Huntsville City Board of Education v. Darrell McLemore

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/14/12 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110386 H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education v. D a r r e l l McLemore D a r r e l l McLemore v. H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education Appeal from Hearing O f f i c e r ' s D e c i s i o n (Case No. FMCS 11-02936) 2110386 BRYAN, J u d g e . The 1 Huntsville appeals from Board's decision McLemore. a City hearing to McLemore Board of Education officer's terminate McLemore decision the began w o r k i n g position of "custodian custodian We In p o s i t i o n a n d became the the cross-appeal 2006, McLemore RIF p o l i c y " ) that e s t a b l i s h e s standards regarding The B o a r d h a s a r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e i n f o r c e i n the H u n t s v i l l e s c h o o l system. In May i n the left his circumstances, p o l i c y ("the reductions I n 2011, t h e B o a r d , adopted a r e d u c t i o n - i n - ("the R I F p l a n " ) made p u r s u a n t t o t h e R I F p o l i c y . 2011, pursuant as moot. a refrigeration/AC helper f o r Board. force plan hearing i n 1995 the citing dire financial the of D a r r e l l affirm f o r the Board II." reversing employment cross-appeals. o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n , a n d we d i s m i s s ("the B o a r d " ) to the the Board RIF terminated plan. McLemore's McLemore timely employment asserted a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e R I F p o l i c y a l l o w i n g employees a f f e c t e d by a reduction i n force position" that i s vacant. McLemore applied This case was t o Judge Bryan 1 to "retreat assigned 2012. 2 to a previously held lower f o r and on November was 5, 2110386 i n t e r v i e w e d f o r two c u s t o d i a n I I p o s i t i o n s , a p o s i t i o n t h a t he p r e v i o u s l y had h e l d w i t h the Board. However, t h e B o a r d d i d n o t s e l e c t McLemore f o r e i t h e r o f t h o s e j o b s . McLemore contested the termination pursuant t o former § 36-26-103(b), o f h i s employment, A l a . Code 1975, a p a r t o f 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 D A " ) . was s e l e c t e d t o c o n d u c t a de novo h e a r i n g , § 36-26-104(a), A l a . Code 1975. hearing officer decision to dismiss officer issued determined a that officer pursuant t o former Following decision McLemore. A hearing 2 the hearing, reversing the the Board's I n i t s d e c i s i o n , the hearing the Board g r o u n d f o r d i s m i s s i n g McLemore. had s t a t e d a legitimate However, t h e h e a r i n g officer a l s o determined t h a t the Board had f a i l e d t o f o l l o w the r i g h t to-retreat McLemore. provision of the RIF policy with respect The B o a r d f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s and we g r a n t e d the appeal, pursuant t o former § to court, 36-26-104(b). The S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t , § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h became e f f e c t i v e on J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 , r e p e a l e d a n d r e p l a c e d t h e FDA. B e c a u s e t h e S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t does n o t a p p l y r e t r o a c t i v e l y , we a p p l y t h e FDA i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . See 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 , 97 So. 3d 163, 171 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . 2 3 2110386 Standard of Review Former § 36-26-104(b) p r o v i d e d the s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i n an a p p e a l f r o m a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h e FDA. pertinent decision part, former § of the h e a r i n g 36-26-104(b) officer shall u n l e s s the Court of C i v i l Appeals and capricious, i n which case provided be that "[t]he a f f i r m e d on appeal f i n d s the d e c i s i o n a r b i t r a r y the c o u r t may order p a r t i e s conduct another h e a r i n g c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the of t h i s a r t i c l e . " In that the procedures However, o u r r e v i e w o f a h e a r i n g officer's c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o r a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s i s de novo. The Ex p a r t e S o l e y n , 33 So. 3d 584, 587 a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s standard ( A l a . 2009). of review "extremely d e f e r e n t i a l " to the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n . p a r t e Dunn, 962 t h a t standard of So. 2d 814, 816 ( A l a . 