ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

Seeking injunctive and declaratory relief, Hatcher sued the board claiming that she was
demoted without due process, and that she was demoted for activity protected by the First
Amendment. This suit was filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court granted summary
judgment to the board dismissing both claims by Hatcher. Hatcher then filed an appeal on both
claims.
Issues: (1) Was Hatcher demoted? (2) If Hatcher was demoted, did it create a
constitutional due process claim? (3) Did the board’s actions comply with constitutional due
process requirements? (4) Was Hatcher entitled to an appointment at a comparable
administrative position following realignment, and what due process requirements entailed? (5)
Were Hatcher’s First Amendment rights violated?
Holding: The court held that Hatcher had been demoted based on the circumstances of
her reassignment. Moreover, Hatcher did possess a constitutional due process claim, but the
district did fulfill all requirements on this point. The court also held that Hatcher was entitled to a
vacant position and that her First Amendment rights had been violated.
Reasoning: Georgia required three components for an employment reassignment to be
labeled a demotion. First, there must be a loss in salary which Hatcher sustained. Two, there
must be a loss in responsibility which is evident in the job descriptions between a media
specialist and a principal. Three, there must be a loss in prestige which can be reasonably
assumed was the case moving from the principal’s office back to the library.
Next, Hatcher was a tenured teacher, and tenured teachers in Georgia must receive
substantive due process when they are demoted, according to O.C.G.A § 20-2-942(b)(1).
O.C.G.A § 20-2-942(b)(2) outlines the requirements for due process in a demotion setting which
required written notice from the board, a hearing before the board, and ability to appeal to the
101