Southern Union State Community College et al. v. Susan Salatto (Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court: CV-08-211) Opinion Of October 7, 2011, Modified
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/07/2011
R e l : 03/302012 As m o d i f i e d on d e n i a l o f r e h e a r i n g .
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 Reporter of Decisions,
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, 2011-2012
2091201
Southern Union State Community C o l l e g e e t a l .
v.
Susan S a l a t t o
Susan S a l a t t o
v.
Southern Union S t a t e Community C o l l e g e e t a l .
Appeals from Montgomery C i r c u i t
(CV-08-211)
PITTMAN, J u d g e .
Court
2091201
These
appeals
arise
from
Montgomery
Circuit
Court
concerning
removal
Susan
of
Salatto
a
from
the
judgment
the
office
entered
of
the
of
legality
by
the
president
of
S o u t h e r n U n i o n S t a t e Community C o l l e g e ( " S o u t h e r n U n i o n " ) .
On J a n u a r y 24, 2008, t h e A l a b a m a S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n
("the
Board") voted
to
remove
Salatto
from
the
office
of
p r e s i d e n t of Southern Union over the o b j e c t i o n of her counsel,
who
contended t h a t the removal c o u l d not v a l i d l y occur except
u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f , and c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e t e r m s 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").
Salatto
simultaneously
initiated
("the
administrative
p r o c e e d i n g s and a c i v i l a c t i o n s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f t h e p r o p r i e t y
o f h e r r e m o v a l f r o m o f f i c e , and she a l s o s o u g h t
review
of
Salatto's
Southern
Union's
election
p r e v i o u s employment a t t h a t
administrative
proceeding,
proceedings
a f t e r which
were
to
administrative
treat
institution.
consolidated
Southern Union
as
The
into
and t h e B o a r d
d i s m i s s a l on t h e c l a i m e d b a s e s t h a t t h e FDA
ended
two
one
sought
d i d not apply to
S a l a t t o ' s employment as p r e s i d e n t o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n o r t o h e r
f o r m e r employment by S o u t h e r n U n i o n as a d e a n ; t h o s e
parties
a l s o sought a s t a y of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p r o c e e d i n g s pending
[ s u b s t i t u t e d page
2]
2091201
t h e outcome o f t h e c i v i l a c t i o n .
who
had
issued
been
an
assigned
order
on
The
Salatto's
May
23,
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law
administrative
2008,
declaring
r e m o v a l as p r e s i d e n t v i o l a t e d t h e FDA
proceedings
that
and t h a t ,
she was
e n t i t l e d t o r e t u r n t o work i n a p r e v i o u s
she
judge
Salatto's
alternatively,
h e l d at Southern Union.
had
p o s i t i o n that
The B o a r d , S o u t h e r n U n i o n , and S o u t h e r n U n i o n ' s
then
sought
Montgomery
review
Circuit
pending c i v i l
of
the
Court
a c t i o n , and
by
administrative
asserting
the
circuit
court).
Salatto
1
filed
f a v o r as t o h e r
on
favor
other
parties
2010,
the
decision
i n her
(who
circuit
of
the
claims
in
as t o t h e
claims
entered
administrative
a
judge
On
of
denied
seeking
a
a judgment
counterclaims
judgment
law
and
the
Salatto's
a motion
opposed S a l a t t o ' s m o t i o n ) .
court
in
( w h i c h r e q u e s t was
summary j u d g m e n t i n h e r
the p l e a d i n g s
decision
those p a r t i e s a l s o sought a s t a y
the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge's o r d e r
by
president
of
the
August
24,
upholding
and
the
ordered
The B o a r d , S o u t h e r n U n i o n , and S o u t h e r n U n i o n ' s p r e s i d e n t
p e t i t i o n e d f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f t h e
c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of the s t a y o r d e r ; however, t h i s c o u r t
denied
that
petition
as
having
been
filed
beyond
the
p r e s u m p t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e t i m e s e t f o r t h i n R u l e 2 1 ( a ) , A l a . R.
