Huntsville City Board of Education v. James Stranahan (Appeal from : FMCS No. 11-02934)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 03/01/2013 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, 2012-2013 2110252 H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education v. James Stranahan (FMCS No. 11-02934) 2110286 H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education v. Dwight Holmes (FMCS No. 11-02929) On A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . 2110252; 2110286 This court's opinion o f November 2, 2 0 1 2 , i s w i t h d r a w n , and t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u b s t i t u t e d t h e r e f o r . On A p r i l 25, 2 0 1 1 , t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r t h e H u n t s v i l l e C i t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n ("the B o a r d " ) , D r . Ann Roy Moore ("the superintendent"), n o t i f i e d James S t r a n a h a n a n d D w i g h t Holmes, among others, of h e r i n t e n t i o n t o seek their employment w i t h e m p l o y e d as m e c h a n i c s terminations, because of the Board. the termination S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes were f o r the Board. As t h e b a s i s f o r the the superintendent stated i n the notices adverse financial of conditions, that, the Board was r e q u i r e d t o t e r m i n a t e t h e employment o f some o f i t s e m p l o y e e s and that the Board had implemented a ("RIF") p o l i c y t o a c c o m p l i s h t h a t t a s k . each contested the proposed pursuant t o the RIF p o l i c y . termination Reduction i n Force S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes o f h i s employment We n o t e t h a t t h e s e a c t i o n s a r e g o v e r n e d b y t h e f o r m e r F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t ("the f o r m e r F D A " ) , § 36-26-100 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h h a s b e e n repealed and r e p l a c e d b y t h e S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t ("the S F A " ) , § 16-24C-1 et s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 . See a l s o B o a r d o f S c h . Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C n t y . v . C h r i s t o p h e r , 3 d 163, 171 ( A l a . 97 So. C i v . App. 2012) ( h o l d i n g t h a t p o r t i o n s o f 2 2110252; 2110286 the SFA that provide that t h e SFA i s effective upon i t s passage were s u b s t a n t i v e i n n a t u r e and, t h e r e f o r e , SFA could undisputed not retrospective Stranahan and employees under t h e former application). the 17, 2011, t h e B o a r d employment Stranahan and of Stranahan Holmes each Holmes were It is FDA. On May that have that the approved nonprobationary the termination of a n d Holmes, among sought review of that p u r s u a n t t o f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 5 , A l a . Code 1975. 14, 2011, a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r Stranahan's action, officer entered Board. On hearing i n Holmes's decision October hearing o f f i c e r the a r e c e i v e d ore tenus a n d on November 7, 19, reversing and on decision On S e p t e m b e r evidence i n 2011, t h e h e a r i n g the d e c i s i o n 2011, a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r action, o t h e r s , and December of the conducted 1, a 2011, t h e entered a decision reversing the decision of Board. The actions. Board filed See f o r m e r timely requests § 36-26-104(b), court accepted the appeals. f o r an a p p e a l A l a . Code Stranahan's i n both 1975. This a p p e a l was a s s i g n e d a p p e a l number 2110252, a n d H o l m e s ' s a p p e a l was a s s i g n e d a p p e a l 3 2110252; 2110286 number 2110286. two a p p e a l s be On officers provide This consolidated. appeal, each the of their applied involves the law ordered, first 587 The employment. whether to the the that that the notice We the undisputed hearing Board did the that and, hearing the of note i s s u e are undisputed, intended the facts therefore, officers facts. not properly Accordingly, Ex p a r t e the Soleyn, this 33 So. 3d t h a t a n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n to ( A l a . 