Rita Jones et al. v. Larry Teel et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 7/27/12 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110341 R i t a Jones e t a l . v. Larry Teel e t a l . Appeal from Elmore C i r c u i t (CV-09-900245) Court BRYAN, J u d g e . Rita Jones, Cynthia Dallas, Jamie Robinson, Samuel Z e i g l e r , C a r o l y n C o o p e r , M a r i e t t a S. G r a y , L i s a H a l l m a n , Jimmy Miller, and Angela M i l l e r employees") appeal from (collectively r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e a summary j u d g m e n t i nfavor o f the 2110341 Board of Education individual members their official board ("the of of Elmore the County ("the ("the board board capacities; 1 and superintendent"), the board"); members"), superintendent in his o f f i c i a l the of in the capacity. 2 We affirm. When t h e employees filed this a c t i o n , each of w o r k i n g f o r t h e b o a r d as a bus d r i v e r p u r s u a n t t o two contracts, Pursuant a base to r e g u l a r bus picked them t o up their contract base r o u t e . On students school and a school-to-school contracts, the t h e i r r e g u l a r bus at their drove homes i n t h e a f t e r n o o n . On employees drove students another while school and employees r o u t e s , the homes i n t h e the students morning from school them separate contract. drove were school was already in at session one so a employees and drove to their t h e i r school-to-school routes, who was the school to that the s t u d e n t s c o u l d p a r t i c i p a t e i n ROTC, b a n d , v o c a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g , etc. The board deemed the regular bus routes to require 4 The b o a r d members a r e L a r r y T e e l , K i t t y Graham, J o e y H o l l e y , R o b e r t L u s k , J r . , Mary Ann M c D o n a l d , M a r k N e l s o n , and Patrycya Tucker. 1 2 The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t i s J e f f e r y Langham. 2 2110341 h o u r s o f work p e r s c h o o l day and 20 h o u r s o f work p e r school week. B e f o r e salary schedule t h e 2010-2011 listed only school year, 5-day the board's a s i n g l e s a l a r y f o r bus d r i v e r s d r i v i n g a r e g u l a r route p u r s u a n t t o t h e i r base c o n t r a c t s . That i s , the s a l a r y schedule pursuant to their incremental criteria. f o r bus d r i v e r s d r i v i n g r e g u l a r base contract d i d not l i s t steps, i . e . , i n c r e a s e s i n s a l a r y , b a s e d on e x p e r i e n c e However, the board routes or other established a salary schedule w i t h s t e p s f o r bus d r i v e r s d r i v i n g r e g u l a r r o u t e s p u r s u a n t t o their base contracts effective as o f t h e 2010-2011 school school-to-school routes year. The employees drove their p u r s u a n t t o c o n t r a c t s t h a t h a d a t e r m o f o n l y one s c h o o l Before year. sometime i n 2008, t h e s a l a r y p a i d t o an e m p l o y e e f o r driving school-to-school routes depended on t h e number of " r u n s " t h e e m p l o y e e d r o v e and w h i c h r o u t e s he o r she d r o v e . I f a route was w i t h i n a s i n g l e community, an e m p l o y e e was $5.30 p e r r u n , w h e r e a s , i f a r o u t e was b e t w e e n two paid different c o m m u n i t i e s , an e m p l o y e e was p a i d $17.22 p e r r u n . Sometime i n 2008, the board changed the s a l a r y for driving school-to- s c h o o l r o u t e s t o $50 p e r day, and t h e e m p l o y e e s and t h e b o a r d 3 2110341 e x e c u t e d new Since retired c o n t r a c t s so p r o v i d i n g . filing and no this longer school-to-school regular route r o u t e . The route and The as drive route. but have a by i n j u n c t i o n , and compel the to board, a the employees s t i l l a or a drive a school-to-school d r i v e both a board 2009, and, amendment regular members and the t h e r e a f t e r , added to their the complaint. As s o u g h t a w r i t o f mandamus, declaratory judgment b o a r d members, and e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n route have route. amended, t h e e m p l o y e e s ' c o m p l a i n t an employees regular driving the on A u g u s t 5, the a employees s t i l l sued defendant of either