App.
P.
Ex p a r t e S o u t h e r n U n i o n S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . ,
(No.
2071238, O c t o b e r 27, 2008) ( A l a . C i v . App.
2008).
1
3
2091201
implementation
relief
of
s o u g h t by
that
decision,
and
i t denied
all
the p a r t i e s .
S o u t h e r n U n i o n , t h e B o a r d , and S o u t h e r n U n i o n ' s
have a p p e a l e d f r o m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s
decision
has
the
administrative
cross-appealed,
t h a t the
or
of
circuit
adversely
she
court's
Cnty.
( A l a . C i v . App.
The
judge.
procedural
the
and
f a v o r was
i n t e r e s t s , and
S h e r i f f ' s Dep't,
13
So.
r a i s e d by
the
to terminate
Ex
996
FDA
such
substantive
that
rights
she
is
set
portions
has
provided
the
FDA.
case i s
of Southern Union i s
entitled
forth
Since
to
the
therein.
To
the h i s t o r y
i t s enactment
t h a t c e r t a i n procedures are
f o l l o w e d when c o u n t y and c i t y b o a r d s o f e d u c a t i o n
educational
993,
parties in this
of
FDA
See
3d
of
the
erroneous
i n such circumstances.
f i r s t l o o k t o t h e t e x t and
1983,
appeal
i t is well settled
r e s o l v e t h a t i s s u e , we
pertinent
Salatto
a r g u e i n h e r b r i e f on
w h e t h e r S a l a t t o ' s d i s m i s s a l as p r e s i d e n t
by
Although
the
2009).
central issue
governed
president
judgment u p h o l d i n g
judgment i n her
a f f e c t e d her
Jefferson
law
does n o t
that dismissal i s appropriate
parte
other
and
to
in
be
two-year
i n s t i t u t i o n s under the d i r e c t i o n of the Board seek
t h e employment o f " e m p l o y e e s " o f t h o s e
4
entities.
2091201
See A l a . Code 1975, § 36-26-100.
FDA
to apply to a p a r t i c u l a r
S t a t e d a n o t h e r way,
p e r s o n , he
or
she
e m p l o y e e o f an e n t i t y c o v e r e d u n d e r t h e FDA.
P e a r s o n , 20 So. 3d 120, 124
if
one
i s not employed
an " e m p l o y e e "
The
was
( A l a . C i v . App.
f o r the
must be
an
See H o l l a n d v.
2008) ( n o t i n g t h a t
by a c o v e r e d e n t i t y ,
one w o u l d n o t
be
f o r FDA p u r p o s e s ) .
position
taken i n t h i s
litigation
by S a l a t t o ,
which
a d o p t e d by t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e i n h i s o r d e r and
w h i c h was
l a t e r e n d o r s e d by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t i n i t s j u d g m e n t
upholding
that
order,
Southern Union, which
i s that
Salatto
i s a two-year
was
an
employee
educational
of
institution
under the d i r e c t i o n of the Board, at the time t h a t t e r m i n a t i o n
o f h e r employment was s o u g h t .
affiliated
1975,
§
junior
16-60-130
(September 3, 1968)
Southern
Union
college
et
That Southern Union i s a s t a t e -
i s beyond
seq.;
see
doubt.
also
See
A l a . Code
E x e c u t i v e Order
In
3
( r a t i f y i n g s t a t e a c q u i s i t i o n of the former
College).
However,
s i m p l y because
s e r v e d as p r e s i d e n t o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n does n o t r e s o l v e
she was
No.
Salatto
whether
an e m p l o y e e o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n .
analyzing
covered e n t i t y
whether
under
a
person
t h e FDA,
i s an
Alabama
5
"employee"
courts
of
are guided
a
by
2091201
" g e n e r a l A l a b a m a l a w p e r t a i n i n g t o employment r e l a t i o n s h i p s . "
P e t e r s o n v. Lowndes C n t y . Bd.
