NOTICE: This opinion is subject to modification resulting from motions for reconsideration under Supreme Court Rule 27, the Court’s reconsideration, and editorial revisions by the Reporter of Decisions. The version of the opinion published in the Advance Sheets for the Georgia Reports, designated as the “Final Copy,” will replace any prior version on the Court’s website and docket. A bound volume of the Georgia Reports will contain the final and official text of the opinion.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided: October 22, 2024
S23G1170. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY v.
JUSTICE.
ELLINGTON, Justice.
Richard Andrew Justice brought a claim against the Georgia
Department of Public Safety (“DPS”) for breach of an employment
contract by failing to pay him for overtime hours under provisions of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 USC § 201 et seq.,
that allegedly were incorporated into the employment contract. The
narrow question before us in this case is whether Justice has shown
the existence of a written contract such that his complaint survives
DPS’s motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1) on sovereign
immunity grounds. We conclude that Justice has shown the
existence of a written contract with DPS on which his action is
based, thereby establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity under
the ex contractu clause of the Constitution of the State of Georgia.
See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (c) (“The state’s defense
of sovereign immunity is hereby waived as to any action ex contractu
for the breach of any written contract now existing or hereafter
entered into by the state or its departments and agencies.”). We also
conclude that the question of whether the FLSA obligations were
part of that written contract is not a sovereign immunity question,
but is a merits question that was not properly before the trial court
on DPS’s motion to dismiss pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in part,
specifically to the extent it determined that sovereign immunity was
waived, and we vacate that judgment in part, to the extent it
determined – prematurely in the context of a motion to dismiss for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction – that the FLSA obligations were
part of the written contract. The case is remanded for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1. Factual and Procedural Background
Justice’s amended complaint alleged that from 2014 to 2020,
2
he and 400 similarly situated putative class members were hired as
state troopers with the Georgia State Patrol, were required to attend
trooper school, and collectively were underpaid approximately
$4,782,848 in wages for overtime hours worked during trooper
school. The complaint alleged that DPS sent Justice a “written offer
of employment” containing the terms of employment including
salary and start date; that the written offer was “signed by an agent
of the State of Georgia who had sufficient authority to make written
offers of employment”; that Justice accepted the written offer “in
writing” and signed more documentation that was “incorporated
into his employment agreement”; that the agreement “included all
of the necessary terms of a written contract, including offer,
acceptance, and consideration”; that pursuant to the agreement,
Justice was to receive overtime compensation, which was
“contractually referred to as ‘FLSA Time’”; that DPS “breached its
written contract with Justice by failing to compensate him for the
. . . FLSA Time he accrued”; and that the “claims of the individual
class members are similar to” Justice’s claim. DPS moved to dismiss
3
pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1) due to lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction, based solely on sovereign immunity and the alleged
failure of Justice to meet his burden of establishing a waiver of
sovereign immunity. Justice responded that the offer of
employment, his acceptance, and certain contemporaneously
executed documents constituted a written contract such that the
State waived its sovereign immunity.
The trial court allowed limited discovery, and Justice
submitted the documents that he claimed constituted a written
contract between DPS and himself. Specifically, a December 12,
2018, e-mail from Diana Stephens, the Human Resources
Employment Manager for DPS, stated, “Please see the attached
PDF File for your final offer of employment for the Trooper position
in the 106th Trooper school. Please e-mail me back as receipt and
confirmation of your acceptance of this final offer.” The attachment
was a letter signed on behalf of DPS by the Director of its Human
Resources Division, which read as follows:
Congratulations! This letter serves as a final offer of
4
employment as a Trooper Cadet, and is your invitation to
participate in the Georgia State Patrol (GSP) 106th
Trooper School effective January 6, 2019. Your salary will
be $36,110.00 annually.
You will receive follow up information within the
next few weeks regarding report time and new hire
information.
Again, you are congratulated for being selected to
begin the final phase of becoming a [GSP] Trooper. Your
successful completion of all the requirements of the Cadet
Training Program is essential to continuing in Trooper
School and ultimately graduating as a [GSP] Trooper.
This offer is contingent upon POST approval of your law
enforcement application.
As a reminder, you will be given a PT test on the
beginning date of the GSP 106th Trooper School. Your
failure to pass this PT test will result in your immediate
dismissal from the GSP 106th Trooper School.
If you have questions regarding this correspondence,
please call Diana Stephens at [a redacted phone number].