ceased a school-to-school employees some Some o f t h e r e s t of the superintendent board action, as the remedies to superintendent a s i n g l e s a l a r y schedule with steps p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e s w o u l d be p a i d f o r d r i v i n g b o t h their regular 3 In remedies, to c o m p e l t h e b o a r d , t h e b o a r d members, and t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t to addition, the routes and employees their sought, school-to-school through those routes. I n Dees v. C o a k e r , 51 So. 3d 323, 329-30 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2009), t h i s c o u r t h e l d t h a t the language of s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22-13 t o -13.5 r e q u i r e d l o c a l school boards to e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s w i t h s t e p s f o r p u b l i c education support personnel. 3 4 2110341 pay them t h e b a c k pay and b e n e f i t s t h e y w o u l d have r e c e i v e d i f t h e b o a r d had p a i d them a c c o r d i n g beginning o f t h e 2006-2007 s c h o o l r e q u i r e d by s u b s e c t i o n Ala. Code 1975, to such a schedule s i n c e y e a r w i t h t h e pay ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22-13.4 and a p p l i e d to the steps of the the increases 16-22-13.5, schedule. In the a l t e r n a t i v e , the employees sought, through those remedies, t o c o m p e l t h e b o a r d , t h e b o a r d members, and t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t determine the salary paid school-to-school to the employees board, the conceded t h a t t h i s board court's members, regular and 3d 323, e s t a b l i s h and f o r the their 329-30 (Ala. Civ. maintain employees' job base c o n t r a c t s , such a schedule 4 See supra note App. (a)(2) i n Dees v. C o a k e r , 2009), of d r i v i n g r e g u l a r and, effective which provide, superintendent 4 required them a s a l a r y schedule with m u l t i p l e However, c i t i n g s u b s e c t i o n 13.5, the as as routes n o t e d above, t h e y of the 2010-2011 ( b ) ( 3 ) o f §§ 5 51 to steps pursuant to established school 16-22-13.4 and i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h a t " [ t ] h e pay 3. the routes. c o n s t r u c t i o n of s u b s e c t i o n o f §§ 16-22-13 t o -13.5, A l a . Code 1975, So. the r o u t e s on t h e same b a s i s as i t d e t e r m i n e d s a l a r y p a i d t o them f o r d r i v i n g t h e i r The for driving to year. 16-22¬ raise 2110341 provisions of supplements (emphasis this granted added), superintendent for salary by the shall local not boards board, the school-to-school was paid a "salary ( b ) ( 3 ) and, the to of board routes supplement" any salary education members, was not the within t h e r e f o r e , the ( a ) ( 2 ) r e q u i r i n g the e s t a b l i s h m e n t and to and the subject to ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22-13.4 and 16-22-13.5 b e c a u s e t h a t subsection steps apply contended t h a t the s a l a r y p a i d t o the employees driving subsection section for meaning language of driving apply their of subsection of a s a l a r y schedule payment o f r a i s e s d i d n o t employees the to the with salary school-to-school r o u t e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e y c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e y were immune f r o m the e m p l o y e e s ' c l a i m s by Constitution of 1901 ("§ virtue 14"). of A r t i c l e Finally, t h e e m p l o y e e s ' c l a i m s f o r b a c k pay I , § 14, they Code The the trial that by i n § 6-2-38(m), 1975. p a r t i e s c o n d u c t e d d i s c o v e r y , and t h e t r i a l action parties contended and b e n e f i t s were b a r r e d the two-year s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d Ala. Alabama for filed trial; a joint s e t t i n g and however, motion on for February (1) a 14, court set 2011, the continuance (2) an o r d e r a l l o w i n g t h e s u b m i s s i o n 6 of the of the 2110341 a c t i o n f o r a d e c i s i o n by t h e t r i a l c o u r t on c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t m o t i o n , and t h e p a r t i e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y f i l e d