2009). f o r m e r FDA provided a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee " s h a l l proposed argues Holmes p r o p e r c o u r t r e v i e w s t h i s i s s u e de novo. 584, ex mero motu, t h a t 1 i n determining and p e r t a i n i n g to t h i s argument Board erred Stranahan termination court termination, statement of the shall s t a t e the contain a reasons short and f a c t s showing t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n for one o r more o f t h e reasons l i s t e d and s h a l l s t a t e t h e t i m e and p l a c e the proposed termination " i n Section for plain i s taken 36-26-102, f o r the board's meeting Former § the 36-26-103(a). on The The p a r t i e s t o t h e s e a p p e a l s were i n v i t e d t o s u b m i t briefs as a m i c i c u r i a e on a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l i s s u e t o be a d d r e s s e d i n B o a r d o f S c h o o l C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f M o b i l e C o u n t y v. Christopher, supra. B r i e f i n g i n t h e s e a p p e a l s was stayed pending the d e c i s i o n i n t h a t case. 1 4 2110252; 2110286 former FDA p r o v i d e d t h a t the e m p l o y e e s s u c h as S t r a n a h a n employment and Holmes may of nonprobationary be t e r m i n a t e d " f o r f a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m h i s o r h e r d u t i e s i n a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, incompetency, n e g l e c t of duty, insubordination, immorality, j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n j o b s i n the system, just causes." The Stranahan or o t h e r good F o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code t e r m i n a t i o n n o t i c e s sent and Holmes s t a t e d , by the 1975. superintendent in pertinent part: "You a r e h e r e b y g i v e n n o t i c e o f my i n t e n t i o n t o recommend t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e employment o f [ y o u r employment a s ] a M e c h a n i c f o r H u n t s v i l l e C i t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n as p r o v i d e d i n § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975. The r e a s o n f o r t h e p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n i s as f o l l o w s : j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n j o b s i n the system o r o t h e r g o o d and j u s t c a u s e s . "The f a c t s s h o w i n g t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t a k e n f o r one o r more o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d i n § 36-26¬ 102, A l a . Code 1975, a r e as f o l l o w s : "1) Due t o f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e B o a r d must r e d u c e t h e number o f i t s employees. To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s , t h e B o a r d had adopted a R e d u c t i o n i n F o r c e p l a n . The s e l e c t i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e e s t o be t e r m i n a t e d is based upon t h e j o b classifications a f f e c t e d by t h e R e d u c t i o n i n F o r c e p l a n and years of s e r v i c e w i t h i n the Huntsville S c h o o l System (those w i t h fewer y e a r s of s e r v i c e i n each s p e c i f i c a l l y identified a r e a a r e t o be t e r m i n a t e d b e f o r e t h o s e w i t h greater s e n i o r i t y ) . " 5 and to 2110252; 2110286 The that hearing officer the n o t i c e quoted provide sufficient defense." reviewing above was information The h e a r i n g Stranahan's "very to officer an action found vague a n d [ d i d ] n o t employee t o mount a i n Holmes's a c t i o n f o u n d t h e n o t i c e vague and ambiguous and s t a t e d t h a t i t " p r o v i d e [ d ] no factual to rationale terminate." officers apprise In relative reaching concluded Stranahan termination employment of t h e i r that and that employment, of other mechanics, that proposed terminations Board's decisions, notices Holmes contends the their the The B o a r d the to both d i d not the or that decision hearing sufficiently reason for the termination was a c o s t - s a v i n g s of Stranahan's f a c t s " under former § 36-26-103(a). measure. and Holmes's statement of the The B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t t h e f o r m e r FDA d i d n o t r e q u i r e t h a t i t i n c l u d e i n i t s " s h o r t statement of the facts" p r o r a t i o n of s t a t e funding, of i t s statement of the b a s i s f o r employment was a s u f f i c i e n t " s h o r t and p l a i n plain the a detailed the funding explanation and of o f s c h o o l b o a r d s , and t h e F i s c a l A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 16-13A-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. 6 2110252; 2110286 I n B i s h o p S t a t e Community C o l l e g e v. A r c h i b l e , 33 So. 588 ( A l a . C i v . App. whether a notice sufficient under employees were 2009) of ("Archible"), this termination former § notified under the 36-26-103. of the court addressed former FDA was case, two In intent that to terminate their employment w i t h B i s h o p S t a t e , a community c o l l e g e s u b j e c t the former stated FDA. an notices that factual identical termination, basis specifically: improprieties and The in relation scholarships.'" to the held surrounding circumstances, the f o r m e r FDA. 3d 577, 584 held that Soleyn, 33 and So. each employee's financial r e c e i v i n g of So. financial 3d a t 590. the n o t i c e was 2008). this court