Ex parte Mobile County Board of School Commissioners. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Mobile County Board of School Commissioners v. Barry Long)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 4/1/11 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 be 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, 2010-2011 2100183 Ex p a r t e M o b i l e County B o a r d PETITION FOR (In re: Mobile of School WRIT OF County B o a r d Commissioners MANDAMUS of School Commissioners v. Barry (Case No. BRYAN, FMCS 08-04373) Judge. This this Long) i s the t h i r d court. See M o b i l e time these parties have been before C o u n t y B d . o f S c h . Comm'rs v . L o n g , 46 2100183 So. 3d 6 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) C o u n t y B d . o f S c h . Comm'rs, So. 3d Fair officer Code was contested could §§ be hearing, See § and until officer the of contest hearing officer issued appealed on M a r c h 1975 court, 12, 2010, remanded the case to the hearing court 2 See A l a . Because officer issued termination a Long him, h i s d i s m i s s a l be until the Following decision on 15, Long. The court, the d e c i s i o n officer. Long for a writ of I. a May decision to this reversed a shall ... opinion."). officer's and t h i s supreme terminate hearing. the Board's d e c i s i o n to dismiss the hearing our to County employee under is filed, an Board petition ("No issued overturning not novo hearing has 2009, briefly Mobile -104(a). the 36-26-103(b) ... , i f n o t i c e We t h e B o a r d ' s a c t i o n , and a h e a r i n g 36-26-103(b) effected Mobile e t s e q . , A l a . Code s e l e c t e d t o c o n d u c t a de decision. hearing The the Board's d e c i s i o n to dismiss not effected history. 36-26-100 Long c o n t e s t e d 1975, II"). of B a r r y Long, a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y Dismissal Act, § ("the F D A " ) . ("Long C o m m i s s i o n e r s ("the B o a r d " ) v o t e d the employment the 2010) the p e r t i n e n t procedural Board of School I " ) ; and Ex p a r t e [Ms. 2 0 9 0 7 5 9 , A u g u s t 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 ] ( A l a . C i v . App. recite ("Long and Long d i d certiorari in 2100183 Long I , and Long I on M a r c h On this court 31, remand issued another to the hearing hearing without court officer holding at . to The on r e m a n d . issue of the Board without 3d at a o f mandamus decision court officer holding Accordingly, on A u g u s t decision favor of August 20, On Long's employment. filed directing may officer f o r there to the Board directing Board's II, the favor So. 3d t h a t , i n L o n g I , we the 2010, granted the hearing Board 2010, we So. officer upholding the Board the to Long's terminated Long t h e n p e t i t i o n e d t h e supreme c o u r t f o r of c e r t i o r a r i a the Long 13, issue in I, the an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . directing Id. in to issue a decision i n favor and i s s u e d t h e w r i t a writ in clarified petition dismissal. hearing Consequently, an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g . had d i r e c t e d the h e a r i n g a judgment f o l l o w i n g Long hearing. for a writ In Long I I , t h i s . officer c o u r t i n Long I had i n t e n d e d be an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g this of as t o w h e t h e r t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r evidentiary determined that this petitioned certificate 2010. B o a r d and Long d i s a g r e e d hold a i n L o n g I I . On motion with the hearing the Board "to reinstate 3 September officer, his 21, 2010, seeking pay an Long order r e t r o a c t i v e to 2100183 A u g u s t 20, was cut 2010[, the off." On Long's p e t i t i o n court d a t e o f L o n g ' s d i s m i s s a l , ] when h i s October 8, 2010, the supreme court for a writ of pay c e r t i o r a r i i n Long I I , and i s s u e d a c e r t i f i c a t e o f j u d g m e n t i n L o n g I I on denied this that same date. On N o v e m b e r 16, affirming also 2010, the Long's d i s m i s s a l . determined that employment on A u g u s t 2 0 , Board 8, 2010, f o r the the h e a r i n g was the date this The mandamus w i t h t h i s c o u r t November 16, court 2010, issued Board f i l e d Therefore, the erred i n determining that Board f o r the between August We period grant the its Long petition the is entitled and 20, issue and paid officer's t o be and paid of of order officer by October writ. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , and i t w i l l be ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a clear legal right i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) the l a c k of a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; and 4) properly 4 by October for a writ hearing 2010, the t o be certificate a petition that officer and 2010, to v a c a t e the h e a r i n g contending order wrongfully 2010." p e r i o d b e t w e e n A u g u s t 20, judgment i n Long I I . 