c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r a summary j u d g m e n t on M a r c h 25, 2 0 1 1 . On S e p t e m b e r 26, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l judgment i n f a v o r superintendent. the board board of the board, The t r i a l immunity i s an a g e n c y concluded because from c o u r t e n t e r e d a summary t h e b o a r d members, court concluded t h a t § 14 a f f o r d e d the employees' claims o f t h e S t a t e ; however, because the the t r i a l t h a t § 14 d i d n o t a f f o r d t h e b o a r d members the employees' members i n t h e i r claims sought determination regarding superintendent 38(m) b a r r e d t o compel c a p a c i t i e s as S t a t e o f f i c e r s §§ 16-22-13.4 a n d 16-22-13.5. The t r i a l whether § and t h e court immunity the board t o comply w i t h c o u r t d i d n o t make a 14 afforded the i m m u n i t y . The t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t § 6-2the employees' claims i n s o f a r as t h e y b e f o r e A u g u s t 5, 2007. I n a d d i t i o n , t h e t r i a l court t h a t t h e s a l a r y p a i d t o t h e employees f o r d r i v i n g accrued concluded school-to- s c h o o l r o u t e s was a " s a l a r y s u p p l e m e n t " a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the requirements of subsection ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22-13.4 and 16¬ 22-13.5 r e g a r d i n g s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s 7 with steps and p a y r a i s e s 2110341 did not apply to i t . F i n a l l y , the t r i a l court concluded that, a l t h o u g h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f s u b s e c t i o n ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22-13.4 and 16-22-13.5 t h a t a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e w i t h m u l t i p l e s t e p s be e s t a b l i s h e d f o r p u b l i c - s c h o o l support personnel d i d apply to the salary regular they the board r o u t e s , the sought schedule salary to p a i d the employees' compel because the the board employees of such a already established as salary such a schedule. The employees f i l e d a postjudgment 2011, and trial court employees supplemented denied then i t on O c t o b e r that timely motion appealed on motion 25, on O c t o b e r 24, 2011; however, the October to the 26, supreme Code 2011. court, t r a n s f e r r e d the appeal to t h i s court pursuant to § Ala. their c l a i m s were moot i n s o f a r establishment had for driving which 12-2-7(6), 1975. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. A m e r i c a n L i b e r t y I n s . Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002). "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence presented to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes t h a t no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial 8 The 2110341 evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t f a i r - m i n d e d persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " In r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w the e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o the nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.[ v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [(Ala. 2000)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t R e a l E s t a t e Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. They argue 2002). The that employees' the trial first argument court i s puzzling. erroneously constitutional provisions "concluded that the of A r t i c l e I , § 14 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n p r e v e n t e d [the employees] from p r e v a i l i n g i n t h i s action." the trial employees (The e m p l o y e e s ' court principal brief d i d not from p r e v a i l i n g conclude in this that a t p. 36.) § 14 However, prevented a c t i o n . Although the the trial c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t § 14 a f f o r d e d t h e b o a r d i m m u n i t y f r o m t h e employees' claims S t a t e , the t r i a l board members because the board was an agency of the c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t § 14 d i d n o t a f f o r d t h e immunity, made 9 no determination regarding 2110341 whether § adjudicated 14 afforded superintendent the employees' claims and the superintendent err i n concluding parte the the board on t h e m e r i t s . The t r i a l that and members court d i d not t h e b o a r d was immune. See, e . g . , Ex B e s s e m e r Bd. o f E d u c . , ( h o l d i n g t h a t § 14 a f f o r d e d immunity because against immunity, 68 So. 3d 782, 790 ( A l a . 