Huntsville City Board of Education v. Clark Sharp

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 05/03/2013 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 2110366 H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education v. C l a r k Sharp C l a r k Sharp v. H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education (FMCS No. 11-02938) On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g THOMAS, J u d g e . 2110366 The opinion of following opinion January ("the nonprobationary 2013, i s withdrawn, and the e m p l o y e d by t h e H u n t s v i l l e C i t y B o a r d Board") support as a mechanic; employee. In Sharp 2010, the had also failed to comply with was Board f a c i n g a n e a r l y $20 m i l l i o n s h o r t f a l l i n i t s f i s c a l budget and i s substituted therefor. C l a r k S h a r p was Education 4, of a was y e a r 2009 the Fiscal A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , c o d i f i e d a t A l a . Code 1975, § 16-13A-1 e t seq., the Board specifically maintain at § 16-13A-9, w h i c h l e a s t one requires month's o p e r a t i n g budget in to reserve. The S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n ( " t h e S t a t e " ) , t h r o u g h i t s D e p u t y Superintendent for Pouncey, n o t i f i e d fiscal issues. Finance the Board Among the c o n c e r n f o r Dr. P o u n c e y was f u n d s were u s e d and Administration, of i t s concern issues raised Board's significant Pouncey c o n s i d e r e d e x o r b i t a n t number o f s u p p o r t s t a f f . review of the Board's over the Craig t h a t o v e r 85% o f t h e B o a r d ' s t o p a y what D r . $1,400 a y e a r p e r p u p i l on that Dr. local t o be I n f a c t , the Board i t s support s t a f f . Based an spent on h i s f i n a n c e s , Dr. P o u n c e y u r g e d t h e B o a r d t o i m p l e m e n t a d r a s t i c r e d u c t i o n i n p e r s o n n e l o r , he w a r n e d , 2 face 2110366 having t h e S t a t e i n t e r v e n e and t a k e o v e r t h e o p e r a t i o n o f school system. The Board decided to cooperate w i t h the the former State Superintendent as a c o n s u l t a n t t o a s s i s t stage reduction Board, of reduced Dr. Richardson the Reduction-in-Force by support Richardson, recommended a Board's p e r s o n n e l . personnel probationary o f S c h o o l s , Dr. E d its utilizing State; i t hired i t w i t h making a p l a n to reduce Board's o p e r a t i n g budget. terminating personnel ("RIF") nearly by personnel, support personnel and in April 2011 ("the April M a r c h R I F p l a n and the A p r i l RIF p l a n are to "the collectively A p r i l t h a t he was as RIF plan"). March RIF notification superintendent, support releasing nonprobationary RIF plan") sometimes S h a r p was (the referred notified in recommended f o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the A p r i l RIF The 77 the its probationary terminating two- of r e a s s i g n i n g 9 o r 10 a s s i s t a n t p r i n c i p a l s , nontenured teachers, remaining ("the the Policy, a l l p l a n " ) and 154 t e r m i n a t i n g the Ultimately, i n M a r c h 2011 the Dr. Ann plan. Sharp Roy received Moore, r e a d as from the Board's follows: "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 [ y o u r ] employment [ a s ] a 3 2110366 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 for the proposed termination i s as follows: j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n j o b s i n the system or 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 for one o r more o f t h e reasons listed in § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975, a r e as f o l l o w s : "1) The notice 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 of i t s employees. To a c c o m p l i s h this, t h e B o a r d has a d o p t e d a Reduction i n Force plan. 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 i s b a s e d upon t h e j o b c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s 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 y e a r s of s e r v i c e w i t h i n the H u n t s v i l l e S c h o o l System ( t h o s e w i t h fewer years of service in each s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d area are t o be t e r m i n a t e d b e f o r e t h o s e with greater s e n i o r i t y ) . " further specified that the Board m e e t i n g on t h e p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n on May Sharp was entitled would hold 17, 2011, and to request a conference with the a that Board, p r o v i d e d he g a v e t h e B o a r d t h e r e q u i s i t e n o t i c e o f h i s d e s i r e for a conference. Sharp appeared at the hearing, as d i d h i s c o u n s e l , who spoke w i t h t h e B o a r d r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n . The Board was v o t e d t o t e r m i n a t e Sharp's 4 employment, and Sharp 2110366 g i v e n w r i t t e n n o t i c e of the t e r m i n a t i o n . B o a r d n o t i c e t h a t he requested ("the contested a hearing pursuant the S h a r p t h e n gave t h e t e r m i n a t i o n and that he to the former F a i r D i s m i s s a l Act F D A " ) , f o r m e r § 36-26-100 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, which has s i n c e b e e n r e p e a l e d 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 SFA"), § 16-24C-1 e t J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 . 