Emily Walker v. Montgomery County Board of Education

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/04/2011 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, 2011-2012 2100930 Emily Walker v. Montgomery County Board o f Education Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court (CV-11-430) THOMAS, J u d g e . Facts and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y In contract Education September principal 2009, Emily Walker was e m p l o y e d f o r t h e Montgomery ("the Board"). County She was a s s i g n e d as a Board of to Harrison 2100930 Elementary School ("Harrison"). Based on the terms of her c o n t r a c t and t h e T e a c h e r A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ( " t h e TAA"), A l a . Code 1975, § 16-24B-1 contract principal 1975, § 16-24B-3(b). could be 1 et for a seq., Walker three-year Walker's t r a n s f e r r e d t o any was term. contract other employed See provided principal as a A l a . Code that opening she i n the Montgomery C o u n t y s c h o o l s y s t e m ( " t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m " ) upon t h e recommendation approval of that also provided TAA. Walker's mirroring provides of the superintendent the recommendation by of the school system the Board. t h a t i t c o u l d be c a n c e l e d set out in § contract i n accordance w i t h the c o n t r a c t s t a t e d the grounds grounds The and for cancellation, 16-24B-3(e)(1), which the f o l l o w i n g : "An e m p l o y i n g b o a r d may c a n c e l t h e c o n t r a c t o f a c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l f o r c a u s e a t any t i m e f o r any o f the f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s : A " c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l " i s d e f i n e d as " o n l y t h o s e p e r s o n s h i r e d on o r a f t e r J u l y 1, 2000, and c e r t i f i e d f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f p r i n c i p a l as p r e s c r i b e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n and who are employed by an employing board as the chief a d m i n i s t r a t o r of a school, i n c l u d i n g a v o c a t i o n a l c e n t e r . " A l a . Code 1975, § 1 6 - 2 4 B - 2 ( 2 ) . A " p r i n c i p a l , " h o w e v e r , r e f e r s to " o n l y those persons h i r e d before J u l y 1, 2000, and c e r t i f i e d f o r t h e p o s i t i o n o f p r i n c i p a l as p r e s c r i b e d by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n and who a r e e m p l o y e d by an e m p l o y i n g b o a r d as t h e c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f a s c h o o l , i n c l u d i n g a v o c a t i o n a l c e n t e r . " § 16-24B-2(7). 1 2 2100930 "a. Immorality. "b. Insubordination. "c. Neglect of duty. "d. C o n v i c t i o n of a f e l o n y or a i n v o l v i n g moral t u r p i t u d e . crime " e . F a i l u r e t o f u l f i l l t h e d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i m p o s e d upon p r i n c i p a l s by t h i s code. "f. Willful board p o l i c y . failure to comply with "g. A j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n the number of positions due to decreased e n r o l l m e n t or d e c r e a s e d f u n d i n g . "h. F a i l u r e to m a i n t a i n h i s c e r t i f i c a t e i n a current status. " i . O t h e r g o o d and "j. Incompetency. 2010, commissioned study report"). closing The certain facilities, shifting the her j u s t cause. "k. F a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m s a t i s f a c t o r y manner." I n December or the Board regarding report reduction demographics, received t h e use suggested schools the based duties on in the r e s u l t s of of i t s f a c i l i t i e s that the i n enrollment the Board conditions in several need t o c o n s o l i d a t e 3 a and a ("the consider of the schools, maximize 2100930 the e f f i c i e n t use o f r e s o u r c e s the reduction Specifically, investing school i n operating the nearly report $5 building. system's w i t h i n the school funds recommended million to Donald superintendent to the closing i n a major According assistant available system, and Harrison renovation Dotson, for Board. or of the the operations, school the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t H a r r i s o n be c l o s e d was b a s e d , i n p a r t , on the dramatic preceding decrease 10 i n enrollment a t the school over the years. B a s e d on t h e r e p o r t a n d i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e t h r e a t o f impending system, that budget Barbara the Board cuts, Thompson, close including Harrison. revisions Board to superintendent recommended eight of the on J a n u a r y Montgomery County school 11, 2011, schools, A f t e r p u b l i c m e e t i n g s on t h e s u b j e c t a n