2011) t h e Bessemer B o a r d o f Education i t was an a g e n c y o f t h e S t a t e ) . The trial c o u r t ' s c o n c l u s i o n t h a t § 14 d i d n o t a f f o r d t h e b o a r d members immunity and i t s f a i l u r e the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t "A p a r t y against (Ala. t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r § 14 i m m u n i t y were n o t a d v e r s e t o t h e e m p l o y e e s . c a n n o t c l a i m e r r o r where no a d v e r s e r u l i n g him." Holloway 1986). T h e r e f o r e , v. R o b e r t s o n , erred 500 So. 2d 1056, 1059 court's judgment. e m p l o y e e s ' s e c o n d argument i s t h a t i n concluding i s made t h e e m p l o y e e s f i r s t argument does n o t warrant a r e v e r s a l of the t r i a l The afforded that § 6-2-38(m) b a r r e d the t r i a l the employees' c l a i m s i n s o f a r as t h e y a c c r u e d b e f o r e A u g u s t 5, 2007. 6-2-38(m) p r o v i d e s wages, o v e r t i m e , that "[a]ll damages, f e e s , actions court Section f o r the recovery or p e n a l t i e s accruing l a w s r e s p e c t i n g t h e payment o f wages, o v e r t i m e , of under damages, f e e s , and p e n a l t i e s must be b r o u g h t w i t h i n two y e a r s . " The e m p l o y e e s 10 2110341 do n o t a r g u e t h a t § 6-2-38(m) does n o t a p p l y t o t h e i r Rather, they argue t h a t their claims claims. f o r back pay and pay r a i s e s f o r t h e e n t i r e f i s c a l y e a r 2006-2007 a r e t i m e l y b e c a u s e § 1 6 - 2 2 - 1 3 . 4 ( b ) ( 1 ) p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s mandated for that f i s c a l year " s h a l l be p a i d ... b e f o r e t h e end o f the a p p l i c a b l e f i s c a l y e a r " a n d t h e y f i l e d t h e i r a c t i o n w i t h i n two years o f t h e end September 30, 2007. o f t h e 2006-2007 However, fiscal the f a c t that f i x e d September 30, 2007, as t h e d e a d l i n e complete paying year that school boards t o wait paying those salary increases The -- i . e . , the l e g i s l a t u r e f o r l o c a l boards t o t h e s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s f o r t h e 2006-2007 does n o t mean Therefore, year the l e g i s l a t u r e until September intended fiscal for local 30, 2007, to begin salary increases. A pro rata portion of those w o u l d have b e e n due b e f o r e A u g u s t 5, 2007. we f i n d no m e r i t i n t h e e m p l o y e e s ' s e c o n d argument. employees' t h i r d argument i s that the t r i a l court e r r e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e s a l a r y t h e y were p a i d f o r d r i v i n g s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l r o u t e s was e x c l u d e d and p a y - r a i s e from the s a l a r y - s c h e d u l e requirements of subsection ( a ) ( 2 ) o f §§ 16-22¬ 13.4 a n d 16-22-13.5 b e c a u s e , t h e e m p l o y e e s s a y , t h e i r for driving school-to-school 11 routes was not a salary "salary 2110341 supplement" Code w i t h i n the meaning of s u b s e c t i o n (b)(3) of those sections. In pertinent part, subsection (a)(2) of §§ 16-22-13.4 provides: "A f i v e p e r c e n t s a l a r y i n c r e a s e o r a minimum o f one thousand dollars ($1,000), whichever amount i s g r e a t e r , s h a l l be p a i d t o e a c h f u l l - t i m e p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t w o r k e r and a d u l t bus d r i v e r ... e m p l o y e d f o r t h e 2006-07 f i s c a l y e a r i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e s a l a r y r e c e i v e d d u r i n g t h e 2005-06 f i s c a l y e a r .... Each g o v e r n i n g body o [ r ] a u t h o r i t y shall e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e f o r e a c h c l a s s and t y p e o f e m p l o y e e and e a c h s t e p o f e a c h s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s h a l l be i n