I thank you for your continued interest in employment
with [DPS] and wish you well as you begin Trooper
School.
(Emphasis in original.) Justice replied to Stephens’s e-mail the
same day, stating “I accept this offer. Thanks so much[.]” And
Stephens replied, “Thank you and good luck with all, Diana.”
Justice also filed an affidavit attesting that he subsequently
received “‘new hire information’” from DPS, including a “Policy
Acknowledgment Form” and two documents denominated
5
“Understanding Use of FLSA Compensatory Time.” Those
documents contained blanks for the employee’s signature, and
Justice signed the documents on December 16, 2018.1 By e-mail
dated December 31, 2018, DPS acknowledged receipt of the
1 In the policy acknowledgment form, Justice “acknowledge[d]” his
“responsibility to read and understand” all departmental policies within his
first sixty days of employment and several of those departmental policies
within his first seven days – specifically, policies entitled “Mission and Core
Beliefs,” “Code of Conduct,” “Oath of Office,” “Code of Ethics,” “Unlawful
Harassment and Prohibited Workplace Behavior,” “Equal Employment
Opportunity,” “Leave,” and, finally, Policy Number 5.13 entitled “Work HoursOvertime,” which included both FLSA regulations and State policies unique to
Georgia. One of the FLSA compensatory time forms added the word “(Sworn)”
to the title and stated the following:
I, Richard A. Justice, do hereby acknowledge that as part of the
terms and conditions of my employment with [DPS], I understand
that I may be required to work more than one hundred seventy one
(171) hours in a 28 day work period. I further understand that, in
lieu of overtime compensation, I will receive compensatory time off
at the rate of one and one-half hours for each hour of employment
for which the [FLSA] requires overtime compensation.
The other similar document added “(Non Sworn)” to the title and contained
identical language, except that, instead of addressing work exceeding 171
hours in a 28-day period, it specified that Justice “may be required to work
more than forty (40) hours in a work week.” Justice has alleged that he was a
“non-sworn employee” during trooper school and that DPS failed to compensate
him according to the terms to which the parties agreed in the FLSA
compensatory time form for non-sworn employees. DPS has disputed this
allegation, insisting that Justice “was classified as a sworn member of law
enforcement for the purpose of calculating work hours and overtime” and was
properly compensated under the FLSA. This issue of whether Justice was a
“sworn” or “non-sworn” employee was not resolved by the trial court or the
Court of Appeals and is not properly before this Court.
6
completed “New Hire packet.”
After a hearing, the trial court granted DPS’s motion to dismiss
Justice’s amended complaint, finding that the documents submitted
by Justice were not sufficient to waive sovereign immunity because
they did not constitute a valid written contract and, even if they did,
the agreement was only to begin employment at the stated salary
and did not involve a meeting of the minds to include FLSA overtime
compensation provisions.
In reversing the trial court’s ruling, the lead opinion of the
Court of Appeals, relying on State of Ga. v. Fed. Defender Program,
315 Ga. 319, 329-333 (3) (a) (882 SE2d 257) (2022), concluded that,
“[b]ased on the contemporaneously executed documents exchanged
between Justice and DPS, both physical and electronic, . . . the
parties entered into a contract for at-will employment that included
certain FLSA provisions” and, thus, that “DPS waived sovereign
immunity for Justice’s breach of contract claim related to those
agreements, and the trial court erred by finding otherwise.” Justice
v. Dept. of Public Safety, 368 Ga. App. 593, 599 (3) (b) (890 SE2d
7
486) (2023) (Doyle, P.J.). Two members of the Court of Appeals panel
concurred specially as to that subdivision of the lead opinion
“because as written, it might be construed to waive sovereign
immunity more broadly than . . . permitted under existing law.”
Justice, 368 Ga. App. at 600 (Gobeil, J., joined by Judge Phipps). But
the special concurrence agreed that “Justice proved the existence of
a written contract (incorporating the applicable FLSA provisions)
sufficient to waive DPS’s sovereign immunity for Justice’s breach of
contract claim.”2 Id. at 600. DPS petitioned this Court for a writ of
certiorari, and we granted the petition.