1 November 2011. 2, seq., A h e a r i n g was A l a . Code 1975, effective held before a hearing o f f i c e r A f t e r the hearing, the hearing e n t e r e d an a w a r d o v e r t u r n i n g t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n t o on officer terminate S h a r p ' s employment. In had h i s award, t h e faced f i n a n c i a l hearing officer i s s u e s and noted t h a t i t had t h a t the Board faced being taken o v e r b y t h e S t a t e i f i t had n o t a c t e d t o a d d r e s s i t s f i n a n c i a l shortcomings. Richardson The had hearing officer recommended t o the then found Board which that employees Dr. to t e r m i n a t e ; he f u r t h e r f o u n d and t o o k i s s u e w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t , according conferred to the with hearing John officer, Brown, the Dr. Richardson Board's had Director not of B e c a u s e t h e SFA 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 Sch. 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. 2012) . 1 5 2110366 Maintenance, Facilities, Construction, Transportation, and S a f e t y , r e g a r d i n g Brown's o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a l l the mechanics i n the Board's employ. stated that mechanics w o u l d be "[t]here and was no outsourcing saved." The hearing o f f i c e r evidence their hearing The that various officer by also firing duties, any the money concluded: " I t was t h e d u t y o f t h e B o a r d t o p r o v e t h a t [ i t s ] RIF of these mechanics d i d a c c o m p l i s h the s t a t u t e requirement [ ( s i c ) ] t h a t the decrease i n j o b s was j u s t i f i a b l e o r t h a t t h e r e was g o o d and j u s t c a u s e [ . A l a . Code 1975, § ] 36-26-102. " I n v i e w o f t h e a b s e n c e and f a i l u r e o f t h e B o a r d t o e s t a b l i s h a l e g i t i m a t e need t o l a y o f f t h i s e m p l o y e e , I s h a l l d e t e r m i n e t h a t no a c t i o n s h o u l d have b e e n [ ( s i c ) ] a g a i n s t t h i s e m p l o y e e . " F i n a l l y , the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r noted t h a t , a f t e r the institution o f t h e R I F p l a n , t h e B o a r d had a d d e d c e r t a i n " s t a f f with s a l a r i e s ranging the Board intended supply teachers for employees" f r o m $49,271 t o $141,600 p e r y e a r , to contract with Teach for America f o r $ 5 5 0 , 0 0 0 , and t h a t t h e B o a r d had The these expenditures hearing in o f f i c e r s t a t e d t h a t he had the i n the award t o " u n d e r s c o r e the p o i n t financial issues faced 6 by the Board lieu recited enough a d j u s t m e n t i n t h e work f o r c e had b e e n made a n d [ , that to purchased $853,000 c e r t a i n c o m p u t e r e q u i p m e n t f o r s t u d e n t s of t e x t b o o k s . that had that thus, been 2110366 resolved] and employee d i d not who necessitate conceivabl[y] the saves termination money for of this necessary services." The B o a r d s o u g h t t o a p p e a l t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s award t o this court. A f t e r the Board f i l e d a l e t t e r b r i e f s e t t i n g out " s p e c i a l and i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s , " p u r s u a n t t o f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 4 ( b ) , we a c c e p t e d t h e a p p e a l . a cross-appeal On from the h e a r i n g appeal, the Board argues impermissibly substituted judgment erred and legitimate need to by officer's his that award. the judgment requiring l a y o f f Sharp the Sharp p e r f e c t e d hearing for the Board instead of officer to Board's prove a r e q u i r i n g the Board to prove only a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs w i t h i n the system. The B o a r d f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t i t p r o v e d a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs w i t h i n the system. argues t h a t the h e a r i n g officer On should cross-appeal, have a l s o Sharp determined t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h f o r m e r A l a . Code 1975, § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 