c r e a s e d t o r e f l e c t a f i v e p e r c e n t pay i n c r e a s e o r a minimum o f one thousand d o l l a r s ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) , w h i c h e v e r amount i s g r e a t e r , w h i c h s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e p e r s o n e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e f o r t h e 2006-07 f i s c a l y e a r and e a c h y e a r e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . ... " (Emphasis added.) I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , subsection (a)(2) of 16-22-13.5 p r o v i d e s : "A s e v e n p e r c e n t s a l a r y i n c r e a s e o r one thousand d o l l a r s ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) , w h i c h e v e r amount i s g r e a t e r , s h a l l be p a i d t o e a c h p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n s u p p o r t w o r k e r and a d u l t bus d r i v e r ... e m p l o y e d f o r t h e 2007-08 f i s c a l year i n a d d i t i o n to the s a l a r y r e c e i v e d d u r i n g the 2007-08 f i s c a l y e a r Each g o v e r n i n g body or a u t h o r i t y s h a l l e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e f o r e a c h c l a s s and t y p e o f e m p l o y e e and e a c h s t e p o f e a c h s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s h a l l be i n c r e a s e d t o r e f l e c t a s e v e n p e r c e n t pay i n c r e a s e o r a minimum o f one t h o u s a n d d o l l a r s ( $ 1 , 0 0 0 ) , w h i c h e v e r amount i s g r e a t e r , w h i c h s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e p e r s o n e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e f o r t h e 2007-08 f i s c a l y e a r and e a c h y e a r e m p l o y e d f u l l - t i m e t h e r e a f t e r . ... " 12 § 2110341 (Emphasis added.) I n Dees, 51 So. 3d a t 329-30, t h i s court held: "Our review of the s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s at i s s u e , p a r t i c u l a r l y §§ 16-22-13 t o -13.5, l e a d s us to conclude t h a t the s a l a r y schedules t h a t the legislature has mandated f o r [public-education] s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l must i n c l u d e m u l t i p l e s t e p s . As p r e v i o u s l y noted, s u b s e c t i o n (a)(2) of each of those s t a t u t e s p r o v i d e s t h a t each l o c a l board of e d u c a t i o n ' s h a l l e s t a b l i s h and m a i n t a i n a s a l a r y s c h e d u l e f o r e a c h c l a s s and t y p e o f e m p l o y e e and e a c h s t e p o f e a c h s a l a r y s c h e d u l e s h a l l be i n c r e a s e d t o r e f l e c t ' t h e p a r t i c u l a r p e r c e n t a g e pay i n c r e a s e m a n d a t e d by each s t a t u t e . A l t h o u g h the word ' s c h e d u l e ' i s not d e f i n e d i n the s t a t u t e s , the language employed i n the s t a t u t e s i n d i c a t e s a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e r e q u i r e d s c h e d u l e s c o n t a i n s t e p s . We r e a c h t h i s c o n c l u s i o n because the language of the statutes r e f l e c t s t h a t i t i s 'each s t e p ' o f e a c h s a l a r y s c h e d u l e f o r s u p p o r t p e r s o n n e l t o w h i c h the mandated pay i n c r e a s e i s t o be a p p l i e d . U n d e r t h e plain m e a n i n g o f t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e s , an e m p l o y e e whose s a l a r y s c h e d u l e does n o t i n c l u d e s t e p s w o u l d n o t be e n t i t l e d t o t h e pay i n c r e a s e p r o v i d e d by t h e statute, because i t i s the steps within the employee's s a l a r y s c h e d u l e t o w h i c h the mandated s a l a r y i n c r e a s e s a r e t o be a p p l i e d . S i m p l y p u t , t h e context o f t h e s t a t u t e s , and, particularly, the s t r u c t u r e of the language t h e y employ, r e q u i r e s the word 'schedule' to mean more than what the d e f e n d a n t s have p r o v i d e d f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e , i . e . , more t h a n a s h e e t o f p a p e r w i t h a l i s t i n g o f j o b s and a s i n g l e s a l a r y amount l i s t e d next to each j o b . Instead, the s t a t u t e s r e q u i r e t h a t , f o r e a c h j o b , t h e d e f e n d a n t s must