(Ala.
2007) .
o f Educ.,
In P e t e r s o n , our
980
So.
supreme c o u r t
2d 975,
observed
977
that
w h e t h e r p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n s may p r o p e r l y be deemed e m p l o y e e s
a
covered
[entity]
were
entity
had
"depends
a right
upon
to select
employed
Id.
at
the
and
extent
control
978.
to
which
them w h i l e
Peterson
also
of
the
they
quoted
l a n g u a g e f r o m D a v e n p o r t - H a r r i s F u n e r a l Home, I n c . v. C h a n d l e r ,
38 A l a . App.
463,
466,
88 So. 2d 875,
877
(1956),
indicating
t h a t t h e r i g h t t o s e l e c t t h e p e r s o n c l a i m e d t o be an e m p l o y e e
is
980
an
indispensable
element
of
an
employment
relationship.
So. 2d a t 977-78.
What e n t i t y h o l d s t h e r i g h t , u n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , t o s e l e c t
the p r e s i d e n t
of a two-year
Under A l a b a m a l a w ,
the a u t h o r i t y
vested i n a single entity:
recommendation
officer)
of
college
the
s u c h as S o u t h e r n
t o make t h a t
Union?
selection
is
the Board, a c t i n g pursuant to the
chancellor
(i.e. ,
of the Postsecondary Education
"The
State
Board
recommendation
of
the
authorized to:
chief
executive
Department.
of
Education,
upon
Chancellor,
shall
be
6
2091201
"(3) A p p o i n t t h e p r e s i d e n t o f e a c h
junior
c o l l e g e and t r a d e
school,
each
p r e s i d e n t to serve at the pleasure of the
board."
A l a . Code 1975, § 16-60-111.4.
2d 418, 420
( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h a t s t a t u t e were
held to permit
presidency
§
I n D e W i t t v. G a i n o u s , 628 So.
the Board to u n i l a t e r a l l y terminate
at
a
state
16-60-111.4(3)
the
junior
college:
presidents
of
a person's
"Under
Alabama's
...
junior
c o l l e g e s are a t - w i l l employees o f the Board o f E d u c a t i o n
serve
at the pleasure
Although
president's
United
DeWitt
d i d not i n v o l v e
summary d i s c h a r g e ,
States
Alabama
of the Board."
did
District
examine
postsecondary-education
aff'd,
152
F.3d
technical-college
935
f o r the
interplay
presidents.
State Board of Education,
an FDA
between
to a
District
the
In Shuford
( 1 1 t h C i r . 1998)
t h a t he h a d been d i s c h a r g e d
challenge
Middle
978 F. Supp. 1008
president
added.)
a subsequent d e c i s i o n of the
Court
the
(Emphasis
and
contended,
FDA
v.
of
and
Alabama
(M.D. A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ,
(table),
among
i n contravention
a
other
former
things,
of due-process
p r i n c i p l e s and a s s e r t e d t h a t , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e FDA gave
him
a property
Supp.
i n t e r e s t i n h i s p o s i t i o n as p r e s i d e n t .
a t 1022-23.
After noting
7
the holding
978 F.
i n DeWitt,
the
2091201
federal
district
entitlement
court
claim,
t i m e ) an e x c e p t i o n
rejected
noting
that
[an]other
been
state
originally
t h e FDA
property-
contained
(at that
from i t s p r o v i s i o n s t o the e f f e c t t h a t the
employment o f " ' e m p l o y e e s who
...
the president's
[were] ... o t h e r w i s e c o v e r e d by
s t a t u t e ' " at the time
adopted
in
1983
was
not
i n c l u d e d w i t h i n t h e s c o p e o f t h e FDA.
that
t h e FDA
intended
978 F. Supp.
had
to
be
a t 1024
( q u o t i n g A l a . Code 1975, § 36-26-100, as i t r e a d i n 1 9 9 7 ) .