d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Thompson's u l t i m a t e l y voted schools, the i n late February recommendation, t h e 2011 t o c l o s e s i x including Harrison. After the Board approved schools, S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Thompson director o f human r e s o u r c e s the decision and V e v e r l y f o r the school close s i x A r r i n g t o n , the system, began t o devise a plan to handle the t r a n s f e r of tenured 4 to employees from 2100930 the schools t o be closed and a plan to address the p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s c r e a t e d by t h e s c h o o l c l o s u r e s . to Arrington, others, she discussed and Superintendent several scenarios Thompson, loss According as as the for handling well loss of t h e p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s . A r r i n g t o n e x p l a i n e d t h a t 17 principals i n the school s y s t e m were up c l o s e o f t h e 2010-2011 s c h o o l y e a r . Superintendent Thompson c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s up had 2 f o l l o w i n g year. rejected those testified, Association affect more the Board individuals that than the was a s s o c i a t i o n and t h e Montgomery C o u n t y E d u c a t i o n a l from from that plan principals' requests objections a l l local and of that nonrenewing a l l o w i n g a l l of the p r i n c i p a l c o n t r a c t f o r the However, A r r i n g t o n because at Arrington t e s t i f i e d f o r r e n e w a l and n o n r e n e w e d p r i n c i p a l s t o s e e k a new contract f o r renewal considered of attempts necessary. be made n o t In addition, A r r i n g t o n noted t h a t p r a c t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of s t a b i l i t y continuity i n school leadership l e d to the to conclusion and that U n d e r t h e TAA, c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s are employed by c o n t r a c t f o r a p e r i o d of not l e s s than three years, a f t e r w h i c h t h e B o a r d can e i t h e r renew o r nonrenew a c o n t r a c t principal's contract. See § 1 6 - 2 4 B - 3 ( c ) . 2 5 2100930 n o n r e n e w i n g a l l 17 c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s not b e s t serve Instead, decided the i n t e r e s t s of the school Arrington that up f o r r e n e w a l the explained, school closures system. Superintendent would c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s a t the s i x schools would impact Thompson only the s l a t e d f o r c l o s u r e ; of t h o s e s i x c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s , f o u r were up f o r r e n e w a l a n d t w o , i n c l u d i n g W a l k e r , were i n t h e m i d d l e o f t h e i r c o n t r a c t term. the Board that principals T h u s , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Thompson whose Board cancel whose before i t nonrenew the three-year recommended t o contracts of the four c o n t r a c t s were up f o r r e n e w a l a n d t h a t t h e t h e c o n t r a c t s o f W a l k e r and t h e o t h e r c o n t r a c t was n o t up f o r r e n e w a l . Arrington principal testified the c i r c u i t court that a l l s i x of the a f f e c t e d c o n t r a c t principals were informed of Superintendent Thompson's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n a n d t h a t a l l s i x were e n c o u r a g e d t o a p p l y f o r any open p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s f o r the f o l l o w i n g school The B o a r d a c c e p t e d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Thompson's year. recommendations. I n the l e t t e r c a n c e l i n g Walker's c o n t r a c t , Superintendent Thompson gave as t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f W a l k e r ' s c o n t r a c t t h e " j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s due t o d e c r e a s e d e n r o l l m e n t or decreased funding." 6 § 16-24B- 2100930 3(e)(1)g. As requested was an her expedited Montgomery C i r c u i t court of right, h e l d on May 3(e)(2)b., the [was] The request, h e a r i n g was Board the § 16-24B-3(e)(2)b., evidentiary Court. Walker's preponderance of see an "the evidence, before notified the circuit evidentiary According t o § 16-24B- burden to prove, by hearing, 2011, A f t e r the the circuit upholding contract. She c o n c l u s i o n of the e x p e d i t e d court the entered a judgment cancellation t i m e l y appeals a that [Walker's] cancellation s o l e l y f o r c a u s e p u r s u a n t t o s u b d i v i s i o n (1) o f section." the expedited 16-17, 2011. bore hearing Board and Walker of evidentiary on Walker's t h a t judgment. th[at] June 29, principal 3 Standard of Review Our standard 16-24B-5(b), Ala. of review Code i s s e t out 1975, states i n t h e TAA. that this a f f i r m