3 ( a ) , because it form d i d not give him enough factual defense to the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n . should dismiss the cross-appeal 7 information to a The B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t we filed by Sharp because the 2110366 hearing officer's award was wholly i n Sharp's favor and t h e r e f o r e has no a d v e r s e d e c i s i o n f r o m w h i c h t o a p p e a l . e.g, P e r s o n n e l Bd. 863 ( A l a . C i v . App. In the f u r t h e r argues t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n complied with We will appeal. role We former § first termination So. 3d a l t e r n a t i v e , the notice provided officer when f a c e d o f employment u n d e r v. S t r a n a h a n , , 2d Board to t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e have r e c e n t l y h a d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y C i t y Bd. o f Educ. So. Sharp 36-26-103(a). consider of a h e a r i n g See, o f J e f f e r s o n C n t y . v. B a i l e y , 475 1985). he with a RIF p l a n . an to c l a r i f y the a p p e a l from 1, 2013] 2 0 1 3 ) ; H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. o f Educ. v. F r a s i e r , [Ms. 2110427, F e b r u a r y 22, 2013] 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012). school Once b o a r d has a hearing 97 So. 3d 163, 174 officer demonstrated ground f o r t e r m i n a t i o n So. 2 0 1 3 ) ; and 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 , App. a See H u n t s v i l l e [Ms. 2110252, M a r c h ( A l a . C i v . App. Board's that has i t had (Ala. Civ. concluded that a e s t a b l i s h e d as a a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs within the system, i n the absence of a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n was m o t i v a t e d by an i m p r o p e r m o t i v e , t h e h e a r i n g officer is not p e r m i t t e d t o f u r t h e r i n q u i r e i n t o "whether the t e r m i n a t i o n 8 2110366 o f a p a r t i c u l a r e m p l o y e e ' s employment was j u s t i f i a b l e u n d e r a RIF policy." further Christopher, explained, difficult pursuant with 2 decisions "the 97 So. 3d a t 174. responsibility regarding to a j u s t i f i e d which have f o r making the positions to eliminate implementation t h e B o a r d a n d ... h e a r i n g As we of a RIF p o l i c y officers and t h e c o u r t s 'are not p e r m i t t e d t o usurp the r o l e of t h e s c h o o l board.'" 176 rests Id. at ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v. Montgomery C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 85 So. 3d 1008, 1016 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011)). I n h i s award, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s p e c i f i c a l l y 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 p r o v e n t h a t i t h a d "a l e g i t i m a t e n e e d " to terminate S h a r p ' s employment s p e c i f i c a l l y . h i s c o n c l u s i o n , the hearing o f f i c e r noted In support of t h a t Sharp and t h e o t h e r mechanics employed by t h e B o a r d had p e r f o r m e d v a l u a b l e services money that, according f o r the Board. to the hearing In addition, officer, had saved the hearing officer As we have r e c e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d , a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r may, o f c o u r s e , r e v i e w w h e t h e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e R I F p o l i c y were p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d t o a p a r t i c u l a r employee. See H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. o f E d u c . v. McLemore, [Ms. 2110386, December 14, 2012] So. 3d , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( a f f i r m i n g a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s r e v e r s a l o f an e m p l o y e e ' s t e r m i n a t i o n when the Board had f a i l e d t o p r o p e r l y apply the r e t r e a t p r o v i s i o n of t h e RIF p o l i c y ) . 2 9 2110366 concluded t h a t t h e o u t s o u r c i n g o f t h e d u t i e s p e r f o r m e d by mechanics would not r e s u l t i n any savings to the the Board. Those c o n c l u s i o n s , however, are o u t s i d e the scope of question to considering be an implementation mechanics considered appeal of the hearing from a t e r m i n a t i o n a performed by RIF plan. valuable That services officer resulting Sharp for or a savings hearing be to the officer's made by the Board Board the other while Moreover, whether the review. hearing proven a j u s t i f i c a t i o n the system at the i s also outside The the Sharp's outsourcing resulted scope of officer was whether for decreasing the the Board Christopher, 97 So. 3d a t 174 So. 2d 549, As we 552 in plan (quoting (1955)). explained i n Frasier: "The r u l e f r o m W i l l i a m s [v. B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o f Lamar C o u n t y ] , [263 A l a . 