Reg’l Educ. Serv. Agency v. Weaver, 272 Ga. 289, 527 S.E.2d 864 (2000), reversing Weaver v. North Ga. Regional Educ. Serv. Agency, 238 Ga. App. 72, 517 S.E.2d 794 (1999). Employment as grandfathered pharmacist. — Trial court erred in dismissing a public employee’s Georgia Whistle Blower Statute, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, suit as moot as: (1) the employer, the Georgia Department of Corrections, continued to employ grandfathered pharmacists according to an affidavit submitted under O.C.G.A. § 9-11-43; (2) the employee had been a grandfathered pharma- 45-1-4 cist while employed by the Department; and (3) the appellate court saw no reason, but for the alleged retaliatory action, that the employee would not remain employed as a pharmacist with the Department; the employee’s retirement from the Department made the matter moot only if the employee did not want to return to work or could not because the employee was past the mandatory retirement age, but these facts were not apparent from the stipulation that the employee had retired. Hughes v. Ga. Dep’t of Corr., 267 Ga. App. 440, 600 S.E.2d 383 (2004). Activity must concern law, rule, or regulation. — When a port authority officer alleged that the officer was discharged after the officer complained that the port authority was violating its own rules and the Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Act, O.C.G.A. § 35-8-1 et seq., the officer stated a cognizable claim under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(a)(2), (d)(2). Pattee v. Ga. Ports Auth., 477 F. Supp. 2d 1253 (S.D. Ga. Dec. 18, 2006). Allegations of safety concerns failed to allege violation of law, rule, or regulation. — A university professor failed to state a claim under the Whistleblower Act, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, because the professor’s allegations that the professor voiced concerns over lab safety at the university did not show that the professor disclosed any violation of a ‘‘law, rule, or regulation’’ as required under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(a)(2). Edmonds v. Bd. of Regents, 302 Ga. App. 1, 689 S.E.2d 352 (2009), cert. denied, No. S10C0824, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 437 (Ga. 2010). Failure to allege violation of law, rule, or regulation. — Whistle-blower claim failed because the employee did not complain that there was a violation or non-compliance with any law, rule, or regulation. Brathwaite v. Fulton-DeKalb Hosp. Auth., 317 Ga. App. 111, 729 S.E.2d 625 (2012). Chief of police’s belief that employer’s activity is illegal is sufficient. — Public college’s chief of police who objected to the college administration’s directive that the chief speak with the district attorney about having the charges against a suspected laptop thief dropped reasonably believed that the chief was objecting to 10 45-1-4 of a causal connection between those disclosures and the employees’ subsequent terminations. Forrester v. Ga. Dep’t of Human Servs., 308 Ga. App. 716, 708 S.E.2d 660 (2011). In a wrongful termination case, the trial court erred by failing to grant the motion for summary judgment filed by the employer because the only evidence the employee presented of a causal connection was the temporal proximity between the disclosures and the adverse actions; but the only action that occurred less than three months after the disclosures were not materially adverse and the employee did not even allege that the person who took the action knew of the protected disclosures. Freeman v. Smith, 324 Ga. App. 426, 750 S.E.2d 739 (2013). Former police officer’s retaliation claim against a city failed under summary judgment because the officer did not produce evidence of a causal connection as to one adverse employment action, another adverse action was only at most a petty, slight, or minor annoyance and, in any event, the officer had not shown pretext as to the city’s proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the city’s actions. Cobb v. City of Roswell, No. 12-15633, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16608 (11th Cir. Aug. 12, 2013) (Unpublished). Insubordination as relevant factor. — Decision granting summary judgment to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia on a former administrative assistant’s (AA) Georgia Whistleblower Act claim was proper as the former AA failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the reason for the former AA’s termination; the board submitted direct evidence that the former AA’s termination was based on insubordinate behavior during an exchange with a college president, but the former AA failed to present any evidence contradicting the occurrence of the dispute between the former AA and the president. Caldon v. Bd. of Regents of the Do-016 Univ. Sys. of Ga., 311 Ga. App. 155, 715 S.E.2d 487 (2011). illegal conduct, obstruction of justice under O.C.G.A. § 16-10-24(a), and this was protected activity under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(d)(3) of the whistleblower statute. Albers v. Ga. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 330 Ga. App. 58, 766 S.E.2d 520 (2014). Jury determines if reprisal action was taken. — Board of Regents was not entitled to summary judgment on the employee’s claim under O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4, the ‘‘whistleblower’’ statute, because a jury issue existed regarding whether ‘‘action’’ was taken against the employee for purposes of § 45-1-4; the record contained at least some circumstantial evidence that the employee was dismissed in reprisal for the employee’s investigation into the university’s officers and for disclosing information of fraud in connection with the investigation. Jones v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 262 Ga. App. 75, 585 S.E.2d 138 (2003). Failure to make out prima facie case of retaliation. — Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Georgia Department of Human Services in the employees’ action alleging that the employees were terminated from a county department of children and family services for reporting the unlawful conduct of a coworker in violation of the whistle-blower statute, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4(d)(2), because, although there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employees made protected disclosures to a supervisor, the employees could not show a causal connection between a protected disclosure and the adverse employment action taken against the employees; the employees presented no evidence that the actual decision-maker knew about the employees’ disclosures to the supervisor about the coworker or that the supervisor personally had any role in the employees’ termination other than to deliver the message of the employees’ dismissals, and mere guesses and speculation were all that the employees presented in support 11 45-1-4 PUBLIC OFFICERS & EMPLOYEES 45-1-6