2007). Pursuant to review, " t h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t for t h a t of the hearing officer. ... [W]here ' r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e c o u l d d i f f e r as t o t h e wisdom o f a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n [ , ] ... t h e d e c i s i o n i s n o t a r b i t r a r y . ' ... " ' I f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r has " ' e x a m i n e d the relevant data and articulated a satisfactory explanation for i t s action, i n c l u d i n g a " r a t i o n a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e f a c t s f o u n d and t h e c h o i c e made,"'" i t s d e c i s i o n i s not a r b i t r a r y . See Alabama 4 is Ex the 2110386 Dep't o f Human R e s . v. Dye, 921 So. 2d [421, 426 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ( q u o t i n g P r o m e t h e u s R a d i o P r o j e c t v. FCC, 373 F.3d [372, 389 (3d C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ] ( q u o t i n g i n t u r n B u r l i n g t o n T r u c k L i n e s , I n c . v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 371 U.S. 156, 168 ( 1 9 6 2 ) ) ) . ' " Ex p a r t e Dunn, but 962 So. 2d a t 816-17 r e v e r s i n g on o t h e r grounds, (quoting with Board approval, o f S c h . Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C n t y . v. Dunn, 962 So. 2d 805, 809, 810 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006)). weigh " [ I ] t i s the hearing the evidence, and t h i s officer's Court responsibility to may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . " I d . a t 824. Discussion Former § 36-26-102 employees o f t h e Board, "justifiable things. The justifiable and, decrease that i n the system," officer found Rather, The p a r t i e s the primary to-retreat that among there i n jobs i n the H u n t s v i l l e school thus, t h a t the Board had a proper McLemore. nonprobationary l i k e McLemore, may be d i s m i s s e d f o r a i n jobs hearing decrease provided case that certain decreases which system the r i g h t the Board i n t h e system. r e v e r s i n g McLemore's d i s m i s s a l , t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r 5 a determination. concerns p r o v i s i o n of the RIF p o l i c y , implemented t o govern was ground f o r d i s m i s s i n g do n o t d i s p u t e dispute i n this other In determined 2110386 that the Board d i d not follow this McLemore p u r s u a n t t o t h e R I F p l a n . hearing o f f i c e r erred i n this We first whether address i t violated properly before Commissioners (Ala. determination. Board's the hearing o f f i c e r . 2012), the Board to a j u s t i f i a b l e The that the officer found that not C i t i n g Board of School argues that that the the Board 163 hearing dismissed mandated an In C h r i s t o p h e r , a h e a r i n g r e v i e w e d a s c h o o l b o a r d ' s d i s m i s s a l o f an hearing issue p r o v i s i o n was decrease i n jobs a f f i r m a n c e of the Board's d e c i s i o n . officer argument the r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t threshold determination McLemore due The B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t t h e o f M o b i l e C o u n t y v. C h r i s t o p h e r , 97 So. 3d C i v . App. officer's the provision i n dismissing there was a employee. justifiable d e c r e a s e i n j o b s , b u t he r e i n s t a t e d t h e e m p l o y e e ' s employment, c i t i n g h e r e x c e l l e n t work h i s t o r y , t h e b o a r d ' s f a i l u r e t o u s e certain f e d e r a l funds a c q u i r e d a f t e r the d i s m i s s a l t o r e h i r e h e r , and t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s f i n d i n g t h a t r e h i r i n g h e r w o u l d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the board's c o s t s a v i n g s . at 173. This court reversed the h e a r i n g stating that "[w]e cannot agree w i t h determination that former § 36-26-104(a) 6 97 So. 3d officer's decision, the hearing officer's authorized him to 2110386 d e t e r m i n e , i n the absence whether the t e r m i n a t i o n was justifiable This court also determination terminated system was of a p a r t i c u l a r employee's a RIF p o l i c y . " generally that due [the employee's] the hearing the termination 97 So. observed to a j u s t i f i a b l e made, second-guess 3d a t under of a l l e g a t i o n s of improper motive, employment 3d a t that "once employment was decrease i n jobs officer had no 173-74. the properly within authority d e c i s i o n of the Board." 