p r o v i d e a schedule that includes m u l t i p l e s a l a r y steps." Sections subsection 16-22-13.4 and 16-22-13.5 both contain ( b ) ( 3 ) . The p e r t i n e n t l a n g u a g e o f s u b s e c t i o n 13 a (b)(3) 2110341 o f e a c h o f t h o s e Code s e c t i o n s i s i d e n t i c a l a n d p r o v i d e s t h a t " [ t ] h e pay r a i s e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l not apply t o any salary " by l o c a l boards of education (Emphasis added.) The term supplements granted employees "salary salary that performing argue that the l e g i s l a t u r e supplements" i n those local subsections employees f o r e x t r a work t h a t i s o f a d i f f e r e n t k i n d from t h e i n their of education to refer to pay work t h e y p e r f o r m boards intended the r e g u l a r j o b s . The e m p l o y e e s cite t h e s a l a r y s u p p l e m e n t p a i d t o some t e a c h e r s f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e additional salary j o b of coaching supplement sports as an e x a m p l e o f such a and p o i n t o u t t h a t t h e work p e r f o r m e d by t h o s e t e a c h e r s i n t h e i r j o b s as c o a c h e s i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e work t h e y perform i n their argue t h a t they perform jobs as t e a c h e r s . The e m p l o y e e s t h e same w o r k when t h e y d r i v e their s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l r o u t e s as t h e y p e r f o r m when t h e y d r i v e t h e i r regular routes therefore, i n both cases, they d r i v e a bus and, they a s s e r t , the s a l a r y they are p a i d f o r d r i v i n g t h e i r s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l routes i s not a " s a l a r y supplement" f o r p u r p o s e s o f s u b s e c t i o n ( b ) ( 3 ) o f §§ 16-22-13.4 a n d 16-22-13.5. The board, t h e b o a r d members, a n d t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , 14 on t h e 2110341 o t h e r h a n d , c o n t e n d t h a t a d d i t i o n a l s a l a r y p a i d t o an e m p l o y e e for performing extra work is a "salary supplement" for p u r p o s e s o f §§ 16-22-13.4 and 16-22-13.5 r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r the extra work i s of a different kind from the work the e m p l o y e e p e r f o r m s i n h i s o r h e r r e g u l a r j o b o r i s o f t h e same k i n d as t h e work t h e e m p l o y e e p e r f o r m s i n h i s o r h e r regular job. The legislature did not define the term "salary s u p p l e m e n t s " i n § 16-22-13.4 o r § 16-22-13.5. I n IMED C o r p . v. Systems (Ala. Engineering Associates 1 9 9 2 ) , t h e supreme c o u r t Corp., 602 So. 2d 344, 346 stated: "The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t o a s c e r t a i n and g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n e n a c t i n g t h e s t a t u t e . Words u s e d i n a s t a t u t e must be g i v e n their natural, plain, o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , and where p l a i n language i s used a c o u r t i s bound 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 . I f t h e language o f the s t a t u t e i s unambiguous, then 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 . T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y Comm'n v. D e p u t y S h e r i f f s ' A s s ' n o f T u s c a l o o s a C o u n t y , 589 So. 2d 687 ( A l a . 1991)." The "salary" ordinary, is commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g "'fixed compensation paid of the word regularly for s e r v i c e s . ' " C h i l d e r s v. Morgan C n t y . Bd. o f Educ., 15 465 So. 2d 2110341 428, 430 ( A l a . C i v . App. Collegiate Dictionary for 1985) (quoting Webster's Seventh (1976)). The driving school-to-school pay routes p a i d r e g u l a r l y f o r s e r v i c e s " and, the employees was So. 2d drivers their at for t h e r e f o r e , was (holding that $160 per d r i v i n g school-to-school regular The 431 routes ordinary, was received " f i x e d compensation "salary" t h a t w o r d i s o r d i n a r i l y and commonly u n d e r s t o o d . See 465 New Childers, month p a i d routes in as to bus addition to "salary"). commonly u n d e r s t o o d meaning of the word " s u p p l e m e n t " i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t " c o m p l e t e s o r adds t o s o m e t h i n g already e x i s t i n g or a r r a n g e d . " C h i l d e r s , 465 So. 2d a t When t h e e m p l o y e e s s i g n e d separate contracts to drive to-school a l l had pursuant routes, to contracts which to d r i v e were f o r one school some o f t h e but they drove existing regular school-to-school base routes. routes contracts The stated school- separate that y e a r o n l y . W h i l e t h i s a c t i o n was driving regular C l e a r l y , when t h e drive school-to-school work t h a t was routes pursuant to t h e i r employees routes, signed they pending, employees ceased d r i v i n g s c h o o l - t o - s c h o o l continued contracts. they 431. routes base contracts to t h o s e c o n t r a c t s were f o r e x t r a i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e work t h e y p e r f o r m e d p u r s u a n t 16 2110341 to their e x i s t i n g base contracts, paid f o r d r i v i n g school-to-school paid i n addition and t h e s a l a r y t h e y were r o u t e s was s a l a r y t h e y were t o t h e e x i s t i n g s a l a r y t h e y were p a i d f o r d r i v i n g t h e i r r e g u l a r routes pursuant t o t h e i r base c o n t r a c t s . Thus, a c c o r d i n g to the ordinary, of "supplement" the words e m p l o y e e s were p a i d was supplemental commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g s and "salary," the salary f o r d r i v i n g the school-to-school salary. See Childers, 465 So. 2d the routes at 432 ( h o l d i n g t h a t $160 p e r month p a i d t o bus d r i v e r s f o r d r i v i n g school-to-school routes i n addition to their regular routes was "a s u p p l e m e n t a l s a l a r y f o r t h e e x t r a d u t i e s p e r f o r m e d b y the [bus d r i v e r s ] " ) . T h e r e i s no l a n g u a g e i n §§ 16-22-13.4 o r 16-22-13.5 i n d i c a t i n g that a supplemental salary i s not a " s a l a r y s u p p l e m e n t " as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (b)(3) i f t h e e x t r a work f o r w h i c h t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l s a l a r y i s p a i d i s t h e same k i n d o f work as t h a t f o r w h i c h t h e r e g u l a r s a l a r y i s paid. Accordingly, were p a i d "salary we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e s a l a r y t h e e m p l o y e e s f o r d r i v i n g school-to-school routes supplement" f o r purposes of s u b s e c t i o n 16-22-13.4 and 16-22-13.5. T h e r e f o r e , employees' t h i r d argument. 17 constituted a (b)(3) o f §§ we f i n d no m e r i t i n the 2110341 The e m p l o y e e s f o u r t h and f i n a l argument i s t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n entering a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r b o a r d , t h e b o a r d members, and t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t say, they should of the because, they have b e e n p a i d f o r d r i v i n g t h e i r school-to- school routes on t h e same b a s i s as t h e y were p a i d f o r d r i v i n g their routes regular t h a t b a s i s was not "[I]t cited any i s well and t h e b o a r d ' s r e f u s a l t o p a y them a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s . However, legal a u t h o r i t y i n support settled that a failure requirements of Rule 28(a)(10)[, of that to comply they on have argument. with the A l a . R. App. P.,] requiring citation of a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of the arguments presented provides this Court with a basis for disregarding those a r g u m e n t s . Ex p a r t e S h o w e r s , 812 So. 2d 277, 281 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . " S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o t l e y , 909 So. 2d 806, 822 (Ala. 2 0 0 5 ) . B e c a u s e t h e e m p l o y e e s have n o t c i t e d authority consider i n support of t h e i r fourth any argument, we legal will not i t . Id. Accordingly, we a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l court. AFFIRMED. Pittman and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r Thompson, P . J . , and without w r i t i n g s . Moore, 18 J . , concur i n the result,

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.