## Facts

- A mother sued her daughter’s former high-school teacher for damages under OCGA § 51-1-16, a statute allowing parents to recover for the seduction of an unmarried daughter.
- The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the statute violated equal protection because it created sex-based classifications, including that only men could be held liable for seduction.
- The trial court held the statute unconstitutional under the federal and Georgia equal protection clauses and granted summary judgment to the defendant.
- The mother appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
- On appeal, the defendant limited his challenge to the statute’s sex-based liability feature (male-only liability), and the court limited its review accordingly.

## Issues

1. Whether OCGA § 51-1-16 violates the equal protection clause of the Georgia Constitution by imposing civil liability for seduction only on men.
2. Whether the court should address other sex-based features of the statute when the defendant challenged only the male-only liability provision.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed summary judgment for the defendant.
- The court held OCGA § 51-1-16 unconstitutional under the Georgia Constitution’s equal protection clause because it made only men civilly liable for seduction.
- Applying intermediate scrutiny, the court concluded the sex-based classification was not justified as substantially related to an important governmental objective.
- The court declined to rule on other classifications in the statute (such as limiting protection to daughters and limiting when mothers may sue) because they were not part of the defendant’s challenge.

## Legal Principles

- Georgia’s equal protection clause provides protection similar to the federal Equal Protection Clause for purposes of analyzing sex-based classifications.
- A sex-based classification is constitutional only if it serves important governmental objectives and is substantially related to achieving those objectives (intermediate scrutiny).
- A statute that facially imposes liability on one sex only is a sex-based classification subject to intermediate scrutiny.
- When a party limits an equal-protection challenge to a particular classification affecting that party, a court may confine its constitutional analysis to that classification.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia held the parental seduction statute unconstitutional because it imposed civil liability only on men, a sex-based classification that failed intermediate scrutiny under the Georgia Constitution’s equal protection clause, and it affirmed summary judgment for the defendant.


Franklin v. Hill, 264 Ga. 302, 444 S.E.2d 778 (Ga. 1994)