Alabama State Personnel Board v. Cheryl Hancock

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/30/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2011-2012 2101033 Alabama S t a t e Personnel Board v. C h e r y l Hancock Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-11-49) Court MOORE, J u d g e . The A l a b a m a S t a t e Personnel Board ("the b o a r d " ) f r o m a j u d g m e n t o f t h e Montgomery C i r c u i t C o u r t court") o v e r t u r n i n g the board's order upholding appeals ("the c i r c u i t the decision 2101033 of t h e A l a b a m a D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s employment o f C h e r y l H a n c o c k . to terminate the We r e v e r s e . Procedural History P u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 41-22-20, a p o r t i o n o f t h e Alabama A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 1975, the P r o c e d u r e A c t ("the A A P A " ) , A l a . Code § 41-22-1 e t s e q . , on J a n u a r y 18, 2 0 1 1 , H a n c o c k f i l e d i n circuit court a petition for judicial review of the board's o r d e r u p h o l d i n g t h e d e c i s i o n o f the Alabama Department of 27, Human R e s o u r c e s t o t e r m i n a t e H a n c o c k ' s employment. 2011, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment On J u l y stating: " T h i s m a t t e r came b e f o r e t h e C o u r t on a p p e a l o f the 'recommendation o f d i s m i s s a l o f employment' by the hearing officer after hearing several a l l e g a t i o n s o f employee a l l e g e d m i s c o n d u c t . The [ b o a r d ] h a v i n g approved t h e recommendation, thus t h e appeal followed. This Court a f t e r having reviewed the recommendation o f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r and h a v i n g spent c o n s i d e r a b l e time r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d f i n d s the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r r e p o r t t o o vague f o r t h e C o u r t to t e s t h i s r u l i n g p u r s u a n t t o t h e e v i d e n c e . The C o u r t f u r t h e r f i n d s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d does not support t h e recommendation o f t h e h e a r i n g officer and subsequent decision by t h e Board d i s m i s s i n g [ H a n c o c k ] f r o m employment. T h e r e f o r e t h e recommendation o f d i s m i s s a l by t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r and the decision by t h e Board upholding the recommendation i s hereby s e t a s i d e and h e l d f o r naught." The b o a r d f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on J u l y 28, 2011. 2 2101033 Discussion On appeal, the judgment d i d not which p r o v i d e s : agency, i s not court a shall part of set out the i n compliance w i t h § 50-51 the circuit § court's 41-22-20(l), in writing, record, the the which w r i t i n g reasons for its Hancock concedes t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment In Alabama 49, that "Unless the c o u r t a f f i r m s the d e c i s i o n of the decision." argues c o m p l y w i t h A l a . Code 1975, become shall board State 41-22-20(l). Personnel ( A l a . C i v . App. B o a r d v. 2006), t h i s Carson, court 939 So. reasoned: "Under [Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20(l)], 'an e x p l a n a t o r y w r i t i n g must become a p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d w h e n e v e r any a p p r o p r i a t e r e l i e f i s g r a n t e d , n o t j u s t a r e v e r s a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n of the agency d e c i s i o n . ' A l a . Code 1975, § 41-22-20, Commentary ( e m p h a s i s added). " I n a l o n g l i n e o f c a s e s s i n c e t h e 1981 adoption o f t h e AAPA, we have r e q u i r e d s u b s t a n t i a l c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) on p a i n o f r e v e r s a l . F o r e x a m p l e , i n A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. N o r r e d , 497 So. 2d 176, 176 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 6 ) , we reviewed a j u d g m e n t r e v e r s i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r d e r i n w h i c h the t r i a l c o u r t s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t ' " [ t ] h e Court i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t a c c o r d i n g to the testimony and e x h i b i t s presented at ... [an administrative hearing], the conclusions and recommendations of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r are c o r r e c t and t h a t t h e [agency] was i n e r r o r . " ' I n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h a t s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s was insufficient u n d e r § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( D and i n r e v e r s i n g t h a t j u d g m e n t , we n o t e d t h e l i m i t e d and d e f e r e n t i a l s t a n d a r d of 3 2d 2101033 r e v i e w due t o be a p p l i e d i n c i r c u i t c o u r t s u n d e r t h e AAPA. 497 So. 2d a t 176-77; a c c o r d , A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. B e v e r l y E n t e r s . , 504 So. 2d 1211, 1213 (Ala. C i v . App. 1987) ('this court, without a l i s t i n g by t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t o f i t s r e a s o n s f o r r e j e c t i n g the Agency's d e c i s i o n t h a t reimbursement s h o u l d be d e n i e d , c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c i r c u i t court complied with the prescribed review s t a n d a r d ' ) ; A l a b a m a M e d i c a i d A g e n c y v. P e o p l e s , 549 So. 2d 504, 506 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1989) ('the [ c i r c u i t ] c o u r t cannot merely r e c i t e the s t a t u t o r y grounds f o r r e v e r s a l or m o d i f i c a t i o n s e t f o r t h i n § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( k ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] when s e t t i n g a s i d e an a g e n c y ' s f i n d i n g s ' ) ; see a l s o A l a b a m a R e n a l S t o n e I n s t . v. T r u s t e e s o f S u s i e P a r k e r S t r i n g f e l l o w Mem. Hosp., 680 So. 2d 358 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ; S t a t e o f A l a b a m a Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e Bd. v. B u t l e r , 706 So. 2d 1267, 1268 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1997); c f . A l a b a m a Dep't o f M e n t a l H e a l t h & M e n t a l R e t a r d a t i o n v. M a r s h a l l , 741 So. 2d 434, 436 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) ( a l t h o u g h judgment s t a t i n g o n l y t h a t agency's findings and conclusions were c o n t r a r y to the evidence c o n t r a v e n e d § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( l ) , appeal from t h a t j u d g m e n t was d i s m i s s e d as u n t i m e l y ) . "The c i r c u i t c o u r t i n t h i s c a s e , a l t h o u g h i t r e v e r s e d the Board's order, f a i l e d to s p e c i f y , i n i t s judgment o r i n a s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n , 'the r e a s o n s f o r i t s d e c i s i o n . ' Without such a s p e c i f i c a t i o n of r e a s o n s , we ' c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e i f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e p r e s c r i b e d r e v i e w s t a n d a r d ' so as to p r o p e r l y assess the c o r r e c t n e s s of the c i r c u i t court's decision to reverse the Board's order. B e v e r l y E n t e r s . , 504 So. 2d a t 1213. The 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 i s t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e d , and the c a u s e i s remanded f o r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t consistent with this opinion." S i m i l a r l y , i n the present to case, the c i r c u i t c o u r t s p e c i f y , i n i t s judgment o r 4 in a separate "failed opinion, 'the 2101033 reasons f o r i t s d e c i s i o n . ' " a specification of reasons, 939 So. 2 d a t 5 1 . we 'cannot "Without such determine i fthe c i r c u i t c o u r t complied w i t h t h e p r e s c r i b e d r e v i e w s t a n d a r d ' so as t o p r o p e r l y a s s e s s the correctness of the c i r c u i t d e c i s i o n t o reverse t h e Board's order." court's I d . A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t a n d remand t h i s c a u s e f o r the e n t r y o f a judgment i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 4 1 - 2 2 - 2 0 ( D . REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , 5 without writing. Id.

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.