t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t u n l e s s we Section court " f i n d [ ] the d e c i s i o n t o be a g a i n s t t h e g r e a t w e i g h t o f t h e e v i d e n c e . " will be explained below, we are called on to must construe As the U n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 1 6 - 2 4 B - 5 ( a ) , e i t h e r p a r t y may a p p e a l t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o t h i s c o u r t by f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l w i t h i n 14 days o f t h e e n t r y o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment. 3 7 2100930 m e a n i n g o f t h e p h r a s e " [ a ] j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n t h e number of positions funding." due § to decreased 16-24B-3(e)(1)g. question, we will apply statutory enrollment or Accordingly, the w e l l settled decreased as to that principles of construction: " I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f an A c t ... , a court i s required to a s c e r t a i n the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e as e x p r e s s e d a n d t o e f f e c t u a t e that i n t e n t . L e w i s v. H i t t , 370 So. 2d 1369 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . The l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t may be g l e a n e d f r o m t h e language used, the reason and n e c e s s i t y f o r the a c t , and t h e p u r p o s e sought t o be o b t a i n e d b y i t s p a s s a g e . Ex p a r t e H o l l a d a y , 466 So. 2d 956 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) . Words u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e must be g i v e n t h e i r n a t u r a l , p l a i n , o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e i s u s e d a c o u r t i s b o u n d t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . C o a s t a l S t a t e s Gas T r a n s m i s s i o n Co. v. A l a b a m a P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n , 524 So. 2d 357 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; A l a b a m a Farm B u r e a u M u t u a l C a s u a l t y I n s u r a n c e Co. v. C i t y o f H a r t s e l l e , 460 So. 2d 1219 ( A l a . 1984). I f t h e language o f the s t a t u t e i s c l e a r and u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n e f f e c t . Dumas B r o t h e r s M a n u f a c t u r i n g Co. v . S o u t h e r n G u a r a n t y I n s u r a n c e Co., 431 So. 2d 534 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ; Town o f L o x l e y v. R o s i n t o n W a t e r , Sewer, & F i r e P r o t e c t i o n A u t h o r i t y , I n c . , 376 So. 2d 705 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . " Tuscaloosa Cnty. Comm'n v. Deputy Sheriffs' T u s c a l o o s a C n t y . , 589 So. 2d 687, 689 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . may explain the language [in a statute], d e t r a c t from o r add t o the s t a t u t e . " 8 Ass'n of "[A] c o u r t b u t i t may n o t W a t e r Works & Sewer Bd. 2100930 of Selma v. Randolph, "Furthermore, So. [the a p p e l l a t e rewrite statutes (Ala. 833 2d 604, courts 607 ( A l a . 2002). are] not at l i b e r t y Ex p a r t e C a r l t o n , 867 So. 2d 332, to 338 2003). W h e t h e r W a l k e r ' s C o n t r a c t Was Walker argued to the circuit C a n c e l e d f o r Cause court and argues to this c o u r t on a p p e a l t h a t t h e B o a r d f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h e g r o u n d upon which i t based presented the cancellation evidence i n d i c a t i n g that of her contract. the B o a r d had She knowledge t h a t a t l e a s t two p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s w o u l d be open a t t h e end of the school year based on the fact accepted the r e s i g n a t i o n o f one approved the of another. openings, retirement she that contract contends, the Board the principal had and had of those Because could Board two not e s t a b l i s h "[a] j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s " s u c h t h a t i t could cancel provisions that, under prove a her of § the contract TAA. under the c o n t r a c t In o t h e r words, 16-24B-3(e)(1)g., the decrease in the number of terms Walker Board was "open," We disagree. 