Central Alabama Community College and C.I.T.Y. Skills Training Consortium v. Hodtric C. Robinson et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/4/09 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 2080475 C e n t r a l Alabama Community C o l l e g e and C.I.T.Y. S k i l l s Training Consortium v. H o d t r i c C. Robinson e t a l . Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-1048) BRYAN, J u d g e . Central Alabama Community College C.I.T.Y. S k i l l s T r a i n i n g C o n s o r t i u m from ("the C o l l e g e " ) a n d ("the C o n s o r t i u m " ) a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t appeal Court entered i n 2080475 favor of Hodtric Suttle C. R o b i n s o n , Suzanne L. Schmitz, and Joy ( c o l l e c t i v e l y "the employees"). The e m p l o y e e s p e r f o r m e d work f o r t h e C o n s o r t i u m , w h i c h i s o p e r a t e d by t h e C o l l e g e . I n 2006, e a c h o f t h e e m p l o y e e s 1 dismissed without a hearing. was Each o f the employees f i l e d an a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 1 5 , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a p a r t o f t h e F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t , § 36-26-100 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975 FDA"). to ("the The e m p l o y e e s ' a p p e a l s were c o n s o l i d a t e d and a s s i g n e d an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge ("the A L J " ) . On appeal, the o n l y i s s u e b e f o r e t h e A L J was w h e t h e r t h e FDA a p p l i e d t o t h e employees. To determine whether Consortium or make this the whether determination, employees they were were actually the ALJ employed the employees. determining that and, t h e r e f o r e , b y t h e FDA. § 36-26-115, I n May 2007, the ALJ t h e e m p l o y e e s were by employed C o l l e g e , t h e r e b y m a k i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e FDA to had to the by the applicable issued an order employed by the C o l l e g e t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e s ' d i s m i s s a l s were g o v e r n e d Pursuant to the a u t h o r i t y granted to the ALJ i n the ALJ concluded The C o n s o r t i u m p r o v i d e s y o u t h and t h e i r f a m i l i e s . that various 1 2 the employees services for had been at-risk 2080475 improperly dismissed, and t h e A L J r e s c i n d e d the employees' dismissals. The a C o l l e g e and the C o n s o r t i u m f i l e d i n t h e c i r c u i t petition f o r a writ of certiorari ALJ's order. court a The e m p l o y e e s s u b s e q u e n t l y counterclaim injunctive seeking relief. In backpay, without due to lost then moved judgment the and employees t h a t the employees a r e e n t i t l e d of their medical for o f the f i l e d i n the c i r c u i t counterclaim, employees' d i s m i s s a l s ; and back employees review declaratory any s e t o f f s ; that backpay; reinstatement compensation a their sought a judgment d e t e r m i n i n g to: full seeking court a certain interest salaries benefits retirement summary on and b e n e f i t s ; following benefits. judgment on the The their counterclaim. On J a n u a r y 23, 2009, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t denying College the p e t i t i o n and the f o r a writ of certiorari Consortium summary-judgment m o t i o n . and granting filed the by t h e employees' 2 F o l l o w i n g the e n t r y o f the judgment, the c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d a p a r t i a l s t a y o f t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e j u d g m e n t as it r e l a t e s t o Schmitz, relating t o h e r work f o r t h e C o n s o r t i u m , p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s . 2 3 2080475 The C o l l e g e and t h e C o n s o r t i u m a p p e a l the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e e m p l o y e e s on t h e i r c o u n t e r c l a i m . C o l l e g e and t h e C o n s o r t i u m do n o t denial of t h e i r p e t i t i o n On State appeal, the immunity College ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) , a c t s as The College first time in and I, § the the their c i r c u i t court's Consortium 14, Ala. i m m u n i t y , Ex p a r t e 470 and the f o r a w r i t of c e r t i o r a r i . under A r t . known as s o v e r e i g n appeal The T i r e y , 977 raise reply brief. this that 1901, Const. a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l bar Consortium argue also So. 2d 469, in this case. argument f o r Typically, an the appellate c o u r t "does n o t a d d r e s s i s s u e s r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n a reply brief." However, B y r d v. Lamar, 846 "[t]he a s s e r t i o n of So. State 2d 334, 341 immunity ( A l a . 2002). challenges the s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t ; t h e r e f o r e , i t may be r a i s e d a t any t i m e by t h e p a r t i e s o r by a c o u r t ex mero motu." Atkinson v. State, action contrary which the to the courts of jurisdiction.'" 17, 21 986 So. 2d 408, State's this 411 ( A l a . 2007). immunity State i s an lack action ( q u o t i n g L a r k i n s v. H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n , 806 So. 4 Department of 2d 358, over subject-matter Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 978 ( A l a . 2007) "'[A]n 363 So. 2d Mental (Ala. 2001)). 