2010. i s s u e d an o f f i c e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t Long i s e n t i t l e d the of officer In t h a t order "Long's prematurely discontinued hearing hearing the 8, 2100183 i n v o k e d j u r i s d i c t i o n of the c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Serv. S t a t i o n s , Inc., 628 So. 2d 5 0 1 , 503 (Ala. 1993). A writ of mandamus w i l l issue only in s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e or i s i n a d e q u a t e , a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r a p p e a l . Ex p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . Co., 590 So. 2d 252 (Ala. 1991)." Ex parte (Ala. Empire Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 720 So. 2d 893, 894 1998). The award hearing Long October pay 8, officer for 2010. the lacked the period between Section a u t h o r i t y under the August 36-26-103(b), 20, Ala. FDA to 2010, Code and 1975, provides: "The employing board[, s u c h as the Board,] may s u s p e n d the employee w i t h pay i f the a c t i o n i s t a k e n [by t h e e m p l o y i n g b o a r d t o d i s m i s s t h e employee]. H o w e v e r , no p a y s h a l l be p r o v i d e d i n c a s e s i n v o l v i n g moral t u r p i t u d e . I f the board's a c t i o n i s o v e r t u r n e d on a p p e a l , p a y s h a l l be r e i n s t a t e d . No termination s h a l l be e f f e c t e d u n t i l t h e t i m e f o r f i l i n g n o t i c e o f c o n t e s t has e x p i r e d and, i f n o t i c e o f c o n t e s t i s f i l e d , n o t u n t i l t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r h a s i s s u e d an opinion." Thus, by i t s plain language, § 36-26-103(b) r e c e i v e payment u n t i l the h e a r i n g The hearing decision was officer dismiss to reversed certiorari issued Long by review this officer entitled " i s s u e d an a decision overturning on May 15, court in Long 2009, I. c h a l l e n g i n g Long I i n the 5 Long opinion." the and that Long did to Board's decision not supreme c o u r t , seek and 2100183 this court 31, 2010. the FDA issued a certificate Neither I § 36-26-103(b) authorizes a period well the hearing after this t h a t t h e B o a r d was made clear, following the Long n o r any o t h e r officer court p r o v i s i o n of t o award had f i n a l l y Long pay f o r d e t e r m i n e d i n Long j u s t i f i e d i n d i s m i s s i n g Long. hearing I o f j u d g m e n t i n L o n g I on M a r c h was to officer's enter a only As L o n g I I remaining decision in favor A l a . R. App. P., task of the Board. Long contends the hearing that Rule officer's order 41(b), awarding him pay supports f o r the between A u g u s t 20, 2010, t h e d a t e t h e B o a r d d i s m i s s e d October judgment 8, 2010, the date i n Long I I . Rule "The t i m e l y f i l i n g Court shall stay by t h e c o u r t s final was entitled of a p e t i t i o n of appeals, to receive and i n Long discussion I I on regarding this and of i n pertinent for certiorari the court issued the hearing 6 8, of continue judgment until Long argues t h a t until October part: i n t h e Supreme of the c e r t i f i c a t e which stay s h a l l pay him, a certificate issued by t h e Supreme C o u r t . " review certiorari court 41(b) p r o v i d e s , the issuance disposition judgment this period supreme 2010. officer's a court light he denied certificate In the of of our lack of a u t h o r i t y 2100183 to award Long certificate payment, Civ. also App. dismissed that an Reneke initial court to this Thus, entered before with a Rule (Ala. Reneke, this court court's order because this respect In court, from a probate h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n case issued 920 S o . 2 d 5 7 9 of h i s position. appeal o f judgment i n this v. Reneke, i n support had been certificate officer this case. a second appeal order Reneke on t h i s cites 2005), following date o f judgment i n Long I I i s i r r e l e v a n t . 41 h a s no b e a r i n g Long the court had i s s u e d to the f i r s t to the issue whether a appeal. the hearing exceeded h i s a u t h o r i t y i n awarding Long pay. A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t and f o r a writ issue the writ directing the hearing o f f i c e r order of the p e t i t i o n o f November the Board 16, 2 0 1 0 , and t o i s s u e upholding PETITION Thompson, concur. o f mandamus to vacate i t s a decision i n favor Long's d i s m i s s a l . GRANTED; WRIT P . J . , and ISSUED. Pittman, 7 Thomas, and Moore, 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.