Bishop State Community College v. Angelo Archible

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/09/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2070379 Bishop S t a t e Community C o l l e g e v. Angelo A r c h i b l e Appeal from Hearing O f f i c e r ' s D e c i s i o n (Case No. FMCS 07-4797) 2070670 Bishop S t a t e Community C o l l e g e v. James Soleyn Appeal from Hearing O f f i c e r ' s D e c i s i o n (Case No. FMCS 08-1166) A f t e r Remand f r o m t h e A l a b a m a Supreme Court 2070379; 2070670 MOORE, J u d g e . This entered c o u r t , on O c t o b e r 24, 2008, r e v e r s e d by the hearing and FMCS 08-1166. [Ms. the decisions o f f i c e r i n c a s e numbers FMCS 07-4797 See B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v . A r c h i b l e , 2070379, O c t . 24, 2 0 0 8 ] ___ So. 3d ___ ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008). On c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w , court's judgments, concluding considering the "'surrounding sufficiency t h e supreme c o u r t r e v e r s e d that this court this had e r r e d i n circumstances' i n evaluating the o f a n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment u n d e r t h e [ F a i r D i s m i s s a l ] A c t [ , A l a . Code 1975, § 36-26-100 e t s e q . , ] " a n d i t remanded t h e c a s e s t o t h i s c o u r t f o r f u r t h e r proceedings. In re Soleyn, [Ms. 1080179, May 29, 2009] So. 3d ___ , ___ ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) . P u r s u a n t t o t h e supreme court's o p i n i o n , we now p r o c e e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r , under t h e F a i r Dismissal e t seq. ("the termination of Act"), A c t , A l a . Code each of 1 9 7 5 , § 36-26-100 the notices of proposed employment a t i s s u e i n t h e s e c a s e s " c o n t a i n s a s h o r t a n d p l a i n statement o f t h e f a c t s showing t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t a k e n for Ala. one o r more o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d i n S e c t i o n Code 1 9 7 5 ] . " 36-26-102[, A l a . Code 1975, § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 3 ( a ) . 2 2070379; In 2070670 appeal termination number provided 2070379, to Angelo the notice Archible of proposed contained the f o l l o w i n g " s h o r t and p l a i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e f a c t s " p u r p o r t i n g t o show t h a t " t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t a k e n f o r one o r more o f t h e reasons l i s t e d i n Section 36-26-102:" "The t e r m i n a t i o n o f y o u r employment w i t h B i s h o p State i s proposed f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s as a u t h o r i z e d b y Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) , § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 2 : f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m your d u t i e s i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, immorality, and/or other good and j u s t c a u s e s . The f a c t s w h i c h s u p p o r t [ t h e ] d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e y o u r employment w i t h B i s h o p S t a t e a r e as follows: "You c o m m i t t e d f i n a n c i a l i m p r o p r i e t i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o the awarding of f i n a n c i a l a i d and s c h o l a r s h i p s . " I n a p p e a l number 2070670, t h e n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d provided t o James S o l e y n c o n t a i n e d termination the f o l l o w i n g language: "The t e r m i n a t i o n o f y o u r employment w i t h B i s h o p State i s proposed f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s as a u t h o r i z e d b y Code o f A l a b a m a ( 1 9 7 5 ) , § 36-26-102: f a i l u r e t o perform your d u t i e s i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, immorality, and/or other good and j u s t c a u s e s . The f a c t s w h i c h s u p p o r t [ t h e ] d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e y o u r employment w i t h B i s h o p S t a t e a r e as follows: "You c o m m i t t e d f i n a n c i a l i m p r o p r i e t i e s i n r e l a t i o n to the r e c e i v i n g of f i n a n c i a l a i d and s c h o l a r s h i p s . " 3 2070379; 2070670 T h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o a f f o r d m i n i m a l due process t o an e m p l o y e e u n d e r t h e A c t , the n o t i c e of proposed t e r m i n a t i o n must a d v i s e t h e e m p l o y e e " ' o f t h e c a u s e o r c a u s e s for his [or her] termination e n a b l e h i m [or her] (quoting County, turn see James v . B o a r d 484 F. Supp. of School 705, 715 (S.D. C i v . App. 2003) should charges"). proposed termination forth notice a "short (stating for 285 ( 5 t h C i r . 