2 The special concurrence further stated that the FLSA compensatory
time forms were contemporaneously signed and incorporated, explicitly
required Justice’s compliance with FLSA policies as part of the terms and
conditions of his employment, and, combined with DPS’s provision of the
documents and Justice’s signature, demonstrated an intent to be bound by both
parties. Id. at 601 & n.18. However, in the absence of any such express
language in the “Policy Acknowledgment Form,” the special concurrence
considered that form a mere acknowledgment of Justice’s responsibility to read
certain departmental policies in a timely manner, which did not, alone, amount
to a written contract sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. Nevertheless, the
special concurrence concluded that “DPS made a conscious decision to
explicitly incorporate certain FLSA policies with respect to work hours
(contained in the two Compensatory Time forms) into the terms and conditions
of Justice’s employment,” and the special concurrence therefore agreed “that
DPS waived sovereign immunity related to the content of those documents.”
Id. at 602.
8
2. Legal Background
“[S]overeign immunity of a State agency is not an affirmative
defense, going to the merits of the case; instead it raises the issue of
the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction to try the case.” Fed.
Defender, 315 Ga. at 343 (3) (f) (citation and punctuation omitted).
“[S]overeign immunity . . . like various other rules of jurisdiction
and justiciability . . . is concerned with the extent to which a case
properly may come before a court at all.” McConnell v. Dept. of
Labor, 302 Ga. 18, 18-19 (805 SE2d 79) (2017) (citation and
punctuation omitted). Therefore, the applicability of sovereign
immunity cannot be pretermitted, but “is a threshold determination,
and, if it does apply, a court lacks jurisdiction over the case and,
concomitantly, lacks authority to decide the merits of a claim that is
barred.” Id. at 19. More specifically, “[s]overeign immunity is a
threshold issue that must be addressed prior to resolving the merits
of [Justice’s] breach of contract claim.” Worth County School Dist. v.
Tibbetts, 319 Ga. 103, 107 (2) (902 SE2d 558) (2024).
“Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional, it requires the
9
plaintiff to prove any waiver thereto and is properly raised as a
defense under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1).” Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at
327 (3) (citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original).
When considering a motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity
grounds under OCGA § 9-11-12 (b) (1), “a trial court is not confined
to the allegations of the complaint but is authorized to ‘hear the
matter on affidavits presented by the respective parties, [or to]
direct that the matter be heard wholly or partly on oral testimony
or depositions.’ OCGA § 9-11-43 (b).” Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 327
(3).
The Georgia Constitution provides in Article I, Section II,
Paragraph IX (e), that the State’s sovereign immunity extends to “all
of its departments and agencies” and can only be waived by a
constitutional provision or an act of the General Assembly
specifically providing for such a waiver and the extent thereof. See
Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 326-327 (3). Because Justice brought his
lawsuit against DPS, an agency of the State, sovereign immunity
bars the action unless it comes within some waiver. See OCGA § 35-10
2-2 (“There is created a Department of Public Safety.”). Justice
contends that sovereign immunity for the specific type of claim he is
making has been waived under the ex contractu clause. Indeed,
“[o]ne of the exceptions to the defense of sovereign immunity is for
‘any action ex contractu for the breach of any written contract . . .
entered into by the state or its departments and agencies.’ Ga.
Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (c).” Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at
327 (3). See also OCGA § 50-21-1 (a) (“The defense of sovereign
immunity is waived as to any action ex contractu for the breach of
any written contract . . . entered into by the state, departments and
agencies of the state, and state authorities.”).
To meet his burden of proving a waiver of sovereign immunity,
Justice was required to “show that the contract sought to be enforced
is in writing and contains all of the terms necessary to constitute a
valid contract.” Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 327 (3) (citation and
punctuation omitted). And “general provisions of contract law
cannot be applied by the courts to create a waiver of sovereign
immunity by means other than by written contract.” Ga. Dept. of
11
Labor v. RTT Assoc., 299 Ga. 78, 86 (3) (786 SE2d 840) (2016).
3. Analysis
The alleged waiver of sovereign immunity at issue applies to
“any action ex contractu for the breach of any written contract[.]”
Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX (c). And the only question
properly before us is whether there existed a written contract
between the parties sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. “To
constitute a valid contract, there must be parties able to contract, a
consideration moving to the contract, the assent of the parties to the
terms of the contract, and a subject matter upon which the contract
can operate.” OCGA § 13-3-1. “Unless all of these essential terms are
in writing, there is no enforceable written contract for sovereign
immunity purposes.” Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 333 (3) (c).