circumstances" provided sufficient, received This notice aid court and sufficient the under B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v. A r c h i b l e , 33 "surrounding notice that to the i t reversed 3d a t 587. On c e r t i o r a r i review, had erred by court's 7 our whether the State was judgment. our So. considering Bishop I n so h o l d i n g , stated: in i n determining employees this to committed considering ( A l a . C i v . App. supreme c o u r t the that, employees for "'You A r c h i b l e , 33 originally the 3d Ex parte supreme court 2110252; 2110286 " S e c t i o n 36-26-103 p r o v i d e s t h e e x c l u s i v e means b y w h i c h an e m p l o y e r s u c h as B i s h o p S t a t e may t e r m i n a t e e m p l o y e e s s u c h as A r c h i b l e a n d S o l e y n . Under § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 3 ( a ) , B i s h o p S t a t e was c l e a r l y o b l i g a t e d t o p r o v i d e each employee w i t h a n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o t e r m i n a t e h i s employment t h a t ' s t a t e [ d ] t h e r e a s o n s f o r the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n ' and t h a t 'contain[ed] a s h o r t and p l a i n statement o f t h e f a c t s showing t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n [was] t a k e n f o r one o r more o f the r e a s o n s l i s t e d i n S e c t i o n 36-26-102.'" Ex p a r t e Soleyn, 33 So. 3 d a t 5 8 8 . In A r c h i b l e , supra, d e c i s i o n i n Ex p a r t e on remand f r o m t h e supreme Soleyn, supra, this court court's stated: "This c o u r t has h e l d t h a t , i n order t o a f f o r d m i n i m a l due p r o c e s s t o an e m p l o y e e u n d e r t h e [ F a i r Dismissal] Act, the n o t i c e of proposed termination must a d v i s e t h e e m p l o y e e ' " o f t h e c a u s e o r c a u s e s f o r h i s [or h e r ] t e r m i n a t i o n i n s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l t o f a i r l y e n a b l e h i m [ o r h e r ] t o show a n y e r r o r t h a t may e x i s t . " ' S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n v . Page, 777 So. 2d 126, 131 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2000) ( q u o t i n g James v . B o a r d o f S c h o o l Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C o u n t y , 484 F. Supp. 705, 715 (S.D. A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n S t e w a r t v . B a i l e y , 556 F . 2 d 2 8 1 , 285 ( 5 t h C i r . 1977)) ; s e e a l s o S t a t e T e n u r e Comm'n v . J a c k s o n , 881 So. 2 d 445, 449 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) ( s t a t i n g t h a t the notice of proposed termination should be 'sufficiently d e t a i l e d to provide an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r [the employee] t o p r e p a r e a d e f e n s e to those charges'). In the present cases, t h e n o t i c e s o f p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n do n o t meet t h e requirement o f s e t t i n g f o r t h a 'short and p l a i n statement o f the f a c t s . ' Neither notice set forth what ' f i n a n c i a l i m p r o p r i e t i e s ' h a d b e e n c o m m i t t e d s o as ' t o p r o v i d e an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r [ t h e employees] t o p r e p a r e a defense t o those charges.' J a c k s o n , 881 So. 2 d a t 449. The l a n g u a g e u s e d i s s o 8 2110252; 2110286 v a g u e as t o f a l l b e l o w t h e minimum due p r o c e s s must be a f f o r d e d an e m p l o y e e u n d e r t h e A c t . " Archible, In 33 the So. 3d a t present that 590-91. case, the Board cited a "justifiable d e c r e a s e i n j o b s i n t h e s y s t e m " as t h e r e a s o n f o r t h e p r o p o s e d terminations. See notices, Board the financial the RIF f o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975. then circumstances policy, and explained that w o u l d be provided by financial system. the circumstances See Ex p a r t e Stranahan supra, Board and citing of manner i n which the t o be t e r m i n a t e d under the RIF the Thus, t h e explained the by the imposition i t explained selected. reason necessitated e m p l o y e e s whose employment was policy that In notices that the of termination Board's current warranted the decrease of jobs i n the Soleyn, Holmes 33 each So. 3d a t argue 588. that under Archible, a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e b a s i s o f t h e B o a r d ' s financial situation was required. We disagree. As the Board p o i n t s o u t , i n A r c h i b l e , s u p r a , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s a t i s s u e were proposed because of determined axiomatic that that financial i m p r o p r i e t i e s , and a more i n f o r m a t i o n was required. a more d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t of this