2080475 Therefore, we a d d r e s s w h e t h e r S t a t e i m m u n i t y a p p l i e s i n t h i s case and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , matter jurisdiction whether t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t had s u b j e c t - over t h e employees' counterclaim. " S e c t i o n 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , p r o v i d e s : '[T]he S t a t e o f A l a b a m a s h a l l n e v e r be made a d e f e n d a n t i n any c o u r t o f l a w o r e q u i t y . ' (Emphasis added.) 'The w a l l o f i m m u n i t y e r e c t e d b y § 14 i s n e a r l y impregnable.' P a t t e r s o n v . G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . Indeed, as r e g a r d s t h e S t a t e o f Alabama and i t s a g e n c i e s , t h e w a l l i s a b s o l u t e l y impregnable. Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . , 999 So. 2d 8 9 1 , 895 ( A l a . 2008) ( ' S e c t i o n 14 a f f o r d s a b s o l u t e i m m u n i t y t o b o t h t h e S t a t e a n d S t a t e a g e n c i e s . ' ) ; Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102 ( A l a . 2008) (same); A t k i n s o n v. S t a t e , 986 So. 2d 408, 410-11 (Ala. 2007) (same); Good Hope (same); Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f T r a n s p . , 764 So. 2d 1263, 1268 ( A l a . 2000) (same); M i t c h e l l v . D a v i s , 598 So. 2d 801, 806 ( A l a . 1992) (same). 'Absolute immunity' means j u s t t h a t -- t h e S t a t e a n d i t s a g e n c i e s a r e not s u b j e c t t o s u i t under any t h e o r y . " ' T h i s i m m u n i t y may n o t be w a i v e d . ' Patterson, 835 So. 2 d a t 142. Sovereign immunity i s , therefore, n o t an a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e , but a ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a r . ' Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 985 So. 2d 892, 894 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . The j u r i s d i c t i o n a l b a r o f § 14 s i m p l y ' p r e c l u d [ e s ] a c o u r t from e x e r c i s i n g s u b j e c t - m a t t e r jurisdiction' over t h e S t a t e o r a S t a t e agency. L y o n s v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, 261 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . Thus, a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d s o l e l y a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e o r one o f i t s a g e n c i e s i s a n u l l i t y a n d i s v o i d ab initio. Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . ( I n r e Russell Petroleum, I n c . v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . ) , 6 So. 3d 1126 ( A l a . 2008) .... Any a c t i o n taken by a c o u r t w i t h o u t s u b j e c t - m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n -- o t h e r t h a n d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n -- i s v o i d . 5 2080475 S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 1025, 1029 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) . " R a i n b o w D r i v e , 740 So. 2d A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . v. Montgomery C o u n t y Comm'n, 11 So. 189, 191-92 ( A l a . 2008). "[State] immunity extends to 3d the s t a t e ' s i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g , " T a y l o r v. T r o y S t a t e Univ., 437 So. 2d 472, 474 ( A l a . 1983), which includes the s t a t e ' s community c o l l e g e s , s u c h as t h e C o l l e g e i n t h i s c a s e . W i l l i a m s v. John C. C a l h o u n Cmty. C o l l . , 646 So. 2d 1, 2 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ; and S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 1313 ( A l a . C i v . App. 674 So. 2d 1995). " [ C ] e r t a i n c a u s e s o f a c t i o n a r e n o t b a r r e d by § "'"There are f o u r g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f a c t i o n s w h i c h i n A l a n d v. Graham, 287 A l a . 226, 250 So. 2d 677 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , we s t a t e d do n o t come w i t h i n t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 14: (1) actions brought to compel State o f f i c i a l s to perform t h e i r l e g a l duties; (2) actions brought to enjoin State officials from enforcing an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w ; (3) a c t i o n s t o compel State officials to perform ministerial a c t s ; and (4) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e Declaratory Judgments Act ... seeking construction of a statute and its a p p l i c a t i o n i n a given s i t u a t i o n . 287 A l a . a t 229-230, 250 So. 2d 677. Other a c t i o n s w h i c h a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d by § 14 a r e : (5) v a l i d i n v e r s e condemnation a c t i o n s brought against State officials in their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y ; and (6) a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r damages b r o u g h t a g a i n s t State o f f i c i a l s in their representative 6 14: 1311, 2080475 c a p a c i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t they had acted f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y o r i n a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law. Wallace v. B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o f Montgomery C o u n t y , ... 280 A l a . [635] a t 639, 197 So. 2d 428 [ ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] ; U n z i c k e r v. S t a t e , 346 So. 2d 931, 933 ( A l a . 1977); Engelhardt v. J e n k i n s , 273 A l a . 