9 the i s arguing required to "vacant," or "available" p r i n c i p a l positions i n order to e s t a b l i s h to cancel her c o n t r a c t . and grounds 2100930 The l a n g u a g e o f t h e TAA i n d i c a t e s t h a t c a n c e l l a t i o n o f a contract "[a] principal's justifiable decreased c o n t r a c t i s a p p r o p r i a t e when decrease enrollment 3(e) (1)g. or Our r e a d i n g there i s i n t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s decreased due t o funding." of the c l e a r § 16-24B- language used i n that p r o v i s i o n c o n v i n c e s us t h a t t h e TAA p e r m i t s c a n c e l l a t i o n o f a contract principal's decreased enrollment c o n t r a c t i f the Board or decreased can prove funding has decrease i n t h e number o f p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s system. In order f o r t h i s way W a l k e r words urges, "open," caused a i n the school court to construe the s t a t u t e the we w o u l d have "vacant," that or t o a d d one o r more o f t h e "available" before the word " p o s i t i o n s , " thereby o v e r s t e p p i n g the boundaries of our review and r e w r i t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . T h i s we a r e p r o h i b i t e d f r o m d o i n g . See R a n d o l p h , 833 So. 2d a t 607; s e e a l s o S a u l s b e r r y v. W i l c o x Cnty. Bd. o f Educ., 1993)(stating that inadvertently omitted complete that 641 So. 2d 283, 286 a c o u r t may, words from i n rare a ( A l a . C i v . App. instances, statute supply i n order "to the sense, and t o express the l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t " b u t " i t cannot s u p p l y words p u r p o s e l y 10 omitted" ( q u o t i n g Ex 2100930 parte Clayton, quotation 552 marks So. 2d 152, 154 (Ala. 1989)(internal omitted)). B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , t h e f a c t t h a t the school s y s t e m s u f f e r e d a d e c r e a s e i n t h e number of p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s c a n n o t be six and therefore lost The fact that certain principal schools positions. open by t h e e n d o f t h e s c h o o l that disputed; the need y e a r does the Board for six principal positions Thus, we were n o t change t h e f a c t t h e number o f p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s i n t h e s c h o o l had been r e d u c e d . closed cannot agree t h a t system the Board d i d n o t meet i t s b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g " [ a ] j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e in the number of p o s i t i o n s decreased funding." due to decreased enrollment or § 16-24B-3(e)(1)g. W h e t h e r t h e B o a r d Was R e q u i r e d t o Have T r a n s f e r r e d Walker W a l k e r a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t , b a s e d on t h e t e r m s o f h e r c o n t r a c t , t h e B o a r d c o u l d t r a n s f e r h e r t o any s c h o o l i n the school required system compels to transfer her the c o n c l u s i o n into an i n s t e a d of c a n c e l i n g her c o n t r a c t . the fact principal that i t could position within have the 11 open that the Board principal The B o a r d does n o t transferred school system Walker under was position dispute to any Walker's 2100930 contract. right The B o a r d d o e s , h o w e v e r , d i s p u t e t h e f a c t t h a t i t s t o t r a n s f e r Walker into a n y open principal position r e q u i r e d i t t o do so i n s t e a d o f c a n c e l i n g h e r c o n t r a c t . the Board points o u t , t h e TAA does n o t r e q u i r e As the Board to t r a n s f e r a c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o c a n c e l i n g his or her contract principal over or to give another. Instead, l a n g u a g e , t h e TAA p e r m i t s any contract decrease in enrollment principal the as t o any i s plain contract from i t s the Board to cancel the c o n t r a c t of when number or decreased preference there of exists positions funding." " [a] due justifiable to decreased § 16-24B-3(e)(1)g. We c a n n o t a g r e e t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t open p o s i t i o n s t o w h i c h W a l k e r m i g h t have b e e n t r a n s f e r r e d e x i s t e d i m p a c t s t h e r i g h t o f t h e B o a r d t o c a n c e l h e r c o n t r a c t u n d e r t h e TAA. We a r e a l s o n o t c o n v i n c e d was e n t i t l e d positions Education Keasler on b y W a l k e r ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t she t o be t r a n s f e r r e d t o one o f t h e open the authority of Pickens County principal Board v. K e a s l e r , 263 A l a . 2 3 1 , 82 So. 2d 197 ( 1 9 5 5 ) . court affirmed ordering the Pickens teacher-appellee, the issuance of a w r i t County Board o f Education who was tenured, 12 to of The o f mandamus to return the full-time teaching 2100930 status. board Keasler, had appellee 263 A l a . a t 234, 82 So. 2d a t 199. canceled the contract b a s e d on a " ' j u s t i f i a b l e of the tenured decrease The teacher- i n t h e number o f teaching p o s i t i o n s ' " despite the fact that the board continued t o e m p l o y f o u r n o n t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s q u a l i f i e d t o t e a c h t h e same g r a d e s as t h e t e a c h e r - a p p e l l e e . So. 2d at 198 (quoting 356)(emphasis omitted). K e a s l e r , 263 A l a . a t 232, 82 A l a . Code 1940, T i t . 