97 the to So. 176. However, t h i s c a s e c o n c e r n s an i s s u e t h a t C h r i s t o p h e r d i d not a d d r e s s , i . e . , whether the Board p r o p e r l y f o l l o w e d the RIF policy i n dismissing McLemore. School Commissioners v. Long, 2010), addressed this reviewable court by a h e a r i n g In M o b i l e County 46 So. 3d 6, 10 whether o f f i c e r under the Board ( A l a . C i v . App. such an issue FDA: "The B o a r d seems t o a r g u e ... t h a t t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r t h e B o a r d c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e R I F p o l i c y and t h e R I F p r o t o c o l i s not r e l e v a n t t o the i s s u e whether [the employee] was dismissed due to a justifiable decrease in jobs in the system. The superintendent's l e t t e r s t a t e d that the d i s m i s s a l was ' t a k e n u n d e r t h e [RIF] p o l i c y . ' The Board a d o p t e d t h e R I F p o l i c y and t h e R I F p r o t o c o l t o i m p l e m e n t any n e c e s s a r y d e c r e a s e i n j o b s i n t h e s c h o o l system. H a v i n g done s o , t h e B o a r d may n o t now c l a i m t h a t t h e R I F p o l i c y and t h e R I F p r o t o c o l are i r r e l e v a n t t o a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s e v a l u a t i o n of 7 of is 2110386 w h e t h e r an e m p l o y e e was p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d f o r a ' j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs i n the system' under [former] § 36-26-102. Therefore, the hearing officer properly considered whether the Board c o m p l i e d w i t h i t s RIF p o l i c y and t h e R I F p r o t o c o l i n d i s m i s s i n g [the employee]." Thus, whether the Board p r o v i s i o n of the RIF by the h e a r i n g The complied with p o l i c y was an the r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t issue properly considered officer. right-to-retreat provision provides: " E m p l o y e e s who a r e a f f e c t e d by a [ r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e ] w i l l a l s o have t h e r i g h t t o r e t r e a t t o a p r e v i o u s l y h e l d l o w e r p o s i t i o n , where a v a c a n c y e x i s t s , b a s e d on s e n i o r i t y i n t h e s y s t e m p r o v i d i n g t h a t the employee p o s s e s s e s a l l the q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and/or c e r t i f i c a t i o n s f o r the p o s i t i o n to which retreat i s sought at the time the action is requested. W r i t t e n n o t i c e of i n t e n t to e x e r c i s e t h i s r i g h t s h o u l d be g i v e n t o t h e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t w i t h i n f i v e w o r k i n g d a y s a f t e r n o t i f i c a t i o n o f l a y o f f was received by certified mail or hand delivery r e q u e s t i n g the r e c i p i e n t ' s s i g n a t u r e . " As noted, McLemore was a custodian with the Board becoming a r e f r i g e r a t i o n / A C h e l p e r . A f t e r the notified recommending McLemore that he was before superintendent McLemore's d i s m i s s a l , McLemore t i m e l y a s s e r t e d h i s r i g h t t o r e t r e a t u n d e r the RIF policy. McLemore then applied for two p o s i t i o n s t h a t t h e B o a r d had p o s t e d as b e i n g v a c a n t . interview for the jobs but was 8 not hired. custodian McLemore There is no 2110386 evidence hired. i n the record There dispute appeal regarding a p p e a r s t o be no d i s p u t e qualifications procedure on whom t h e B o a r d regarding McLemore's as a c u s t o d i a n o r t h a t he f o l l o w e d t h e p r o p e r i n invoking centers his right on w h e t h e r to retreat. there was Rather, the a "vacancy" under the r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t p r o v i s i o n and e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g among t h e a p p l i c a n t s f o r t h e c u s t o d i a n seniority jobs. The B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t t h e r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t p r o v i s i o n does not apply i n t h i s vacancy f o r the applied. was positions [or] p o s t . " Black's a vacancy definition as an issue o f what S c h . Comm'rs o f M o b i l e 2001) (stating board's factual " v a c a n c y " as " [ a ] n Law D i c t i o n a r y 1688 of law, arguing constitutes a that the "vacancy" i s due See, e.g., Ex p a r t e Cnty., interpretation of issue, and we Board 824 So. 2d 759, 761 ( A l a . t h a t d e f e r e n c e must be a f f o r d e d t o a its interpretation i s reasonable). a McLemore The B o a r d a t t e m p t s t o c h a r a c t e r i z e w h e t h e r d e f e r e n c e by t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . of t h e r e was no f o r which Law D i c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s office (9th ed. 2009). Board's custodian Black's unoccupied there case because, the Board says, own policy i f school