S a l a t t o c o r r e c t l y n o t e s t h a t t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e has
not
remained
deleted
"other
as
to
this
issue
Shuford
was
enacted
that
f r o m t h e FDA t h e e x c e p t i o n
state statute[s]."
In Glass
(Ala.
since
I n 2002, an amendment t o t h e FDA was
decided.
silent
v. A n n i s t o n
C i v . App.
p e r t a i n i n g t o c o v e r a g e by
A c t No.
2002-508, A l a . A c t s
C i t y Board of Education,
2 0 0 6 ) , we
e m p l o y e d by a m u n i c i p a l
held
education
that
2002.
957 So. 2d 1143
an a t t e n d a n c e
officer
b o a r d was, by v i r t u e o f t h e
2002 amendment t o t h e FDA, e n t i t l e d t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n s o f t h e
FDA
despite
board's
the existence
dismissal
interpretation
removes
the
of
of other
powers.
the
statutory
2002
statutes
Although
amendment
underpinning
8
of
addressing
this
that
court's
t o t h e FDA
in
Shuford
(while
Glass
not
2091201
affecting
i t s due-process
DeWitt or mention
alter
analysis),
i t i n any way,
those p r o v i s i o n s
G l a s s d i d not
address
n o r d i d t h e 2002 amendment
o f t h e FDA
limiting
i t s scope
p e r t i n e n t p a r t , " p e r s o n s e m p l o y e d by ... t w o - y e a r
to, i n
educational
i n s t i t u t i o n s u n d e r t h e c o n t r o l and a u s p i c e s o f t h e S t a t e B o a r d
of
E d u c a t i o n . " A l a . Code 1975,
§ 36-26-100
(emphasis
added).
S a l a t t o p o s i t s i n her p r i n c i p a l a p p e l l a t e b r i e f that the
o n l y argument t h a t can be p r o p e r l y m a r s h a l e d a g a i n s t d e e m i n g
her
included within
t h e FDA
i s that
there i s a
preexisting
s t a t u t e d e c l a r i n g t w o - y e a r c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s t o be
employees.
the
"at-will"
However, § 1 6 - 6 0 - 1 1 1 . 4 ( 3 ) does n o t m e r e l y a d d r e s s
n a t u r e o f employment o f a t w o - y e a r
college president; i t
l o c a l i z e s t h e s o u r c e o f t h e c o r e employment power o f s e l e c t i o n
as
to
such
themselves.
presidents
in
the
Board,
The B o a r d , a l t h o u g h m e n t i o n e d
not
the
colleges
i n § 36-26-100 as
c o n t r o l l i n g two-year e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t are covered
e n t i t i e s under
the
FDA.
(Ala.
i s not i t s e l f
2010),
that,
"unless a p a r t i c u l a r
i n § 36-26-100, i t s e m p l o y e e s
FDA"
a covered e n t i t y
n o t e d i n F r a n k s v. J o r d a n , 55 So. 3d 1218,
C i v . App.
listed
the
We
t h e FDA,
and
will
not
have
9
will
n o t be
"substantive
or
under
1223
entity i s
c o v e r e d by
procedural
2091201
employment r i g h t s u n d e r t h e
FDA."
2002 a c t e d
exclusion
right
to
of
eliminate
otherwise-covered
substantive
protections
inclusion place
as
the
an
Board,
any
Thus, t h e
that
"employees"
under
the
the
category
of
might
defeat
to
i t did
the
procedural
but
FDA,
p e r s o n s e m p l o y e d by
within
legislature in
other
and
not
entities,
by
such
"employees" under
the
FDA.