1977)); 881 So. 2d 445, 449 of proposed d e t a i l e d t o provide cases, an the notices of do n o t meet t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f s e t t i n g what statement "financial of the facts." Neither i m p r o p r i e t i e s " h a d been an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y employees] t o p r e p a r e a defense t o those So. 2d a t 449. quoting i n [the employee] t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e committed so as " t o p r o v i d e 881 1979), the notice In the present and p l a i n set forth that State Comm'rs o f M o b i l e Ala. be " s u f f i c i e n t l y adequate o p p o r t u n i t y those to fairly 131 ( A l a . C i v . App. a l s o S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n v . J a c k s o n , termination to 777 So. 2 d 126, S t e w a r t v . B a i l e y , 556 F . 2 d 281, (Ala. detail t o show a n y e r r o r t h a t may e x i s t . T e n u r e Comm'n v . Page, 2000) i n sufficient charges." for [the Jackson, The l a n g u a g e u s e d i s so vague a s t o f a l l 4 2070379; 2070670 below the minimum due employee under the Bishop argues Community the termination hearing proceedings Specifically, that must be afforded with College officer erred without regard to ("Bishop in State") dismissing conducting appeal also a the hearing. number 2070379, Bishop State argues t h a t the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r e r r e d i n d i s m i s s i n g termination proceeding proceeding, Although that, had not requested the Act that f o r a de relief. without a hearing a hearing teacher employees employment a fair and terminations."'" So. swift conclude officer from on t h e m e r i t s when 997 2d 309, ( q u o t i n g G a i n o u s v. Tibbets, 672 "'"to provide resolution South C o n s o r t i u m v. F o r d , Alabama 314 So. 2d non- of proposed Skills Training ( A l a . C i v . App. 800, law 803 2008) (Ala. Civ. 1 9 9 5 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B o l t o n v. B o a r d o f Sch. Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C o u n t y , 514 be disagree. r e q u i s i t e n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n f a i l s as a m a t t e r o f would thwart the v e r y purpose of the Act App. We novo h e a r i n g , we as p r o h i b i t i n g dismissing a proceeding the the because A r c h i b l e , the employee i n t h a t the Act p r o v i d e s to read an Act. State that process "'"liberally So. 2d 820, construed 824 (Ala. 1987)). The A c t must to e f f e c t u a t e i t s purpose."'" 5 Id. 2070379; 2070670 Thus, we decline determination to on t h i s Bishop State reverse the hearing point. next argues t h a t the hearing i n o r d e r i n g B i s h o p S t a t e t o pay any m e d i c a l expenses that t h e employees r e c e i v i n g pay. "'[b]ackpay We d i s a g r e e . for a sustained reinstated public of fringe while [he o r ] she was n o t a t w o r k . ' " Douglas, (Ala. 689 benefits officer erred expenses and o t h e r while they were n o t Our supreme c o u r t h a s h e l d value v. officer's that employee that includes the t h e employee d i d n o t r e c e i v e B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . [Ms. 2071097, May 1, 2009] So. 3d , C i v . App. 2009) ( q u o t i n g W h i t l o w v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , So. 2d 107, 109 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ) . e r r o r on t h i s Finally, whether Thus, we f i n d no point. Bishop State requests i t i s permitted to that this reinitiate court the determine termination p r o c e e d i n g s on t h e same g r o u n d s b y p r o v i d i n g new n o t i c e s o f termination. not ripe circumstance The e m p l o y e e s a r g u e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s i s s u e i s f o r review. existing "Ripeness i s defined as '[t]he when a c a s e h a s r e a c h e d , b u t has not p a s s e d , t h e p o i n t when t h e f a c t s have d e v e l o p e d sufficiently t o p e r m i t an i n t e l l i g e n t a n d u s e f u l d e c i s i o n t o be made' o r 6 2070379; 2070670 ' [ t ] h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h i s c i r c u m s t a n c e must e x i s t b e f o r e a court w i l l decide a controversy.'" Ex p a r t e S a f e w a y I n s . Co. o f A l a b a m a , I n c . , 990 So. 2d 344, 352 n.5 ( A l a . 2008) (quoting B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1353 ( 8 t h ed. 2 0 0 4 ) ) . cases, S t a t e has n o t y e t a t t e m p t e d we reinitiate note that Bishop the t e r m i n a t i o n proceedings. In the present Thus, we to conclude t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s do n o t e x i s t so as t o p e r m i t t h i s c o u r t to decide t h i s Based on issue. the f o r e g o i n g , we conclude that the hearing o f f i c e r d i d not e r r i n d i s m i s s i n g the t e r m i n a t i o n proceedings for f a i l u r e t o provide proper n o t i c e s of t e r m i n a t i o n . 2070379 AFFIRMED. 2070670 AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 7 Bryan, and Thomas, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.