that However, we v i e w t h i s i s s u e as note 9 that the hearing officer's 2110386 factual are findings w i l l arbitrary hearing or c a p r i c i o u s . officer finding that d i d not there unoccupied p o s i t i o n , The Board Williams, n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l u n l e s s t h e y As we will e x p l a i n below, act a r b i t r a r i l y was a custodial or capriciously vacancy, t o w h i c h McLemore s o u g h t t o emphasizes the following the in i.e., an retreat. evidence. Belinda t h e B o a r d ' s d i r e c t o r o f human r e s o u r c e s , t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e c u s t o d i a n p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h j o b v a c a n c i e s had been p o s t e d and f o r w h i c h McLemore h a d a p p l i e d were f i l l e d by o t h e r custodians i n the school system. sometimes a c u s t o d i a n w i l l too many custodians custodians. to Williams explained that " t r a n s f e r " f r o m one s c h o o l t h a t has another school that has too few W i l l i a m s t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when s u c h a maneuver i s a n t i c i p a t e d , the Board w i l l post a vacancy n o t i c e d e s p i t e the fact that only a " t r a n s f e r " i s planned. a vacancy notice i s posted i n such The B o a r d s t a t e s situations, out that of an abundance o f c a u t i o n , i n o r d e r t o e n s u r e c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 162 2 - 1 5 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h r e q u i r e s a b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n to "post a notice of vacancy position." Thus, W i l l i a m s "hire" new any for testified custodians; rather, 10 each vacant personnel t h a t the Board d i d not she said, the Board 2110386 "transferred" custodians f r o m one school to another. Thus, t h e B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e was n o t r e a l l y a " v a c a n c y " f o r t h e custodian p o s i t i o n s t h a t would provision. vacancies applied. trigger the right-to-retreat However, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r f o u n d t h a t t h e r e were f o r the custodian positions f o r which McLemore The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t i n g t h e h e a r i n g officer's finding. The B o a r d p o s t e d a v a c a n c y n o t i c e f o r t h e c u s t o d i a n p o s i t i o n s and a c t u a l l y i n t e r v i e w e d McLemore f o r t h e positions. notices order A l t h o u g h t h e B o a r d c l a i m s t o have p o s t e d v a c a n c y f o r t h e p o s i t i o n s o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n i n to ensure compliance w i t h simply r e q u i r e s the Board each vacant p e r s o n n e l § 16-22-15(b), that statute to "post a n o t i c e of vacancy f o r position." (Emphasis added.) Williams t e s t i f i e d t h a t , when a p o s i t i o n i s b e i n g f i l l e d by an i n t e r n a l transfer, the McLemore was Board does not have interview; however, i n t e r v i e w e d f o r the c u s t o d i a n p o s i t i o n s t h a t the B o a r d s a y s were f i l l e d by i n t e r n a l John to Brown, the Board's construction, maintenance, testified a that vacancy custodian i s transferring transfers. director of transportation, notice f r o m one 11 would not be facilities, and safety, posted i f a school to another school. 2110386 A c c o r d i n g t o Brown, when a c u s t o d i a n s e e k s t o t r a n s f e r i n t h i s manner, the custodian transfer. simply completes a form t o make t h e Brown f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t a " v a c a n c y " c a u s e d b y a r e t i r e m e n t , a r e s i g n a t i o n , or a promotion would t r i g g e r the posting of a vacancy Brown's t e s t i m o n y notice. The hearing officer found c r e d i b l e and n o t e d t h a t Brown h a d t e s t i f i e d " t h a t t h e r e were s e v e r a l r e t i r e m e n t s i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t [ t h a t ] created vacancies." the custodian The h e a r i n g officer f u r t h e r found p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h McLemore became a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h applied that probably retirement or r e s i g n a t i o n . B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g e v i d e n c e , the hearing o f f i c e r d i d not a c t a r b i t r a r i l y or c a p r i c i o u s l y i n d e t e r m i n i n g that there was a " v a c a n c y " f o r c u s t o d i a n p o s i t i o n s as t h a t t e r m i s u s e d in the right-to-retreat reasonably to provision. f o u n d t h a t McLemore hearing but that the job The hearing