court I t seems allegations of m i s c o n d u c t w o u l d be n e c e s s a r y t o a l l o w an a c c u s e d e m p l o y e e t o 9 2110252; 2110286 defend there against those allegations. In t h i s case, however, a r e no a d v e r s e a l l e g a t i o n s f o r S t r a n a h a n o r Holmes t o defend against. that the The b a s i s f o r t h e p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n s Board necessitating was experiencing the implementation financial of difficulties the RIF p o l i c y . p r i m a r y a r g u m e n t a s s e r t e d b y S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes b e f o r e hearing officers superintendent defend was that the notice they received d i d n o t a f f o r d them s u f f i c i e n t against the s p e c i f i c whose employment was was The the from the information to s e l e c t i o n o f them as e m p l o y e e s t o be t e r m i n a t e d . We cannot conclude t h a t t h e f o r m e r FDA r e q u i r e d , as p a r t o f t h e B o a r d ' s n o t i c e t o each employee t e r m i n a t e d set forth condition the the under a RIF p o l i c y , t h a t the Board specific facts underlying its financial and t h e e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t o f t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f RIF p o l i c y , p a r t i c u l a r l y with regard t o each employee terminated. We conclude determining that the hearing that the superintendent's officers erred in n o t i c e s t o S t r a n a h a n and Holmes were i n s u f f i c i e n t u n d e r f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 3 , A l a . Code 1975. The h e a r i n g officer i n Holmes's a c t i o n c o n c l u d e d that t h e n o t i c e Holmes r e c e i v e d was i n s u f f i c i e n t a n d p r e t e r m i t t e d 10 2110252; 2110286 consideration reverse of the other issues the d e c i s i o n entered with remand the cause officer f o r f u r t h e r proceedings In appeal i n appeal number hearing o f f i c e r raised. number 2110252 we t o Holmes, and regard Accordingly, we 2110286 to the consistent with this hearing opinion. p e r t a i n i n g to Stranahan, the a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e B o a r d h a d n o t met i t s burden i n p r e s e n t i n g evidence i n support S t r a n a h a n ' s employment. The h e a r i n g of the termination of officer determined that the Board had not demonstrated a proper b a s i s f o r d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t e r m i n a t i n g S t r a n a h a n ' s employment w o u l d r e s u l t i n a c o s t savings to the Christopher, teacher's supra, officer termination this court in "justifiable i n t h e s y s t e m , " s e e f o r m e r § 36-26-102, t h e l a c k s the a u t h o r i t y t o determine whether the of a p a r t i c u l a r 97 So. 3d a t 176. although implementation held t h a t , when i t has b e e n d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a o f t h e employment justifiable. officer, However, employment was t e r m i n a t e d b e c a u s e o f a decrease i n jobs hearing Board. recognizing of the RIF p o l i c y , In that the employee case, was the hearing validity of found t h a t C h r i s t o p h e r the was an e x c e l l e n t e m p l o y e e and an a s s e t t o t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m a n d , thus, reversed the termination d e c i s i o n . 11 This court reversed 2110252; 2110286 the decision termination discretion of the decisions of the hearing under a officer, RIF concluding policy employing board. The were that within the court explained, in part: "In the case of a t e r m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o a RIF p o l i c y , ... t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e e m p l o y e e i s n o t a t issue. The p u r p o s e o f a t e r m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o a RIF p o l i c y i s c o s t s a v i n g s t o the e m p l o y i n g b o a r d . Where a t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment i s made b e c a u s e o f a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n the jobs i n the system, see f o r m e r § 36-26-102, t h e s e l e c t i o n o f any o t h e r f o r m o f d i s c i p l i n e o r s a n c t i o n u n d e r f o r m e r § 36-261 0 4 ( a ) [ , A l a . Code 1975,] w o u l d n o t a c h i e v e the long-term cost-savings goal of the termination p u r s u a n t t o a RIF p o l i c y . " 2 Christopher, In t h i s 97 So. 3d a t case, the h e a r i n g determined t h a t the prove the letter," the reasons issue, B o a r d had the hearing officer failed for termination i . e . , that there i m p o s i t i o n of 174. the RIF officer i n Stranahan's a c t i o n t o meet " i t s b u r d e n s t a t e d i n the were f i n a n c i a l policy. termination reasons warranting In h i s a n a l y s i s of f