52, The K e a s l e r c o u r t c o n c l u d e d § that the b o a r d was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o c a n c e l t h e c o n t r a c t o f t h e t e n u r e d teacher, who was nontenured teachers, teachers. Keasler, court qualified f o r the i n favor positions held by of r e t a i n i n g the nontenured 263 A l a . a t 234, 82 So. 2d a t 199. The stated: "'... Even t h o u g h b y s t a t u t e a j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s i s recognized as g r o u n d f o r t h e c a n c e l a t i o n o f a permanent tenure contract, the r e t e n t i o n of a probationary teacher and the d i s m i s s a l of a permanent employee qualified to teach i n the p o s i t i o n of the non-tenure teacher i s not a u t h o r i z e d by s u c h a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n . ' " Keasler, Jur. 263 A l a . a t 234, 82 So. 2d a t 199 Schools (quoting 47 Am. § 139, pp. 3 9 7 - 9 8 ) . K e a s l e r i n v o l v e d a t e a c h e r c o v e r e d by a former v e r s i o n o f the Teacher Tenure A c t ("the T T A " ) , 13 which alone makes i t s 2100930 h o l d i n g i n a p p o s i t e to the c u r r e n t i s s u e i n t h i s case. makes i t a b u n d a n t l y clear that e n t i t l e d to tenure. First, u n d e r c o n t r a c t by p r i n c i p a l s are not a contract principal § 16-24B-3(a). whose employment t e r m i s employed or p o l i t i c a l reason. of Second, a c o n t r a c t i s coming n o n r e n e w e d by t h e e m p l o y i n g b o a r d f o r any personal TAA an e m p l o y i n g b o a r d f o r a l i m i t e d p e r i o d not l e s s than three years. principal contract The to an end may reason other § 16-24B-3(c). be than a Finally, § 16- 24B-3(d) s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , " [ n ] o t h i n g i n t h i s s e c t i o n or chapter status shall ... on be construed any contract t h e r e f o r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o be to ... confer continuing principal." service Walker of the t r a n s f e r r e d i n t o one was open p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s under the r a t i o n a l e e x p r e s s e d i n K e a s l e r . Whether the C a n c e l l a t i o n of W a l k e r ' s V i o l a t e d A l a . Code 1975, Contract § 16-24B-8 Walker next argues t h a t the Board's f a i l u r e her to t r a n s f e r into is one indicating of that the open the principal Board positions retaliated against evidence her for c o n t e s t i n g h e r c o n t r a c t c a n c e l l a t i o n . As e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , t h e TAA requires W a l k e r be t h a t the canceled contract only of a contract principal f o r c a u s e , as 14 set out in § like 16-24B- 2100930 3(e)(1)a.-k. Section 16-24B-8, upon w h i c h W a l k e r r e l i e s , declares that " [ i ] t board to cancel or expressly s h a l l be u n l a w f u l f o r an e m p l o y i n g reduce the contract of a teacher, p r i n c i p a l , or c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l or to t r a n s f e r , reprimand, or discipline a teacher because employment a c t i o n u n d e r t h i s Walker treatment contends was that given to chapter she open t h a t the contract retaliation § or t h i s any title." preferential principals whose d i d not c o n t e s t t h a t a c t i o n , to t r a n s f e r her p o s i t i o n was 16-24B-8. opposed that contract Board's f a i l u r e principal under teacher proved those c o n t r a c t s were n o n r e n e w e d and who thus p r o v i n g the We a cannot agree. an act prohibited to of Arrington t e s t i f i e d at t r i a l t h a t a l l s i x o f t h e c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l s who were or nonrenewed e n c o u r a g e d t o s e e k any the following trial, one she year; d i d not of the whose contracts were canceled were open c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s f o r although Walker deny b e i n g open p o s i t i o n s . told She testified t h a t she briefly could apply appears to base her at for argument on t h e q u e s t i o n i n g o f A r r i n g t o n r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r , i n o r d e r to be position to position or transferred another, a from contract one contract principal 15 must principal seek the 2100930 interview for i t . Although Arrington explained that a t r a n s f e r f r o m one c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n t o a n o t h e r d i d not require transfers an of interview that process, nature were she a l s o explained r o u t i n e l y done that f o r various r e a s o n s on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Thompson a n d the approval the circuit of the Board. court Nothing indicated that a specific t r a n s f e r W a l k e r i n t o an open that she position was discouraged