Ex parte Varonika Hamilton. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Varonika Hamilton v. State Department of Postsecondary Education and Chattahoochee Valley Community College)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/13/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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 2080589 Ex p a r t e V a r o n i k a Hamilton PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Varonika Hamilton v. S t a t e Department o f Postsecondary E d u c a t i o n and C h a t t a h o o c h e e V a l l e y Community C o l l e g e ) (Montgomery C i r c u i t Court, CV-08-901412) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . Varonika Circuit Hamilton Court Department ("the t r i a l of Postsecondary Chattahoochee declaratory filed Valley relief a complaint court") Education Community i n t h e Montgomery against the Alabama ("the Department") and College or, i n thealternative, ("CVCC") seeking the issuance of a 2080589 writ of mandamus (hereinafter reinstate filed together referred h e r t o h e r employment things, jurisdiction that the t r i a l because Department t o as with and CVCC "the petitioners") CVCC. The petitioners that claims. also asserted to petitioners petitioners' timely Constr. motion denial filed court to subject-matter Hamilton of laches entered dismiss. an The barred order to dismiss petition f o ra writ has hearing; failed 937 S o . 2 d 5 6 , 57 toher denying a court. upon Ex p a r t e a Flint Drummond C o . v . ( A l a .2006). stated: "This Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y and d r a s t i c w r i t and t h a t a p a r t y s e e k i n g s u c h a w r i t must meet c e r t a i n criteria. We w i l l i s s u e t h e w r i t o f mandamus o n l y when (1) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o the relief sought; (2) t h e r e s p o n d e n t h a s an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y t o p e r f o r m a n d h a s r e f u s e d t o do s o ; (3) t h e p e t i t i o n e r h a s no o t h e r a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 2 the filed i s reviewable o f mandamus. to Hamilton's petitioners C o . , 775 S o . 2 d 8 0 5 , 808 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ; court to a had o f mandamus i n t h i s of a motion Alabama Dep't o f T r a n s p . , supreme that doctrine petition fora writ The timely trial lacked r e m e d i e s t h a t m i g h t be a v a i l a b l e the equitable The court H a m i l t o n was n o t e n t i t l e d exhaust administrative and the a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s H a m i l t o n ' s c o m p l a i n t , a r g u i n g , among other the requiring Our 2080589 (4) t h i s C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n i s p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d . Ex p a r t e M e r c u r y F i n . C o r p . , 715 S o . 2 d 1 9 6 , 198 (Ala. 1997). B e c a u s e mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy, t h e s t a n d a r d by w h i c h t h i s Court r e v i e w s a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether the t r i a l court has c l e a r l y abused i t s discretion. S e e E x p a r t e R u d o l p h , 515 S o . 2 d 7 0 4 , 706 (Ala. 1987)." Ex parte The the Flint Constr. materials the p a r t i e s submitted following facts. on A u g u s t 1 5 , 2 0 0 5 . years pursuant parties was entered into requested Code Fair reveal began h e r employment w i t h the last CVCC three of appointment." "letter h e r employment of The appointment" as of August 13, in that 2008. a hearing to contest the termination ofher request was denied. D i s m i s s a l A c t ("FDA"), § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 0 e t s e q . , A l a . 1975, governs employees court On J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , CVCC n o t i f i e d H a m i l t o n employment, b u t t h a t The to this She was e m p l o y e d b y CVCC f o r a l m o s t terminating Hamilton Hamilton to a s e r i e s of " l e t t e r s September 2007. it C o . , 775 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 8 . the of two-year termination c o l l e g e s such of the a s CVCC. employment Under of t h e FDA, an e m p l o y e e who h a s b e e n e m p l o y e d f o r l e s s t h a n three years i s a Code "probationary probationary cause with employee." employee's 15 d a y s ' § 36-26-101, Ala. 1975. e m p l o y m e n t may b e t e r m i n a t e d notice. Id. 3 I t i s well settled A without that a 2080589 p r o b a t i o n a r y employee does not have a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t o r h e r employment and t h a t he cause w i t h 15 days' Coll., So. 2d 1 1 5 1 , 854 Tibbets, 672 their rights An years 1975. his A has or continued (Ala. possess their been See §§ status. employee has and before 