o u n d t h a t any cost to that savings from t e r m i n a t i n g S t r a n a h a n ' s employment were m i n i m a l a t b e s t , that Under former § 36-26-104(a), the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r c o u l d s e l e c t any o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s t o be t a k e n w i t h r e g a r d t o the employee: " T e r m i n a t i o n of the employee, a s u s p e n s i o n of the employee, w i t h or w i t h o u t pay, a reprimand, other d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n , o r no a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e e m p l o y e e . " 2 12 2110252; 2110286 the Board d i d not present evidence i n t h e form of a cost a n a l y s i s t o demonstrate i t s savings i n t e r m i n a t i n g Stranahan's employment, and that the Board "used the artifice of t e r m i n a t i n g employees and s h i f t i n g t o c o n t r a c t o r s " i n order t o attempt to Christopher, save money. supra, the merits pursuant t o a RIF p o l i c y , made w i t h However, an i m p r o p e r under review of the hearing o f f i c e r . 3 in o f t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n s made s o l o n g as t h o s e motive, the holding decisions are not a r e n o t w i t h i n t h e scope o f A c c o r d i n g l y , "[w]e agree w i t h On a p p l i c a t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g , S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes e a c h c o n t e n d t h a t he a l l e g e d t h a t h i s employment was t e r m i n a t e d f o r an i m p r o p e r r e a s o n . See C h r i s t o p h e r , 97 So. 3d a t 173-74 ("We cannot agree w i t h t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t former § 36-26-104(a) a u t h o r i z e d him t o d e t e r m i n e , i n t h e absence o f a l l e g a t i o n s of improper motive, whether t h e termination of a p a r t i c u l a r employee's employment was justifiable under a RIF p o l i c y . " ) . In a s s e r t i n g that a r g u m e n t , S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes e a c h c i t e t o p o r t i o n s o f t h e record i n support of t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n that the terminations were " a r b i t r a r y . " We n o t e t h a t t h a t a l l e g a t i o n i s i r r e l e v a n t to a d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether n o t i c e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i t s e l f was s u f f i c i e n t . F u r t h e r , t o t h e extent Stranahan argues t h a t the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r c o u l d c o n s i d e r h i s purported a l l e g a t i o n of improper motive t o determine whether t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment was v a l i d u n d e r t h e R I F p o l i c y , we c o n c l u d e he h a s f a i l e d t o demonstrate e r r o r . In t h e context o f t h e former FDA, a t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment f o r " i m p r o p e r reasons" r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n be shown t o have o c c u r r e d f o r personal or p o l i t i c a l reasons. See f o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975 ( t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee's employment " s h a l l n o t be made f o r p o l i t i c a l o r p e r s o n a l r e a s o n s on t h e p a r t o f a n y p a r t y recommending o r v o t i n g t o 3 13 2110252; 2110286 the Board that the responsibility f o r making the d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s regarding which p o s i t i o n s t o e l i m i n a t e pursuant t o a justified Board implementation and t h a t permitted to Christopher, Cnty. usurp officer officers the role rests with the and t h e c o u r t s of the school 'are not board.'" 97 So. 3 d a t 176 ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v . Montgomery Bd. o f Educ., 2011)). the hearing of a RIF p o l i c y 85 So. 3d 1008, 1016 ( A l a . C i v . App. A c c o r d i n g l y , we r e v e r s e t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e h e a r i n g i n Stranahan's appeal, cause t o the hearing consistent with this number 2110252, a n d we remand officer f o r further proceedings opinion. 2110252 APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2110286--APPLICATION FOR REHEARING GRANTED; OPINION OF NOVEMBER 2, 2012, WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED. a p p r o v e s a i d t e r m i n a t i o n " ) ; B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v . Thomas, 13 So. 3 d 978, 985 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . The a l l e g a t i o n b y S t r a n a h a n o r Holmes t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment was " a r b i t r a r y " does n o t c o n s t i t u t e an a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n was made f o r p e r s o n a l o r p o l i t i c a l reasons. 