We d e c i s i o n not to p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n was made o r from seeking are at a l o s s " p r e f e r e n t i a l treatment" principals her who were such t h a t contest another to determine principal was c o n f e r r e d nonrenewed or exactly on t h e o t h e r whose i t denotes r e t a l i a t i o n contract were toward Walker f o r of the Board's c a n c e l l a t i o n of her c o n t r a c t . Motivated Walker further "differential by P e r s o n a l argues treatment," that the Board canceled As what contracts Whether t h e C a n c e l l a t i o n o f W a l k e r ' s C o n t r a c t bias. before a f t e r t h e c a n c e l l a t i o n o f h e r c o n t r a c t u n d e r § 16- 24B-3(e)(1)g. canceled i n the testimony that which, she Bias was she s a y s , subjected amounts t o her c o n t r a c t f o r reasons of f a c t u a l support f o r her 16 Was claim of to proof personal "differential 2100930 treatment," Walker relies probationary principal 4 was on two facts: (1) that t r a n s f e r r e d i n J a n u a r y 2011 p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n f o r w h i c h W a l k e r was q u a l i f i e d and not a l l contract their contract p r i n c i p a l s were canceled as a either result p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s i n the s c h o o l system. the Board's the to a (2) t h a t nonrenewed of or had decrease in She c o m p l a i n s t h a t d e c i s i o n to t r a n s f e r the p r o b a t i o n a r y principal was a " d e a l " t h a t t h e B o a r d d i d n o t o f f e r t o h e r , i m p l y i n g , p r e s u m e , t h a t t h e B o a r d showed f a v o r i t i s m t o t h a t principal. terminate principal She in way i n the s c h o o l the contracts system demonstrates "held to a d i f f e r e n t standard" other contract failure every to contract t h a t Walker or t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y was than principals. W a l k e r b a s e s h e r a r g u m e n t on two parte Wilson, of we probationary f u r t h e r contends t h a t the Board's some a 984 So. 2d 1161 writings, Justice Lyons addressed whether "evidence s p e c i a l w r i t i n g s i n Ex ( A l a . 2007). and Justice of lesser In those s p e c i a l Stuart both discipline briefly of other A " p r o b a t i o n a r y p r i n c i p a l " i s d e f i n e d i n t h e TAA as " [ a ] n y p r i n c i p a l h i r e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n any l o c a l s c h o o l s y s t e m as a p r i n c i p a l on o r a f t e r J u l y 1, 2000." § 16-24B2(8). 4 17 2100930 employees f o r l i k e o f f e n s e s " can be c o n s i d e r e d i n a h e a r i n g which the a teacher contract 2d at challenges for d i s c i p l i n a r y reasons. 1172 (Stuart, J., (Lyons, J . , c o n c u r r i n g Relying cancellation concurring i n p a r t and his or her parte Wilson, Ex of at 984 So. s p e c i a l l y ) ; i d . at concurring i n the 1173 result). on t h o s e s p e c i a l w r i t i n g s , W a l k e r s t a t e s i n h e r brief t h a t " [ d ] i f f e r e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t of s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d employees constitutes personal bias." writings However, n e i t h e r o f t h o s e s p e c i a l stands f o r that p r o p o s i t i o n . L y o n s ' s and Justice evidence of committed the Stuart's disparate special writings discipline same o f f e n s e Although both of w o u l d be p e r s o n a l or p o l i t i c a l b i a s , n e i t h e r that such proof p o l i t i c a l bias. would indicate employees relevant w h i c h a d i s c i p l i n e d t e a c h e r p l e a d e d and who in a have in defense argued the establish that case of special writing conclusively Justice indicates personal In f a c t , J u s t i c e S t u a r t s t a t e d i n her or writing t h a t " e v i d e n c e t h a t o t h e r e m p l o y e e s have b e e n d i s c i p l i n e d l e s s severely for like offenses i s not a defense per se and does not n e c e s s a r i l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t the motive f o r the cancellation of personal or (Stuart, J., the teacher's political." employment Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , 984 18 contract So. was 2d a t 1172 2100930 concurring specially) overstatement (emphasis I n s t e a d , we our Walker's o f t h e l e g a l p r i n c i p l e d i s c u s s e d i n two w r i t i n g s i n Ex p a r t e W i l s o n which added). will supreme does n o t h e l p h e r consider court here. a case i n v o l v i n g considered an the TTA, in similar argument W a l k e r ' s made b y a t e a c h e r whose c o n t r a c t was special to c a n c e l e d because o f a d e c r e a s e i n t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s . See W i l l i a m s v. B o a r d o f E d u c . o f Lamar C n t y . , 263 (1955) . contract The v e r s i o n o f t h e TTA of "'justifiable as a ground the teacher Act No. in 375, 82 So. 2d 549, 552 i n e f f e c t at the time t h a t the Williams was canceled listed d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s ' " for c a n c e l l a t i o n of W i l l i a m s , 263 A l a . a t 375, 1953, A l a . 