352, 141 So. 2d 193 (1962)."' "Drummond Co. v . A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2d 56, 58 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g [Ex p a r t e ] C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d [65,] 68 [(Ala. 1980)]) (emphasis omitted). These a c t i o n s a r e s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o as ' e x c e p t i o n s ' t o § 14; h o w e v e r , i n a c t u a l i t y t h e s e a c t i o n s a r e s i m p l y n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be a c t i o n s ' " a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e " f o r § 14 p u r p o s e s . ' Patterson v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d those ' e x c e p t i o n s , ' n o t i n g t h a t ' " [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e [ S ] t a t e when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r the p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a contract or property r i g h t of the State, or w o u l d r e s u l t i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money f r o m t h e [ S ] t a t e . " ' A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v . J o n e s , 895 So. 2d 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) (quoting S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1 3 1 1 , 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n J o n e s ) ." A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . v. H a r b e r t 831, 840 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) . barred Int'l, I n c . , 990 So. 2d The c a t e g o r i e s o f a c t i o n s t h a t a r e n o t b y § 14 a r e " r e l e v a n t o n l y as t h e y relate to claims a g a i n s t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s , n o t as they r e l a t e t o t h e S t a t e agency o r t h e S t a t e i t s e l f . " Dep't o f C o r r . , 11 So. 3d a t 194. 7 Alabama 2080475 In this case, t h e A L J i s s u e d an o r d e r determining that t h e e m p l o y e e s were e m p l o y e d b y t h e C o l l e g e a n d r e s c i n d i n g t h e employees' d i s m i s s a l s . in the c i r c u i t seeking in court review The C o l l e g e a n d t h e C o n s o r t i u m a petition for a writ of the ALJ's order. the c i r c u i t court a counterclaim of filed certiorari The e m p l o y e e s t h e n filed a g a i n s t t h e C o l l e g e and the C o n s o r t i u m s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and i n j u n c t i v e relief. Although College and the t h e e m p l o y e e s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m named b o t h t h e Consortium as counterdefendants, the c o u n t e r c l a i m s o u g h t r e l i e f b a s e d on t h e e m p l o y e e s ' employment r e l a t i o n s h i p with the College. As n o t e d , the A L J determined t h a t the C o l l e g e , n o t the Consortium, employed the employees. Therefore, the College, counterdefendant in not the Consortium, interest as to the was the real counterclaim. T h e r e f o r e , we c o n s i d e r o n l y w h e t h e r t h e C o l l e g e i s e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity w i t h r e s p e c t t o t o the employees' c o u n t e r c l a i m . As a s t a t e i n s t i t u t i o n o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g , t h e C o l l e g e i s absolutely immune f r o m s u i t u n d e r A r t . 1, § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901. W i l l i a m s , 646 So. 2d a t 2; a n d C o l a g r o s s , 1313. B e c a u s e t h e e m p l o y e e s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m was f i l e d t h e C o l l e g e a n d n o t a g a i n s t any S t a t e o f f i c i a l 8 674 So. 2d a t against i n h i s or her 2080475 official capacity, the categories of actions b a r r e d by § 14 have no p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n . Corr., 11 So. 3d at 194. Therefore, e m p l o y e e s ' c o u n t e r c l a i m was In conclusion, jurisdiction over the the b a r r e d by circuit we employees' are not A l a b a m a Dep't o f conclude State court that that the immunity. lacked subject-matter counterclaim. Therefore, t h a t p o r t i o n of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment a d j u d i c a t i n g the employees' counterclaim i s v o i d and, Moreover, a v o i d judgment w i l l Props., (Ala. LLC v. 2008). The Commercial Therefore, we concerning support Bank, d i s m i s s the employees' motion s e e k i n g the r e p l y b r i e f seeking First not therefore, i s vacated. an a p p e a l . 988 So. 2d 485, Faith 492 appeal. to s t r i k e t h a t p o r t i o n of S t a t e immunity or, l e a v e to respond to the r e p l y b r i e f alternatively, is denied. JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, concur. Bryan, P.J., and J . , concurs Pittman, specially. 9 Thomas, and Moore, JJ., 2080475 BRYAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g Article Alabama there 1, § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1901, a f f o r d s t h e S t a t e o f absolute immunity immunity conflicts should frequently be abrogation a with § from Courts the of jurisdictions); ( J o n L. Actions Craig common-law and Kenneth immunity i n f e d e r a l c o u r t s ) . case, the State immunity employees State that wrong and being Against e d . 1992) Culp State Sovereign unjust and L o c a l in many Immunity (discussing sovereign However, b a r r i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s t h e law i n Alabama. sued an have (discussing the immunity Davis, (1970) f o r every commentators as sovereign M u s t Go, 22 Admin. L. Rev. 383 amendment, Unfortunately, doctrine See 1 C i v i l 1.8 suit. the p r i n c i p l e remedy. criticized anachronism. Government specially. the this directly, thus T h i s c a s e does n o t p r e s e n t a s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h o f f i c i a l s were s u e d i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . State i m p l i c a t i n g the State's absolute 3 10 College In immunity. 3

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.