d98 9, 9 96 (11 th Cir . 19 90 ). III. Di sc us si on Inth e cu rren t m atte r, Jo rd anarg ue s t ha t t he re i s a g enui ne is su e o f m at eri al factas t o wh ethe r cl as si fie d a t-wi ll em pl oyees a re s ub

ject t o t he GAE pla n o r th e GSK pl an . As s ta te d e arl ie r, un de r th e Dis tri ct ’s em pl oym en t p la n, ce rti fie d 1 em pl oyees s uc h a s t each ers an d a dm in is tra to rs are s ub ject t o GAE p ol ic ie s an d pr oc edur es . Clas si fie d a t-wi ll em pl oyees s uc h a s b us dri ve rs an d

J ordan a lso contends that she ha d a prope rty right in her job and thus her due proc ess 1 rights were violated when the Boa rd denie d her r equest for

a ter mination hearing . Under Geor g ia law, howe ver, a

public employee g enerally has no prope rty

right in at-will employ

ment. See Ogletreev. Chester , 682 F.2d 1366, 1369–70 ( 11th Cir. 1982). Thus, J ordan is not entitled to any ty pe of br oader

due proc ess outside of the District’ s employ ment plan. 6 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 6 of 9pa rap ro fes si on al s, o n t he ot he r ha nd , are s ub ject t o GSK p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es . Jo rd an , ho wev er, b el ie ve s t ha t cl as si fie d a t-wi ll em pl oyees a re al so subjec t to th e GAE po li ci es an d p ro cedur es . This be li ef i s b as edon th e la ng ua ge in a 20 07 Set tl em en t Ag reem en t b etweenJo rd an ’s un io n a ndth e Dis tri ct . The 2 pe rti ne ntlan gu ag e o f th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t re ad s as fol lo ws: Inth e b es t i nt eres t o f al l p art ie s an d a ll em pl oyees, Sc ho ol Bo ardCo un se l wi ll dra ft an e xp an de d g rie va nc e p ol ic y(GAE1) forall cla ss ifi edem

pl oyees, i nc lu di ng em

pl oyees o f th e Tran sp orta ti on Depa rtment. Pu rs ua ntto th is ex pa nd edpo li cy , cl as si fie d e m

pl oyees wi th at l eas t 2 4 m on th s o f co nt in uo us se rv ic e wit h t he Bo ardof Educ at io n c anap pe al to th e Bo ardof Edu cat io n o r it s Pe rs on ne l Co m m it te e an y

reco m m en da ti on to te rm in at e su ch em

pl oyee(s ) be fo re fi na l ac ti on to term in at e is ta ke n b y th e Bo ard . The Adm in is tra ti on wil l co nt in ue im pl em en ti ng pro cedur es on du e p ro ces s. Th e ad m in is tra ti on wil l p rep are p ro cedur es to de fin e th e p ro ces s. Jo rd anarg ue s t ha t t he refe ren ce t o “ GAE-1” i n t he Set tl em en t Agr eem en t—th e co de for cer ti fi ed em pl oyees— en ti tl es he r to th e b en efi ts en joy ed by certi fie d e m

pl oyees, i nc lu di ng th e ri gh t t o a n app eal he ari ng in fro ntof t he Bo ard , des pi te he r st atus as acla ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyee. W e d is ag ree. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t’s

In a prior suit, member s of the Tra nsport Workers Union of Ame rica , AFL -CI O, and 2 Transpor t Workers Union L ocal Union No. 279 f iled suit ag ainst the District and the B oard, alleg ing that they

wer e denie d the opportunity to speak a

bout cer tain matters and w ere discriminated ag ainst based on their aff iliation with t he union. In an ef fort to re solve the issues without a Court proce eding , the par ties agree d to the terms of the Settlement Agree ment.

7 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 7 of 9refe ren ce t o GAE-1 was atypog rap hi cal erro r. Ins te ad , th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t

sh ou ldha ve read“ GSK,” th e n am e o f th e g rie va nc e p lan t o wh ic h c la ss ifi edatwil l em pl oyees a re s ub

ject. It i s cl ear t o u s t ha t the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t s ho ul d h av e rea d “ GSK” in st eadof “ GAE-1.” Fi rs t, the lan gu ag e o f th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t s up po rts su ch a fi nd in g. As see n abo ve , fol lo win g t he cit e to GAE-1, “ cl as si fie d em pl oyees” are t he on ly categ ory of e m pl oyee refe ren ced . Und er the Dis tri ct em pl oym en t s ch em e, cl as si fie d e m pl oyees a re s ub

ject t o t he GSK pl an , no t t he GAE pla n. In ad di ti on , “ tra ns po rta ti on work ers ” are na m ed ; t ran sp orta ti on worke rs are cl as si fie d a t-wi ll em pl oyees a s emplo y edby the Dis tri ct . There is no di sp ut e as to th is cat eg or iz at io n. Fu rth erm or e, th e aff id av it s fr om

in di vi du al s in vo lv edinth e n eg ot ia ti on s o f th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t an d s ub se qu en t m em or an dade sc rib in g t he ne w gri ev an ce p ro cedur es un de r th e GSK pl an , supp ort a fi nd in g t ha t t he Set tl em en t Ag reem en t s ho ul d h av e rea d “ GSK.” It i s cl ear t ha t th e Set tl em en t Ag reem en t’s re fere nc e to GAE-1 i ns te adof GSK was a typo gr ap hi cal erro r. Bas edon th is in fo rm at io n, re as on ab le factfin de rs co ul d d raw no ot he r in fere nc e. Se e Ban nu m, Inc . , 90 1 F .2dat 9 96 . As an at- wil l em

pl oyee un de r th e Dis tri ct ’s em pl oym en t s ch em e, Jo rd anwas no t en ti tl edto a te rm in at io n h eari ng . She was m erel y en ti tl edto ap pe al th e 8 Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 8 of 9te rm in at io n d eci si on , whi ch sh e d id . She was e nt it le d t o m eetwith h er s up erv is or s

to di sc us s t he term in at io n d eci si on . She di d. Sh e was en ti tl edto ha ve th e Bo ard rev ie w th e te rm in at io n d eci si on . It d id . The Di stric t an d B oardfol lo wedth e pr op er p ol ic ie s an d p ro cedur es affo rd edto cla ss ifi edat- wil l em pl oyees s uc h a s Jo rd an . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t fo r th e d efen da nt Bo ardis AFFIRMED.

9

Case: 12-12229 Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Page: 9 of 9