36-26-104 an App. property v. 1995) rights entitled in to for more than due three § 36-26-102, A l a . a property Code interest through a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law -06, 200 9] So. (Ala. Civ. 3d , nonprobationary their court, Hamilton Gainous i s afforded certain of Educ., According Civ. Tech. in due- i n c l u d i n g the r i g h t to c o n t e s t the t e r m i n a t i o n employment before State 2002); not employed C o o s a C o u n t y Bd. rights Drake without jobs."). Simmons v . entitles terminated J.F. therefore, employment her ("ALJ"). not nonprobationary rights, his safeguard who 805 do are, v. be ( A l a . C i v . App. 800, nonprobationary or her process of to employee attains 2d and Davis 1154 employees employment process notice. So. ("Probationary o r s h e may in his to employees employment the ... A l a . Code [Ms. 200 9) to c e r t a i n i s terminated allegations i n the 1975; 2071135, App. judge June ("The and 19, FDA due-process "). submissions to this requested a h e a r i n g to c o n t e s t the t e r m i n a t i o n 4 2080589 of her employment. termination, she one been who had therefore, FDA, to Hamilton was a probationary employed t h a t she a concedes t h a t , at the time for to less than normally would not hearing employee be contest of three of her CVCC, i . e . , years, and, entitled, the termination the under of her employment. Hamilton hearing her she maintains, requested termination, contract," Community a employee 619.01 of Policy under the "probationary was that College Guidelines"), because, she term h o w e v e r , t h a t she UCCS a is System "probationary Uniform is Guidelines. employee under in at The defined However, the the 2008 in Alabama UCCS "probationary Policy with contract," Policy number regard number to a 619.01 provides: " I f a p r o b a t i o n a r y employee under c o n t r a c t i s terminated w i t h i n the p e r i o d of a c o n t r a c t , the employee i s e n t i t l e d t o be given c a u s e and the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g under these procedures a d o p t e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d of E d u c a t i o n . Employment a g r e e m e n t s s h a l l be o f f e r e d f o r e i t h e r t h r e e (3), nine (9), or twelve (12) m o n t h s . If fifteen (15) calendar days p r i o r to the end of the contract p e r i o d , the p e r s o n i s not n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g t h a t h i s or her services w i l l no l o n g e r be required, 5 of under ("the term the time employee Guidelines 619.01. not e n t i t l e d to contends, referenced number contract" she was 2080589 h e / s h e s h a l l be o f f e r e d a n o t h e r e m p l o y m e n t a g r e e m e n t f o r t h e same l e n g t h a s t h e p r i o r c o n t r a c t unless o t h e r w i s e a g r e e d by t h e P r e s i d e n t and t h e employee." § 2.4, P o l i c y n u m b e r 619.01, CVCC's p r e s i d e n t , request for a employment. Dr. hearing to contest took the position employee and "probationary employee under hearing determined under Guidelines. hearing, 2008, when The 619.01 dispute took she f i l e d that the no issue further as that term of Hamilton's of this court, Hamilton was not was a a Therefore, not entitled 619.01 her action i n the t r i a l this court Dr. to a o f t h e UCCS request until her for a December 23, court. is whether t o P o l i c y number The p e t i t i o n e r s "probationary a pursuant a n d t h e FDA. o f t h e UCCS G u i d e l i n e s contract," number to to a hearing is that was denial presented Hamilton before Hamilton Hamilton her complaint was e n t i t l e d that 1 termination contract." or P o l i c y Following first Hamilton that t h e FDA Hamilton the to the submissions probationary Blackwell Guidelines. Dr. L a u r e l B l a c k w e l l , d e n i e d According Blackwell UCCS employee under of P o l i c y number i s used in § 2.4 We n o t e t h a t i t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e FDA c o n t a i n any p r o v i s i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o a " p r o b a t i o n a r y under c o n t r a c t . " 1 6 does n o t employee 2080589 619.01, q u o t e d above. employee contest under contract" the termination House v. (Ala. 2005), Jefferson pursuant In and House, he action against a entered to Revised terminated Hearing substantially and t h a t that UCCS G u i d e l i n e s . indicated on was adopted that House The number by the 619.01 of number a an had afforded trial State court House of Board which the of were 619.01 o f t h e "probationary t h a t he was of appointment" 7 filed h i s employment his termination. t h a t House's " l e t t e r shortly o f t h e c o l l e g e , and of p o l i c y of 424 appointment" he h a d n o t b e e n and, t h e r e f o r e , notice 2d on employee of a status. provisions t o § 2.4 So. terminated H o u s e c o n t e n d e d t h a t he was upon to CVCC. Policy pertinent employee under c o n t r a c t " hearing of termination. Procedure similar hearing 907 "letter arguing relying the a a probationary employment the c o l l e g e , House, Education, a was nonprobationary contest "probationary to College, e m p l o y e d by a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r appealed. to is entitled Community House whose obtained improperly hearing State supra, she i s a of her employment, H a m i l t o n r e l i e s s h e was college before who that t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 to which two-year been In arguing The entitled record specified that 2080589 House was a probationary terminated H o u s e was that upon t h a t argument. of concluded appointment" contract. and for had been House, 907 that the opportunity this case, approximately "letter a our of supreme relied the contract and one-year appointment" that term. terminated H o u s e was had rejected i n the House's a within salary definite Therefore, i n the materials "letter Hamilton's that September Hamilton 8 of the supreme cause hearing.'" Id. e m p l o y e d by CVCC the September 2007 submitted of appointment" that t o be g i v e n had been she r e c e i v e d the and term, the period "'entitled Hamilton two y e a r s , specified instead on a r e f e r e n c e of appointment" that o f f e r e d her continued that appointment court that be that employee under c o n t r a c t ' " and So. 2d a t 427. after argued contract f o r a[n administrative] w i t h CVCC; r e f e r e n c e s indicate college could employed f o r a nine-month p e r i o d because determined In but indicating 'a p r o b a t i o n a r y employment court The employment The s u p r e m e c o u r t that, " H o u s e was an employment, d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t he was his notice. constitute at-will "letter days' employment e m p l o y e d u n d e r an o p e n - e n d e d l e t t e r d i d not offered 15 e m p l o y e e whose was to t h i s court effective for 2007 was employment "letter hired as of a 2080589 probationary employee terminated, at w i l l , Hamilton House was points similar duration and construed as status a supra. that as an upon that hers the " l e t t e r constituted However, appointment" for a specific House's employee under c o n t r a c t . " House, employee under contained i t was in establishing September also of appointment" contract employment Hamilton's be of 2007 an e m p l o y m e n t c o n t r a c t , "probationary could "letter Thus, under t h e a u t h o r i t y Hamilton's employment notice. i n that House's "probationary her 15 d a y s ' out that to that and appointment" o f House, "letter was i t would appear of appointment" thereby making Hamilton a contract." September the f o l l o w i n g 2007 "letter of provision: " P u r s u a n t t o S t a t e law and t h e p o l i c i e s , rules, and r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e S t a t e o f Alabama B o a r d o f Education, your employment i n t h e above p o s i t i o n s h a l l be p r o b a t i o n a r y a n d s h a l l be ' a t w i l l ' t o be continued or discontinued a t any t i m e , with or w i t h o u t c a u s e , by t h e P r e s i d e n t o f t h e C o l l e g e . In the event that the President shall decide to discontinue your employment, you s h a l l receive a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f s u c h no l a t e r t h a n f i f t e e n (15) days prior to the effective date of the d i s c o n t i n u a t i o n of employment." (Emphasis added.) Hamilton signed t h e S e p t e m b e r 2007 of appointment" under a p a r a g r a p h s t a t i n g , 9 among o t h e r "letter things, 2080589 that, "by my employment and Letter of The signature below, the conditions, terms, above-quoted p r o v i s i o n s of appointment" agreed to be employment was "at cause. is with specified September in of of that termination she of September unambiguous: the be terminated case from the a one Hamilton's of the with the "probationary concedes that she 2007 specific was entitled her employment to a only 10 a of in of specifying and that, employment or w i t h o u t cause," conclude i f she to the that contract." probationary hearing of language of we as "letter employee under was or "letter o f f e r of appointment," a the "at w i l l , " September given with analyzed provision terminable time, whose S e p t e m b e r 2007 " l e t t e r contained a t any 2007 Hamilton employee i n House i n d i c a t e s t h a t "letter not Hamilton could Hamilton's Accordingly, 2007 was and employment g e n e r a l l y , "discontinued appointment." and that at-will Hamilton offer provisions probationary and e m p l o y m e n t o f f e r was c o u l d be is in a distinguishable Nothing appointment" as and this of H a m i l t o n ' s clear as will" Further, House, s u p r a . the are employed appointment" that accept Appointment." "letter without I employee contest were d e t e r m i n e d the to 2080589 be a "probationary court has to a court have jurisdiction demonstrated Hamilton's mandamus claims, directing dismissal. Hamilton over a and, legal claims. right therefore, the t r i a l Flint Hamilton, d i d n o t have Hamilton's clear See Ex p a r t e against this right because issue Because must that that contract." u n d e r P o l i c y n u m b e r 6 1 9 . 