O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 47-2-3 (2019)

Employee’s right to judicial review following discharge from employment

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) As used in this Code section, the term: (1) ‘‘Employee’’ means an employee subject to the provisions of Code Section 47-2-2 who is discharged from employment pursuant to that Code section and who is aggrieved by such discharge from employment. (2) ‘‘Employer’’ shall have the same meaning as the definition of that word provided in paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of Code Section 47-2-2. (b) An employee shall have the right to judicial review of the employee’s discharge from employment pursuant to the provisions of Code Section

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2010 · leading case: Bd. of Pub. Saf. v. Jordan, 556 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Pub. Saf. v. Jordan, 556 S.E.2d 837 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “For reasons not made clear by the record, Jordan did not avail himself of his right to judicial review of the Board’s decision as provided in OCGA § 47-2-3. Acting without a jury, a superior court is empowered to reverse or modify the decision of the employer, if substantial…”

Employees' Ret. Sys. of Georgia v. Harris, 692 S.E.2d 798 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 22× “In the order, prepared by Harris’s counsel, the trial court concluded that (1) OCGA § 47-2-3 permitted judicial review of disability retirement applications; (2) ERS’s decision was not entitled to any deference; and (3) even if deference was required, the denial of benefits must…”

Bill Clark, Herbert Futch, Austin Hurst, Louis Sliker & William Barrineau v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 865 F.2d 1237 (11th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 47-2-3; O.C.G.A. § 45-19-36; O.”

Dep't of Pub. Saf. v. Willis, 462 S.E.2d 386 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 16× “” Willis appealed his discharge to the Superior Court under OCGA § 47-2-3. But *542 instead of focusing on the propriety of Willis’ discharge, the trial court issued an opinion declaring the last sentence of OCGA § 47-2-2 (d) unconstitutional as applied and ordering that Willis…”

Jordan v. Bd. of Pub. Saf., 559 S.E.2d 94 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Jordan availed himself of counsel at the hearing and was allowed to call witnesses and to cross-examine the Board’s, but for reasons unclear from the record, he opted not to seek judicial review of the administrative decision as authorized by OCGA § 47-2-3. 14 After failing to…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.