372, 773, 82 So. a teacher's 2d a t 552 § 358)(emphasis s c h o o l b o a r d had p r o v e d a j u s t i f i a b l e contract. (quoting A l a . Acts omitted) . Although decrease i n the the number of t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s , the t e a c h e r had c o n t i n u e d t o argue t h a t her contract Williams, right our 263 had been A l a . a t 375, to f u r t h e r question supreme c o u r t "As we whether canceled 82 So. the for personal 2d a t 552. reasons. Rejecting c a n c e l l a t i o n of her contract, explained: see i t , the o n l y p e r t i n e n t i n q u i r y t h e r e was a ' j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n 19 her was the 2100930 number of teaching positions.' That being e s t a b l i s h e d , the reason f o r s e l e c t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t r a c t as t h e one t o be c a n c e l l e d was n o t open t o inquiry. We find nothing in the Tenure Act establishing a criterion for determining what particular tenure teacher's contract should be c a n c e l l e d when t h e r e i s a ' j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n the number of teaching positions.' In such situation, i t seems t o us t h a t the right of s e l e c t i o n i s a matter r e s t i n g e n t i r e l y w i t h the employing Board of Education." W i l l i a m s , 263 A l a . a t 375, Although TTA, a Walker's 82 So. 2d a t 552 contract f a l l s under the we have f o u n d no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e TAA criterion principal's] for determining contract should 'justifiable decrease positions.'" W i l l i a m s , 263 The entitled B o a r d was contract principals contracts role of canceled. the in what be and the 375, [contract there of 82 Courts school board is So. 2d at 552. which n o n r e n e w e d o r w o u l d have are and not permitted cannot determine v. B o a r d o f E d u c . o f F a i r f i e l d , 252 that 261, the another S t a t e ex r e l . ( 1 9 4 9 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e 20 their to usurp t a k e n by t h e s c h o o l A l a . 254, a [principal] t o make t h e d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g w o u l d be the that "establish[es] number A l a . at not particular m i g h t have b e e n w i s e r o r more e q u i t a b l e . 695 TAA c a n c e l l e d when c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e one 689, (emphasis added). board Steele 40 So. 2d Jackson, 2100930 625 So. 2d 425 ( A l a . 1992). principals did not sufficient proof personally or the principals, would fact same decision the have Board the for an W a l k e r ' s argument t h a t personally motivated not Board was fact other Walker's of that options contract, probationary conclusion t h a t Walker Thus, c a n c e l l a t i o n of her because other is i s the had reason. contract Walker the contracts improper the other as Nor preserved c a n c e l l a t i o n of out fate motivated. or that made by e v i d e n c e t h a t compels the singled principals the the Thompson that including was that politically Superintendent available suffer The we reject contract probationary or was contract retained their positions. Conclusion The it circuit canceled decrease evidence Walker's in enrollment c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the Board p r o v e d the contract number or decreased before the unfortunate financial of because of positions funding." circuit § court situation of "[a] due justifiable to decreased 16-24B-3(e)(1)g. The established that the required the the Board B o a r d t o make d i f f i c u l t c h o i c e s t o r e d u c e i t s o p e r a t i n g that i t closed s i x schools as 21 a that result, that i t costs, therefore 2100930 d e c r e a s e d t h e number o f c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l p o s i t i o n s , and i t e x e r c i s e d i t s r i g h t to cancel Walker's c o n t r a c t with the TAA. terms of her contract and the are p e r s u a s i v e . The judgment of the consistent requirements None o f W a l k e r ' s a r g u m e n t s a g a i n s t the circuit of Board's court See § the action upholding the c a n c e l l a t i o n of Walker's c o n t r a c t i s not a g a i n s t the w e i g h t of the evidence, that great and we t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m t h a t j u d g m e n t . 16-24B-5(b). AFFIRMED. Thompson, P.J., and Pittman, concur. 22 Bryan, and Moore, JJ.,

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.