0 1 o r t h e FDA, t h e t r i a l hearing resolved under we conclude lacked employee court we a The p e t i t i o n e r s to the dismissal issue to enter Constr. of the writ of judgment of a C o . , 775 S o . 2 d a t 8 0 8 . E v e n a s s u m i n g , h o w e v e r , t h a t H a m i l t o n c o u l d be s a i d t o be a "probationary petitioners basis. exhaust Policy e m p l o y e e u n d e r c o n t r a c t , " we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e are e n t i t l e d The to the writ petitioners contend the administrative number 619.01, o f mandamus that remedies Hamilton available on another failed t o her under § 10. "The C o u r t h e l d t h e f o l l o w i n g i n r e g a r d t o t h e doctrine of exhaustion of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies, i n C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e v . S m a r t t , 409 So. 2 d 1 3 5 3 , 1357 (Ala. 1982): "'Alabama has adopted t h e " d o c t r i n e o f exhaustion of administrative remedies." This doctrine "requires that where a controversy i s t o be i n i t i a l l y determined by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d y , t h e c o u r t s will d e c l i n e r e l i e f u n t i l those remedies have been explored and, i n most instances, 11 to 2080589 exhausted." F r a t e r n a l Order of P o l i c e , S t r a w b e r r y L o d g e v . E n t r e k i n , 294 A l a . 2 0 1 , 2 0 9 , 314 S o . 2 d 6 6 3 , 670 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Entrekin approved the "exhaustion of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies" d o c t r i n e found i n United States v . W e s t e r n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d C o . , 352 U.S. 59, 77 S. C t . 1 6 1 , 1 L. E d . 2 d 126 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , w h i c h a p p l i e s "where a c l a i m i s c o g n i z a b l e i n t h e f i r s t i n s t a n c e b y an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency alone." By t h a t d o c t r i n e "judicial interference i s withheld until the administrative process has run i t s course...." E n t r e k i n , a t 2 1 0 , 314 S o . 2 d 663.' " I n H a l l v . C i t y o f D o t h a n , 539 S o . 2 d 2 8 6 ( A l a . Civ. App. 1988), the Court of C i v i l Appeals discussed the purpose of the requirement that p u b l i c employees exhaust administrative remedies before obtaining j u d i c i a l review: "'The e x h a u s t i o n d o c t r i n e a l l o w s an a g e n c y to fully develop technical issues and f a c t u a l records w i t h i n i t s p a r t i c u l a r area of e x p e r t i s e p r i o r t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . The agency can thereby have the first opportunity t o c o r r e c t a n y e r r o r s i t may h a v e made, a n d f u r t h e r j u d i c i a l a c t i o n may become u n n e c e s s a r y . ' "539 Talton So. 2d a t 2 8 9 . " Telecomm. Corp. v. Coleman, 665 S o . 2 d 9 1 4 , 919 (Ala. 1995). The UCCS G u i d e l i n e s remedies employees that set forth are available a number o f to certain of the community-college 12 system. administrative classifications With regard of to a 2080589 situation i n which contest the Policy number "10. an employee termination 619.01 of of the D i r e c t A p p e a l by his is entitled or her to hearing employment, UCCS G u i d e l i n e s Employee a Denied provides: a Hearing " 1 0 . 1 . A n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y e m p l o y e e who has been denied a hearing before the President and has been transferred, t e r m i n a t e d , or s u s p e n d e d has t h e r i g h t t o appeal d i r e c t l y to the C h i e f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law J u d g e o f t h e O f f i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Hearings, O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y General, for r e l i e f . The A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judge will be appointed by the Chief A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judge to a d d r e s s the i s s u e r a i s e d i n the appeal. The appeal must s t a t e f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o a l l o w