Each of the essential elements of a contract is present in
writing in this case. The parties’ employment contract had a definite
written subject matter on which it could operate, specifically
Justice’s employment as a state trooper. Both parties were able to
contract. The written offer letter was signed by the Director of DPS’s
12
Human Resources Division. 3 The amended complaint alleges that
the letter was signed by an agent with sufficient authority to make
the offer, and DPS has not denied that allegation or offered evidence
to the contrary. And Justice certainly was able to contract on his
own behalf, absent any evidence to the contrary. Both parties gave
their written assent to the terms of the contract. The offer letter was
transmitted with a written request for Justice to e-mail “back as
receipt and confirmation of your acceptance of this final offer.” On
the same day, Justice sent a written reply – “I accept this offer” – in
an e-mail with his name and e-mail address appearing at the top.
The offer letter’s inclusion of a stated salary in return for Justice’s
training and service as a state trooper was sufficient consideration,
as the only consideration required to support an at-will employment
agreement is “provi[sion] for the payment of wages in exchange for
3 Because the employment agreement contained an authorized signature
on the part of DPS, and because DPS accepts for purposes of this appeal the
existence of a signed employment agreement between the parties, we
pretermit, as we did in Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 334 (3) (c) & n. 12, the issue
of whether a writing must be signed by an agent of the State in order to waive
sovereign immunity.
13
the satisfactory performance of job duties.” Balmer v. Elan Corp.,
278 Ga. 227, 228 (2) (599 SE2d 158) (2004).
The parties’ written employment contract was valid and
enforceable even though it was formed through electronic means
and was terminable at will. Because neither the e-mail exchanges
between DPS and Justice nor anything else specified a definite
length of employment, despite the offer letter’s reference to an
annual salary, it is true that their employment agreement was
terminable at-will. See Parker v. Crider Poultry, 275 Ga. 361, 362
(1) (565 SE2d 797) (2002) (“An employment contract containing no
definite term of employment is terminable at the will of either
party.”); Ikemiya v. Shibamoto America, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 271, 273
(1) (444 SE2d 351) (1994) (“[D]ocuments referring to an annual
salary merely establish the total amount payable during a twelvemonth period and not the duration thereof. The computation of the
salaries on an annualized basis does not turn this compensation
term into a duration term.” (citation and punctuation omitted)).
Even so, “an at-will employment relationship can give rise to certain
14
contractual rights,” and “a promise of future compensation made at
the beginning of the employment relationship” may be enforceable.
O’Connor v. Fulton County, 302 Ga. 70, 71 (1) (805 SE2d 56) (2017)
(citation and punctuation omitted). Moreover, under general
principles of contract law, a contract can be “memorialized in an email for purposes of determining whether the State has waived its
sovereign immunity,” and the Georgia Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act, OCGA § 10-12-1 et seq., applies to a State agency
where, as here, “the context and surrounding circumstances,
including the parties’ conduct, demonstrate that the parties agreed
to conduct the particular transaction at issue by electronic means.”
Fed. Defender, 315 Ga. at 330-333 (3) (a), (b) (citation and
punctuation omitted). Accordingly, the Court of Appeals’ lead
opinion and the special concurrence in this case correctly agreed
that the e-mail exchanges between DPS and Justice on December
12, 2018, including the offer letter from DPS, showed the existence
of a written at-will employment contract that included Justice’s
start date and salary. See Justice, 368 Ga. App. at 598-599 (3) (a),
15
(b); id. at 600 (Gobeil, J., concurring specially).
Because Justice’s claim arises from his employment contract,
and that contract is written, sovereign immunity is waived for his
action based on the breach of the written employment contract.
Although the Court of Appeals correctly held that DPS waived
sovereign immunity for the breach of the written at-will employment
contract that DPS and Justice entered on December 12, 2018, the
Court of Appeals improperly considered whether DPS was
contractually obligated to comply with the FLSA. And the trial court
improperly determined whether, assuming the existence of a valid
written contract, it included FLSA overtime compensation
provisions. The latter question goes to the merits of Justice’s action
and thus was not relevant to sovereign immunity and was not
appropriate to consider on a motion to dismiss based on an asserted
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On remand, however, the trial
court will be authorized to address the merits of the case in response
to the pleadings and motions other than the motion to dismiss on
the ground of sovereign immunity. Those merits issues may include,
16
but are not limited to, whether the FLSA obligations became part of
Justice’s written employment contract and whether DPS breached
contractual terms that Justice alleges are part of the written
contract.
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part, and case
remanded. All the Justices concur.
17