372, 82 So. 2d 549 (1955)], as recently reiterated in Board of School 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. C h r i s t o p h e r , [97 10 to had number o f j o b s W i l l i a m s v. B o a r d o f E d u c . o f Lamar C n t y . , 263 A l a . 372, 82 the only "'pertinent inquiry'" time the B o a r d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a RIF s h o u l d be i n s t i t u t e d . the the o f t h e d u t i e s p e r f o r m e d by t h e m e c h a n i c s u l t i m a t e l y in when from employed i s i r r e l e v a n t t o whether the t e r m i n a t i o n of employment was p e r m i s s i b l e . the 375, 2110366 So. 3d 163 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) ] , h o l d s t h a t , once i t i s determined that there i s a '"'justifiable d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s due t o d e c r e a s e d enrollment o r d e c r e a s e d f u n d i n g ' " ' and t h a t the e m p l o y e e a t i s s u e was d i s c h a r g e d p u r s u a n t t o t h a t g r o u n d , a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r may n o t i n q u i r e i n t o t h e r e a s o n i n g behind the s e l e c t i o n of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r e m p l o y e e f o r d i s c h a r g e . 97 So. 3d a t 175 (quoting W a l k e r v. Montgomery C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 85 So. 3d 1008, 1016 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ) . By e x a m i n i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e s e r v i c e s p r o v i d e d by t h e a p p e l l e e s , and the c o s t s of r e p l a c i n g those s e r v i c e s , the hearing o f f i c e r n e c e s s a r i l y undertook to determine whether the [ B o a r d ] had correctly targeted the a p p e l l e e s ' s p e c i f i c employment f o r t e r m i n a t i o n . "The a p p e l l e e s c l e a r l y p r o v e d t h a t t h e y were v a l u a b l e employees. However, i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t the [Board] could have selected any support employees f o r i n c l u s i o n i n the s u p p l e m e n t a l RIF p l a n who d i d n o t p r o v i d e some n e c e s s a r y s e r v i c e . See C h r i s t o p h e r , 97 So. 3d a t 176 ('[M]any, i f n o t a l l , of the employees in various school systems t h r o u g h o u t the s t a t e are e x c e l l e n t employees who have had p o s i t i v e i m p a c t s on s c h o o l s y s t e m s t h r o u g h t h e i r e m p l o y m e n t . ' ) . Dr. R i c h a r d s o n d i d n o t t e s t i f y that the [Board] would experience no adverse consequences due to the terminations of the employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s . Dr. R i c h a r d s o n m e r e l y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had recommended e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h o s e p o s i t i o n s he b e l i e v e d w o u l d l e a s t i m p a c t t h e classroom i n s t r u c t i o n of the students. ... The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r c o u l d not '"usurp the r o l e of the s c h o o l b o a r d , " ' i d . ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v. Montgomery Bd. o f Educ. , 85 So. 3d a t 1 0 1 6 ) , by s e c o n d - g u e s s i n g t h e f i n a n c i a l wisdom o f i t s c h o i c e s . " ___ So. 3d a t ___ However, hearing (footnote unlike officer the omitted). hearing i n the present 11 officer case d i d not in Frasier, the clearly indicate 2110366 w h e t h e r he h a d 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 e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t its financial institute c o n d i t i o n was such that ___ required to t h e R I F p l a n a n d , t h u s , t h a t t h e r e was a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs w i t h i n the system. at i t was (explaining that when a See F r a s i e r , school board So. 3d relies on 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 a g r o u n d f o r an employee's discharge, decrease i n jobs the board i n the must system prove and, a justifiable i f poor financial c i r c u m s t a n c e s a r e t h e r o o t cause o f t h e d e c r e a s e i n jobs i n the system, financial must prove circumstances). hearing officer's the also extent the existence Some the of the statements poor i n the a w a r d i n d i c a t e t h a t he m i g h t have q u e s t i o n e d of the RIF p l a n and whether the Board imposed under t h e A p r i l secure the f i s c a l officer failed threshold of soundness to make i s s u e whether a l l the terminations R