the judge to determine t e n t a t i v e l y whether or not t h e P r e s i d e n t has complied with the F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t s t a t u t e s . The P r e s i d e n t may a n s w e r o r d e n y i n w r i t i n g t h e f a c t s s e t out i n the a p p e a l . I f no d e n i a l i s f i l e d , the f a c t s s e t out i n the appeal w i l l be t a k e n as t r u e . The j u d g e s h a l l r e v i e w t h e employee's request and the President's a n s w e r o r d e n i a l and determine, with or without a h e a r i n g , whether the President has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s . B a s e d upon t h e f i n d i n g s , t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law J u d g e may: "10.11 Order a b e f o r e the P r e s i d e n t . hearing "10.12 Determine that the employee has been t r a n s f e r r e d , suspended, or dismissed in v i o l a t i o n o f t h e law and r e s c i n d 13 § 10 to of 2080589 the action President. taken by "10.13 Sustain the taken by t h e P r e s i d e n t . "10.2. Administrative Hamilton afforded first argues the action The action of Law J u d g e i s f i n a l . " that § 10 of the Policy number 619.01 h e r no a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s b e c a u s e , s h e s a y s , t h e line o f § 10 i n d i c a t e s t h a t nonprobationary employees response, who the p e t i t i o n e r s the section are point denied out number 619.01 a f f o r d s a " p r o b a t i o n a r y the right to a hearing her employment. petitioners S e e § 2.4, contend "probationary contesting that, employee quoted a § 2.4 the termination supra. of In Policy contract" of h i s or Accordingly, that contract," only to hearing. employee under assuming under that applies Hamilton the was the of arguments turns P o l i c y number The c o u r t s Policy that number are a administrative r e m e d i e s s e t f o r t h i n P o l i c y number 619.01, s p e c i f i c a l l y of t h a t p o l i c y , were a v a i l a b l e t o H a m i l t o n . the § 10 The r e s o l u t i o n o f on t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f t h e t w o sections 619.01. interpret administrative 619.01 applied to i n accordance the with construction 14 regulations such as t h e same p r i n c i p l e s of statutes. Ball 2080589 Healthcare-Jefferson, 3d 1027, 1030 I n c . v. A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d ( A l a . C i v . App. administrative o r d i n a r y , and 2008). r e g u l a t i o n s h o u l d be commonly u n d e r s t o o d a statute." S t a t e P e r s . Bd. (Ala. App. Civ. interpreted on an as Bd. 19 9 4 ) ; see 521 1996). So. clause of Educ., or 653 a l s o Alabama 2d 1329 interpretation controlling of the unless that i t s natural, plain, 682 or So. paragraph." 2d Civ. agency 2d 1357, regulation i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may Medicaid (Ala. an m e a n i n g , j u s t as l a n g u a g e i n rule So. So. language used i n given v. W a l l a c e , The a w h o l e ; an isolated County "The A g e n c y , 10 not must "focus Peacock v. 308, 30 9 (Ala. Agency v. that 1987). only Civ. the is clearly App. Enters., Further, promulgated interpretation be Houston Beverly App. 1359 rule the is erroneous. Id. As 619.01 right in Hamilton affords herself a "probationary to a hearing. a s s e r t i n g her a hearing pursuant Education" insists, In f a c t , to the or, "procedures 2.4 employee Hamilton claims before to which Hamilton § the of under relies trial Policy contract" on court. that The refers i s for a hearing adopted i n other words, pursuant 15 by the number State the "right" right to conducted Board to the procedures of set 2080589 forth in Policy number 619.01. (emphasis 6 1 9 . 0 1 , UCCS G u i d e l i n e s that § 2.4 of that remedies 619.01 Policy are only to a d v o c a t e d by these "probationary that every purpose, Tire v. 619.01 procedures" Co., State, conclude that Policy also to number provide employee[s] providing under manner a hearing would render for § a 2.4 would "hearing not provide the i s c l e a r l y provided So. 227, 2d administrative under contract," clear interpretation, m u s t be So. i t is number 619.01 i n t h e not contract." sentence, 2d number words, under Hamilton's effect 70 8 petitioners' under that "'word, 779 Policy Thus, employees Policy employee under and 2.4, "probationary i . e . , as In other number available to interpret employee meaningless. Policy normally Hamilton, "probationary § number 619.01 e x p a n d s t h e safeguards To 2 added). nonprobationary administrative contract." See given 236 8 99, Hamilton or provision'" to each. (Ala. has failed interpretation o f § 10 Crim. to § I t m u s t be ( A l a . 