custodian officer vacancies a l r e a d y i n the system. The r e c o r d does n o t i n d i c a t e w h i c h c u s t o d i a n s two v a c a n t officer asserted h i s right to retreat his previously held position were f i l l e d by o t h e r c u s t o d i a n s The f i l l e d the p o s i t i o n s f o r w h i c h McLemore found this lack of evidence applied. to be p r o b l e m a t i c b e c a u s e , i n h e r v i e w , McLemore w o u l d n o t have t h e 12 2110386 r i g h t t o r e t r e a t i f t h e two c u s t o d i a n s who f i l l e d the vacant p o s i t i o n s h a d more s e n i o r i t y i n t h e s y s t e m t h a n McLemore d i d . However, the the hearing evidence regarding regarding their demonstrated defeated. officer drew an a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e the two relative that custodians, seniority, McLemore's right particularly would to not retreat However, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g less provision seniority provides than that McLemore. officer did custodians who a r e a f f e c t e d by a a l s o have t h e r i g h t t o r e t r e a t t o a p r e v i o u s l y h e l d l o w e r p o s i t i o n , where a v a c a n c y e x i s t s , on s e n i o r i t y been The r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t "[e]mployees [reduction i n force] w i l l have had n o t need t o draw an a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e t h a t t h e two had that i n the system." We read the phrase based "based on s e n i o r i t y i n t h e s y s t e m " as a f f e c t i n g McLemore o n l y i f he were competing with other employees subject t o the RIF p l a n who were a t t e m p t i n g t o r e t r e a t t o t h e same v a c a n t , p r e v i o u s l y h e l d position he that consistent with is seeking. the remainder This of the RIF p o l i c y , s e n i o r i t y t o d e t e r m i n e which employees in force w i l l employees be d i s m i s s e d interpretation i s first which subject to a reduction and w h i c h o f t h e dismissed w i l l be r e c a l l e d f i r s t i f t h e r e i s a r e c a l l . 13 uses We do 2110386 not r e a d t h e s e n i o r i t y p r o v i s i o n as g o v e r n i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n h e r e , where an e m p l o y e e s u b j e c t t o a r e d u c t i o n i n force seeks t o r e t r e a t t o a v a c a n t j o b and employees i n t h e system the same "lateral j o b t o , as move." the Board In such calls a situation, provision protects t h e employee s u b j e c t force that by allowing employee i t , achieve only t o the reduction i n to retreat to a vacant, We n o t e t h a t t h e r e c o r d not custodians whether t h e two p o s i t i o n s were s u b j e c t t o t h e R I F p l a n . two custodians were right-to-retreat already provision custodians would a the r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t p r e v i o u s l y h e l d lower p o s i t i o n . indicate seek who filled does the However, b e c a u s e t h e to begin n o t have with, applied the t o them b e c a u s e t h e y w o u l d n o t have b e e n r e t r e a t i n g t o a " p r e v i o u s l y h e l d lower p o s i t i o n . " custodians arguments Thus, b e c a u s e t h e s e n i o r i t y o f t h e two i s i r r e l e v a n t , we concerning whether m a k i n g an a d v e r s e i n f e r e n c e The hearing capriciously do not address the hearing the p a r t i e s ' officer erred as t o t h e e v i d e n c e on t h a t officer did not act i n determining that the Board f a i l e d issue. arbitrarily the r i g h t - t o - r e t r e a t p r o v i s i o n o f t h e RIF p o l i c y . by or to follow Therefore, we a f f i r m t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n r e v e r s i n g t h e B o a r d ' s 14 2110386 decision t o d i s m i s s McLemore. In the event t h a t t h i s were t o r e v e r s e t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n , McLemore a c o n d i t i o n a l cross-appeal determination challenging the hearing t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n was court filed officer's sufficient. However, b e c a u s e we a f f i r m t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e c o n d i t i o n on w h i c h t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l i s b a s e d h a s n o t o c c u r r e d . Therefore, we d i s m i s s t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l as moot. v. L i d e , 628 So. 2d 531, 538 APPEAL ( A l a . 1993). AFFIRMED. CROSS-APPEAL Pittman, See W i l l i a m s DISMISSED AS MOOT. Thomas, a n d M o o r e , J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . 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 15 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.