Salatto
may
be
a l s o contends t h a t the
upheld
employee
of
Salatto
does
on
the
both
the
not
rationale
Board
and
demonstrate
circuit
that
she
Southern
in
her
carried
s e l e c t i o n as p r e s i d e n t
out
s t a t u t e , was
her
duties
as
staff
brief
control
Salatto
include
fire
however,
i t is
a l e g a l r i g h t of
himself
or h e r s e l f .
she
herself,
t o a c t on
behalf
to q u a l i f i c a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d ,
absurd
to
a president
We
construe
§
16¬
to
to, i n e f f e c t , hire
or
the
that
and
power
agree w i t h
10
by
as t o i t s f a c u l t y
r e g u l a t i o n s a d o p t e d , by t h e B o a r d ) , see A l a . Code 1975,
60-111.7;
that
o r o f t h e means by w h i c h
president.
an
However,
r i g h t of
empowered d u r i n g h e r p r e s i d e n c y
(albeit according
judgment
actually
Union.
any
o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n t o make h i r i n g d e c i s i o n s
and
was
appellate
S o u t h e r n U n i o n , as a p u b l i c e n t i t y , had
over her
court's
appellants
that
2091201
the
l e g i s l a t u r e has c r e a t e d
a chain
o f command i n t h i s a r e a
t h a t i s s i m p l e t o f a t h o m -- j u s t as t h e members o f t h e f a c u l t y
and s t a f f o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n a r e a n s w e r a b l e t o i t s p r e s i d e n t
to the performance o f t h e i r d u t i e s , the p r e s i d e n t
as
o f Southern
U n i o n i s a n s w e r a b l e t o t h e B o a r d as t o t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f h i s
or h e r d u t i e s .
compensation
documents,
A d d i t i o n a l l y , that
f o r her
services,
2
S a l a t t o may have
and
related
received
income-tax
u n d e r S o u t h e r n U n i o n ' s i n s t i t u t i o n a l name does n o t
negate the p r o p o s i t i o n
responsible
t h a t , by s t a t u t e ,
f o r Salatto's
c o n t r o l l e d the exercise
Salatto
further
hiring
as
of her d u t i e s .
contends,
t h e B o a r d a l o n e was
president
and
alone
3
and t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
law
j u d g e d e t e r m i n e d , t h a t h e r p r i o r employment b y S o u t h e r n U n i o n
in
various
academic
roles
between
1976 a n d 2004,
when she
T h e r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e B o a r d by r e s o l u t i o n h a s
a d o p t e d a s c h e d u l e g o v e r n i n g s a l a r y payments t o " p e r s o n n e l "
(including
presidents)
"employed
a t " ( n o t by)
two-year
colleges.
2
S i m i l a r l y , t h a t S a l a t t o was a f f o r d e d i n s u r a n c e u n d e r t h e
P u b l i c E d u c a t i o n Employees' H e a l t h Insurance Plan i s n o t
m a t e r i a l g i v e n t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y d e f i n i t i o n o f an " e m p l o y e e "
f o r p u r p o s e s o f s u c h c o v e r a g e i s " [ a ] n y ... p e r s o n who i s
e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e i n any p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n , "
n o t b y any p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n o f e d u c a t i o n .
A l a . Code 1975,
§ 16-25A-1(1) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) .
3
11
2091201
became
interim
qualified
president
her
for
rights
l e a v i n g an
the
FDA
which
for
another
under
the
two-year
FDA.
That
argument
divested
academic p o s t at a two-year c o l l e g e covered
a president's
position,
for
the
p o s i t i o n at
reasons
we
another
have
l e g i s l a t u r e has p r o v i d e d ,
elementary
and
stated
schools
who
herein,
is
Although
with respect to teachers
secondary
by
institution,
n e c e s s a r i l y n o t employment by t h a t i n s t i t u t i o n .