2000) 90 9 under Ex must parte (quoting App. under 2.4 to presumed have a Uniroyal Sheffield 1997 ) ) . demonstrate a that o f P o l i c y number 619.01 We the as We do not decide whether the status "probationary employee under c o n t r a c t " i s e q u i v a l e n t , at l e a s t d u r i n g the term of the employee's contract, to the status of n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee. 2 16 2080589 providing a "probationary administrative of employee remedy i s " p l a i n l y ("An agency's controlling Thus, unless assuming "probationary that number of was, employee under c o n t r a c t , " 6 1 9 . 0 1 o f t h e UCCS Board i t s own policy i s erroneous."). Hamilton to exhaust the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e Ex p a r t e an 824 S o . 2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 1 ( A l a . interpretation i ti s plainly contract" erroneous." S c h o o l Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C o u n t y , 2001) under as she c o n t e n d s , H a m i l t o n was a required remedies a v a i l a b l e under Policy Guidelines. "[The] d o c t r i n e [of exhaustion of administrative r e m e d i e s ] ' r e q u i r e s t h a t where a c o n t r o v e r s y i s to be i n i t i a l l y d e t e r m i n e d b y a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d y , the c o u r t s w i l l d e c l i n e r e l i e f u n t i l those remedies have been explored and, i n most instances, exhausted.' F r a t e r n a l Order of P o l i c e , Strawberry L o d g e v . E n t r e k i n , 294 A l a . 201 , 20 9, 314 S o . 2 d 6 6 3 , 670 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . E n t r e k i n approved the 'exhaustion of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies' d o c t r i n e found i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v . W e s t e r n P a c i f i c R a i l r o a d C o . , 352 U.S. 5 9 , 77 S. C t . 1 6 1 , 1 L. E d . 2 d 126 ( 1 9 5 6 ) , w h i c h a p p l i e s 'where a c l a i m i s c o g n i z a b l e i n the f i r s t instance by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency alone.' By that doctrine 'judicial interference i s withheld until the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e s s has r u n i t s c o u r s e . . . . ' E n t r e k i n , a t 2 1 0 , 314 S o . 2 d 6 6 3 . " City of Huntsville 1982) (emphasis Hamilton before seeking v. Smartt, 40 9 So. 2d 1 3 5 3 , 1357 (Ala. added). d i d not exhaust relief her i n the t r i a l 17 administrative court. remedies Accordingly, we 2080589 agree with the petitioners that denying t h e i r motion to dismiss her failure reasons writ the trial court Hamilton's complaint to exhaust her a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies. stated in this opinion, erred we grant based 3 in on For the the p e t i t i o n for a o f mandamus. PETITION Pittman Bryan GRANTED. and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . and Moore, J J . , concur in the result, without writings. We a l s o n o t e , w i t h o u t s o h o l d i n g , t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' a r g u m e n t t h a t H a m i l t o n ' s a c t i o n s h o u l d a l s o be b a r r e d b y t h e e q u i t a b l e d o c t r i n e of laches i s persuasive. See W i l l i a m s v . Hobson, 5 S o . 3d 6 3 0 , 632 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (A m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s may p r o p e r l y b e b a s e d on t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e o f l a c h e s "when t h e f a c e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t i t s e l f s h o w s t h a t t h e a f f i r m a t i v e defense bars the c l a i m . " ) . Hamilton f i r s t sought r e l i e f by f i l i n g a c o m p l a i n t i n the t r i a l court almost f i v e months a f t e r she r e c e i v e d n o t i c e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r employment. N o n p r o b a t i o n a r y e m p l o y e e s must f i l e a c o n t e s t t o a t e r m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o t h e FDA a n d P o l i c y n u m b e r 6 1 9 . 0 1 w i t h i n 15 d a y s . See § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 5 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 ; a n d P o l i c y n u m b e r 6 1 9 . 0 1 , § 5. Thus, i n a r g u i n g t h a t h e r c o m p l a i n t i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t was n o t b a r r e d b y l a c h e s , H a m i l t o n s e e k s t o o b t a i n f o r h e r s e l f g r e a t e r r i g h t s and r e m e d i e s , o r a t l e a s t a much l o n g e r p e r i o d i n w h i c h t o a s s e r t t h o s e p u r p o r t e d rights, t h a n t h o s e n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y e m p l o y e e s whom t h e FDA a n d P o l i c y number 619.01 were i n t e n d e d t o b e n e f i t . 3 18

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.