14 2110252; 2110286 P i t t m a n and D o n a l d s o n , J J . , c o n c u r . Moore, J . , c o n c u r s s p e c i a l l y , 15 w h i c h Thomas, J . , j o i n s . 2110252; 2110286 MOORE, J u d g e , The and concurring primary issue specially. on appeal i s whether D w i g h t Holmes r e c e i v e d sufficient James Stranahan n o t i c e of the reasons f o r t h e p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r employment, p u r s u a n t t o former Fair § 36-26-103(a), Dismissal Act seq., A l a . Code 1975, ("the a n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n the reasons of the i n pertinent part, t o a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee f o r the proposed c o n t a i n a s h o r t and p l a i n termination 36-26-102[, A l a . Code 1975] Roy Moore, Board and of E d u c a t i o n Holmes s t a t i n g that the Huntsville Board"), sent l e t t e r s she was listed a p p e a l s show t h a t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of ("the that " records i n these consolidated then shall statement of the f a c t s showing The Ann that "shall [and] t h e t e r m i n a t i o n i s t a k e n f o r one o r more o f t h e r e a s o n s in Section former f o r m e r FDA"), f o r m e r § 36-26-100 e t A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h p r o v i d e d , state a part to Dr. City Stranahan recommending t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e i r employment b e c a u s e o f "a j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n j o b s i n the system grounds are or o t h e r g o o d and contained in just former causes." § Both 36-26-102. of those Thus, the l e t t e r s c l e a r l y i n f o r m e d S t r a n a h a n and Holmes o f t h e s t a t u t o r y reasons f o r the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n 16 of t h e i r employment. 2110252; 2110286 The letters circumstances, employees." the Board Holmes further the stated that, "[d]ue to must reduce the number Board The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s who r e v i e w e d i n terminating concluded that t h e employment this financial of i t s the actions of Stranahan and d i d not s a t i s f y information of the r e q u i r e m e n t i n former § 36-26-103(a) t h a t t h e Board s u p p l y short and plain statement t e r m i n a t i o n i s taken Section standards that the facts the In p a r t i c u l a r , notices A r c h i b l e , 33 So. 3d 577 to State comply Community ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) r e v e r s e d , Ex p a r t e S o l e y n , 33 So. 3d 584 on ( A l a . C i v . App. 33 that the hearing failed e s t a b l i s h e d i n Bishop remand, showing the f o r one o r more o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d i n 26-26-102." determined of "a So. 3d 588 officers with College the v. ("Archible I " ) , ( A l a . 2009), 2009) opinion ("Archible II"). In A r c h i b l e I , t h i s comply with employees due c o u r t h e l d t h a t a s c h o o l b o a r d must process by giving " n o t i c e of the reasons s u f f i c i e n t d e t a i l to provide prepare a defense to those its for their nonprobationary terminations in them an a d e q u a t e o p p o r t u n i t y t o charges." court agreed that a n o t i c e complies 17 33 So. 3d a t 583. w i t h due p r o c e s s This when i t 2110252; 2110286 "'creates a m a t e r i a l and clear "[b]urden of [p]roof" for [ e ] m p l o y e r and an e q u a l l y c l e a r " [ p ] o s i t i o n o f [d]efense" the sufficient [e]mployee'" because apprise the employee the e m p l o y e r i n t e n d s t o p r o v e and a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e will decision). grounds 3d a t 583 Under t h a t for to the 33 So. the "must be for termination have t o d e f e n d . " of notice the (quoting hearing officer's standard, "an e m p l o y i n g a u t h o r i t y s u b j e c t t o t h e [ f o r m e r FDA] may not simply recite a s t a t u t o r y ground for t e r m i n a t i o n , b u t must n o t i f y t h e e m p l o y e e o f t h e f a c t u a l bases u n d e r l y i n g t h a t ground. However, the employer need not p r o v i d e a d e t a i l e d statement o f t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t w o u l d be p r e s e n t e d a g a i n s t t h e employee a t a t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g t o p r o v e the f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r the t e r m i n a t i o n . " Id. I n Ex p a r t e Soleyn, our supreme c o u r t f u r t h e r clarified t h a t t h e n o t i c e must c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n on i t s own t o a l l o w an proposed e m p l o y e e an termination circumstances." Ex adequate o p p o r t u n i t y without parte reference Soleyn, 33 remand f r o m t h e supreme c o u r t , t h i s informing