I F p l a n were n e c e s s a r y t o of the system, b u t the h e a r i n g any determination regarding the Board had proven a the 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 due t o i t s f i n a n c i a l condition. Without failed a determination that the Board had to demonstrate a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease o f jobs i n the system, the hearing officer's d e c i s i o n r e i n s t a t i n g Sharp i s a r b i t r a r y and 12 2110366 capricious 1975, and § without legal 36-24-104(b) decision "shall be support. (stating affirmed that on the the hearing hearing officer's officer a to enter the Board proved resulted in a justifiable such that the April nonprobationary necessary. 1152, 1162 RIF support that [this award We appeal. he contain which employees, (Ala. Civ. App. 2008) o r d e r i n g a new t u r n now applied including to system certain Sharp, (instructing to the hearing a issue from the r a i s e d by sufficient B o a r d was information notice of proposed 13 3d hearing presented Sharp i n h i s cross- termination d e f i c i e n t because i t d i d to was on t h o s e i s s u e s ) . Sharp argues t h a t the n o t i c e of proposed a 2011 circumstances decrease i n jobs w i t h i n the defense to h i s proposed t e r m i n a t i o n . 103(a), to See B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v. W i l l i a m s , 4 So. without received cause determining o f f i c e r t o a d d r e s s and r e s o l v e t h e i s s u e s o r i g i n a l l y t o him we a t t h e November i t s financial plan, court Thus, remand t h e an w h e t h e r , b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d hearing, unless Code officer's capricious"). a w a r d and f o r him former A l a . hearing appeal d e t e r m i n e s t h a t i t i s ] a r b i t r a r y and reverse See permit him to mount Under former § termination was not a 36-26- required to 2110366 " c o n t a i n a s h o r t and p l a i n s t a t e m e n t o f t h e 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 i n [ f o r m e r ] S e c t i o n 36-26-102." S p e c i f i c a l l y , Sharp c o m p l a i n s t h a t the n o t i c e f a i l e d to c o n t a i n f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g implement takeover the RIF plan, of the s c h o o l mechanics like the the need t o alleged impending s y s t e m by t h e S t a t e , o r i n d i c a t i n g Sharp were employment u n d e r t h e R I F Community C o l l e g e regarding listed selected plan. for termination Sharp r e l i e s So. on B i s h o p 3d 588, of State 590 (Ala. Civ. 2009), i n which t h i s c o u r t determined t h a t a App. v. A r c h i b l e , 33 why termination n o t i c e g i v e n t o an e m p l o y e e o f a c o l l e g e had the employee of the to the facts underlying proposed termination, 103(a), and, thus, as the f a i l e d to apprise charges g i v i n g r e q u i r e d by former § t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e had b e e n d e p r i v e d rise 36-26of the o p p o r t u n i t y t o m a r s h a l f a c t s t o p r e p a r e an a d e q u a t e d e f e n s e t o those charges. The Board argues t h a t Sharp's c r o s s - a p p e a l dismissed. Typically, decision that i s wholly a t 865-66. termination a p a r t y may not take f a v o r a b l e t o him. S h a r p ' s employment and 14 to be an a p p e a l f r o m a Bailey, The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s a w a r d o v e r t u r n e d of i s due restored 475 So. 2d the Board's Sharp to his 2110366 employment; thus, However, that appeal Sharp's a w a r d was is in wholly the favorable nature of a to Sharp. conditional cross-appeal, w h i c h becomes r i p e f o r r e v i e w i n the event t h a t the under a judgment appeal. 657 See review 787 whether the reversed as result F i r s t P r o p s . , L.L.C. v. B e n n e t t , 959 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 783, is So. the 2d 653, 2 0 0 6 ) ; B e s s v. W a f f l e House, I n c . , 824 ( A l a . C i v . App. hearing notice provided of 2001). officer should We w i l l t h e r e f o r e So. consider the i n s u f f i c i e n t under former § t o S h a r p was have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t 36- 26-103(a). As we have r e c e n t l y determined, the notice t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment i n a c a s e i n v o l v i n g t h e of a RIF include plan i s not a l l the employees Stranahan, As we by facts giving rise p l a n or s u p p o r t i n g of required or So. of proposed institution former § to need f o r t h a t the 36-26-103(a) the d e c i s i o n to i n c l u d e a p a r t i c u l a r a particular 3d a t explained employee in that RIF RIF class plan. . i n Stranahan: "In the present case, the Board cited 