Glenn loses 4-3 in Supreme Court ruling

Glenn’s attorney, Mike Bowers, said he was “disappointed” in the outcome.

After his termination, Glenn requested a hearing to clear his name. He claimed that Mayor Jim Joiner and other current and former city officials had made false and stigmatizing statements related to the termination, which the local newspaper had publicized, according to briefs. The city manager denied his request for a hearing, and Mayor Joiner and the other officials approved the denial.

Glenn then sued them, seeking damages for injury to his reputation, mental anguish, lost wages and violation of his due process rights under the Georgia Constitution. Former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers has represented Glenn. The mayor and city officials filed a motion, asking the court to issue a judgment in their favor based solely on the allegations and information contained in the pleadings. They argued that Glenn could not seek damages when an “adequate state remedy” exists under the law. Rather than bring due process claims under the Georgia Constitution, they argued, he was required to seek a “writ of mandamus,” asking the court to compel the city officials to provide him with a name-clearing hearing. In December 2009, the trial court denied their motion, allowing Glenn’s lawsuit against them to go forward.

But in Monday’s majority decision, written by Justice Hugh Thompson, the Court agrees with the city officials and has reversed the lower court’s decision.

“Accordingly, we hold that a writ of mandamus is a procedural remedy which cures defendants’ failure to provide plaintiff with a name-clearing hearing,” the majority opinion says. “It follows that the superior court erred in denying defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings.”

Joining in the majority are Justices Robert Benham, P. Harris Hines and David Nahmias.

In the dissent, Chief Justice Carol Hunstein wrote that Glenn was not seeking damages for a due process violation. He sought damages for official misconduct, and his complaint “on its face does not assert a cause of action for a due process violation.”

Under state law, “Glenn’s claims are not precluded by the adequate state remedy doctrine,” the dissent says. “In fact, this Court has held on at least one previous occasion that a single instance of alleged official misconduct may give rise to claims both for mandamus relief and for damages, thus affirmatively rejecting the notion that the availability of mandamus to compel performance of a ministerial duty…precludes damages actions” under state law. Joining in the dissent were Presiding Justice George Carley and Justice Harold Melton.