Court Opinion

ID: 9846553
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:43:38.461918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:38.002745
License: Public Domain

Hill, Justice,
dissenting.
In Division 2, the majority say that in order for a change of position to be a demotion within the meaning of Code Ann. § 32-2103c, the new position must have "less responsibility, prestige and salary” (emphasis supplied), and consequently that a change of position at a higher salary is not a demotion regardless of the fact that it may have less responsibility and prestige.1 By parity of reasoning it would follow that a change of position with more responsibility and a lower salary would not be a demotion. Similarly, a change of position with less responsibility and less prestige but at the same salary would not be a demotion, according to the majority. With these consequences, I cannot agree. I would hold that the employee in this case was entitled to a hearing before the local board of education on the question of whether or not his transfer constituted a demotion. I therefore respectfully dissent.

In these days of skyrocketing inflation, a raise of $500 per year, or $42 per month, may not have been the raise a school principal was entitled to receive if he had been allowed to retain his position.