public
college,
r i g h t s , once a c c r u e d , c a n n o t be
p r e s u p p o s e s t h a t FDA
by
of
the
employed at
have
acquired
" c o n t i n u i n g s e r v i c e " s t a t u s , f o r r e t e n t i o n of tenure r i g h t s i n
the event t h a t such teachers
or s u p e r v i s o r y
24-2,
the
a r e p r o m o t e d t o an
p o s i t i o n , see
l e g i s l a t u r e has
g e n e r a l l y A l a . Code 1975,
elected
making tenure p o l i c y w i t h r e s p e c t
B o a r d , see A l a . Code 1975,
no p o r t i o n o f t h e FDA
24-2
in this
2008, had
could
any p r e v i o u s
FDA
delegate
the
issue
to two-year c o l l e g e s to
o r any B o a r d p o l i c y t h a t p a r a l l e l s §
respect.
any
to
§
16¬
of
the
§ 1 6 - 6 0 - 1 1 1 . 4 ( 5 ) , and S a l a t t o c i t e s
Simply put,
l o n g c e a s e d t o be
claim
administrative
rights,
January
24,
an e m p l o y e e o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n
who
and
she
S a l a t t o , on
16¬
cannot p r o p e r l y
tack
on
employment e x p e r i e n c e i n q u a l i f y i n g employment t o
[ s u b s t i t u t e d page
12]
2091201
o b t a i n FDA r i g h t s i n a w h o l l y d i f f e r e n t a r e a .
So.
See F r a n k s ,
55
to the i n a p p l i c a b i l i t y
of
3d a t 1224.
Our c o n c l u s i o n s
with
respect
t h e FDA t o S a l a t t o ' s employment as p r e s i d e n t o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n
necessarily
judge's
impact
order
the v a l i d i t y
t h a t was
of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law
a f f i r m e d by t h e c i r c u i t
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e proceedings
court.
The
i n i t i a t e d by S a l a t t o i n an e f f o r t
t o c a u s e r e s c i s s i o n o f h e r d i s c h a r g e were i n i t i a t e d u n d e r A l a .
Code
1975,
§
36-26-115,
providing
for direct
appeals
to
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e s i n t h e e v e n t a h e a r i n g due u n d e r t h e
FDA
has
been
proceedings
denied;
thus,
both
of
her
administrative
were i m p l i c i t l y p r e d i c a t e d upon t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y
o f t h e FDA t o h e r s i t u a t i o n .
B e c a u s e t h e FDA d i d n o t a p p l y t o
S a l a t t o , h o w e v e r , we must c o n c l u d e
t h a t the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law
j u d g e d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o d e c i d e t h e d i s p u t e b e t w e e n
S a l a t t o and t h e B o a r d .
failing
to
recognize
The c i r c u i t
the
court s i m i l a r l y erred i n
inapplicability
of
the
FDA
to
authorities,
we
S a l a t t o ' s employment as p r e s i d e n t o f S o u t h e r n U n i o n .
Based
reverse
upon
the
the
judgment
administrative
foregoing
of
the
facts
circuit
law judge's order
13
and
court
upholding
the
c o n c l u d i n g t h a t S a l a t t o was
2091201
discharged
i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e FDA.
Further,
on t h e
a u t h o r i t y o f S h u f o r d , s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e t h a t b e c a u s e
Salatto
n e c e s s a r i l y h a d no p r o t e c t a b l e i n t e r e s t i n h e r employment, h e r
constitutional
necessarily
challenges
fail
arising
as a m a t t e r
from
and remand
must
o f l a w ; t h u s , we d e c l i n e h e r
r e q u e s t t o remand as t o t h o s e i s s u e s .
judgment
her discharge
t h e case
We i n s t e a d r e v e r s e t h e
f o r the entry
o f a judgment
d i s m i s s i n g t h e case and d i r e c t i n g t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge
(a) t o v a c a t e h i s o r d e r a n d (b) t o d i s m i s s b o t h a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
p r o c e e d i n g s i n i t i a t e d by S a l a t t o .
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS TO THE APPEAL;
CROSS-APPEAL
Thompson,
DISMISSED.
P . J . , a n d B r y a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r .
Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t
14
writing.
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.