Angelo Archible terminated for "'financial receiving of financial that So. to contest to 3d "surrounding at 587-88. court held that a his employment was and 18 scholarships'" On letter to improprieties in relation aid the to did be the not 2110252; 2110286 adequately t h a t he apprise had the of the a l l e g e d l y committed. In t h i s as Archible case, the specific "improprieties" 33 So. 3d a t Board c i t e d " f i n a n c i a l reason f o r i t s d e c i s i o n to 590-91. circumstances" reduce i t s workforce. n a m i n g " f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s " as t h e m o t i v a t i n g B o a r d n o t i f i e d S t r a n a h a n and Holmes t h a t i t was reduction i n force on a decrease i n the technological advances positions, reorganization the eliminating of the f a c t o r , the not b a s i n g student the school By population, need for district their or the mechanic department w i t h i n the d i s t r i c t , the d i s c o n t i n u a n c e reduction of the use of the similar justifications. The vehicles the they serviced, or or other notice n e c e s s a r i l y imparted that the Board i n t e n d e d to reduce i t s w o r k f o r c e e x c l u s i v e l y to save the costs associated with the s a l a r i e s and other monetary b e n e f i t s p a y a b l e t o S t r a n a h a n and Holmes and n o t f o r any other reason. The Board letters intended t h u s i n f o r m e d S t r a n a h a n and to prove that number o f i t s e m p l o y e e s as a poor f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n . v. F r a s i e r , [Ms. i t had one to lessen 2013] So. 3d the the correcting H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. 22, 19 decided r a t i o n a l method o f See 2110427, Feb. Holmes t h a t of Educ. (Ala. 2110252; 2110286 Civ. App. and 2013). The Holmes t h a t t h e y c o u l d d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h e i r p o s i t i o n s by for it letters sufficiently notified the d e c i s i o n showing " ' t h a t t h e r e or is a the t e r m i n a t i o n i s no [to implement a r e d u c t i o n i s b a s e d on p e r s o n a l , subterfuge political to avoid Stranahan rational i n force] rights arising ( q u o t i n g T a b o r n v. Hammonds, 324 N.C. 519 (1989)), basis or that or d i s c r i m i n a t o r y motives from employee's n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y s t a t u s ] , ' " F r a s i e r , 513, of 546, So. 556, [the 3d 380 at S.E.2d o r , a d d i t i o n a l l y , by p r o v i n g t h a t t h e Board did not f o l l o w i t s r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e p o l i c y or t h a t the Board had impermissibly positions. The exact Frasier, letters financial specify the condition retained a probationary anticipated d i d not convey to c o n d i t i o n of of the extent from the 36-26-103(a) d i d not their supra. nature or employee i n the the S t r a n a h a n and Board; nor causes of leading the financial reduction i n force. r e q u i r e such d e t a i l Holmes d i d the to that the letters financial relief the Board However, f o r m e r i n order to § provide a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y e m p l o y e e an o p p o r t u n i t y t o mount an a d e q u a t e defense to the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n for financial reasons. In 20 of h i s or her these cases, employment the letters 2110252; 2110286 c r y s t a l l i z e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e B o a r d s u f f i c i e n t l y enough f o r Stranahan a n d Holmes t o i n v e s t i g a t e the statements B o a r d as t o i t s f i n a n c i a l financial officers with of the c o n d i t i o n a n d t o d e p o s e two o f t h e relevant information as to the f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e Board and t h e measures t a k e n by t h e Board t o c o r r e c t that f i n a n c i a l condition. At the hearings, t h e B o a r d d i d n o t s u r p r i s e S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes w i t h some new f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r employment, n o r d i d the Board reveal information for some previously upon w h i c h i t was r e l y i n g the reduction these cases, concur t h a t this s e e Ex p a r t e Soleyn, court reverse the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s . should the concealed f o r i t sstated reason of review applicable 33 So. 3d a t 587, I the determinations of The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s s h o u l d v a c a t e t h a t portion of t h e i r determinations comply w i t h or i n force. Thus, b a s e d on t h e de novo s t a n d a r d to hidden finding that the Board d i d not former § 36-26-103(a) and address t h e m e r i t s cases. Thomas, J . , c o n c u r s . 21 of

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.