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 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 t e r m i n a t i o n s . See f o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975. I n t h e n o t i c e s , t h e B o a r d then explained t h a t r e a s o n by citing financial circumstances t h a t n e c e s s i t a t e d the i m p o s i t i o n of 15 to 2110366 t h e R I F p o l i c y , and i t e x p l a i n e d t h e manner i n w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e e s whose employment was t o be t e r m i n a t e d u n d e r t h e R I F p o l i c y w o u l d be s e l e c t e d . Thus, t h e notices of termination provided by the Board explained that the Board's current financial circumstances warranted the decrease of jobs i n the s y s t e m . See Ex p a r t e S o l e y n , 33 So. 3d [584,] 588 [(Ala. 2009)]. " S t r a n a h a n and Holmes e a c h a r g u e t h a t u n d e r [ 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. 3d 588 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ] , a more d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n of the b a s i s of the Board's f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n was r e q u i r e d . We d i s a g r e e . As t h e B o a r d p o i n t s out, i n A r c h i b l e , supra, the t e r m i n a t i o n s at issue were proposed because of financial i m p r o p r i e t i e s , and t h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t more i n f o r m a t i o n was r e q u i r e d . I t seems a x i o m a t i c t h a t a more d e t a i l e d s t a t e m e n t o f a l l e g a t i o n s o f 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 defend a g a i n s t those a l l e g a t i o n s . In t h i s case, however, there are no adverse allegations for S t r a n a h a n o r Holmes t o d e f e n d a g a i n s t . 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 was t h a t t h e B o a r d was experiencing financial d i f f i c u l t i e s necessitating the implementation o f t h e R I F p o l i c y . The primary argument a s s e r t e d by S t r a n a h a n and Holmes b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s was t h a t t h e n o t i c e t h e y r e c e i v e d from the superintendent did not afford them sufficient information to defend against the specific s e l e c t i o n of them as e m p l o y e e s whose employment was t o be t e r m i n a t e d . We c a n n o t c o n c l u d e 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 under a RIF p o l i c y , t h a t the Board set f o r t h the s p e c i f i c f a c t s u n d e r l y i n g i t s f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n and t h e e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t of the implementation of the RIF p o l i c y , particularly with regard to each employee terminated. "We c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s e r r e d i n determining t h a t the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s notices to 16 2110366 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 § 36-26-103, A l a . Code 1975." So. 3d a t former . S i m i l a r l y , i n the p r e s e n t case, the Board p r o v i d e d n o t i c e to Sharp that terminations he would be included in n e c e s s i t a t e d by t h e R I F p l a n the t h a t the Board p l a n n i n g t o i n s t i t u t e as a r e s u l t o f i t s p r e c a r i o u s position. The B o a r d was proposed was financial not r e q u i r e d t o g i v e Sharp n o t i c e o f every aspect of the Board's financial issues that the Board had d e t e r m i n e d n e c e s s i t a t e d the RIF p l a n , the a n t i c i p a t e d c o s t s a v i n g s e x p e c t e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e R I F p l a n , o r t h e b a s i s t h e Board used included to determine i n the RIF p l a n . (Moore, J . , c o n c u r r i n g necessarily that Sharp's See Stranahan, specially) imparted that the Board salaries monetary employees] did not So. 3d a t associated to [the benefits employees] notice with payable to and n o t f o r any o t h e r r e a s o n , " t h a t " [ t ] h e convey be i n t e n d e d t o reduce i t s t o save the c o s t s other would (stating that "[t]he workforce e x c l u s i v e l y and position the exact the [the letters financial c o n d i t i o n of the Board; nor d i d the l e t t e r s s p e c i f y the nature of the causes leading to that financial condition or the e x t e n t of the f i n a n c i a l r e l i e f the Board a n t i c i p a t e d from the 17 2110366 r e d u c t i o n i n f o r c e , " and t h a t "former § 36-26-103(a) d i d n o t require such detail i n order to provide a nonprobationary 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 proposed termination reasons"). Thus, defense o f h i s o r h e r employment f o r f i n a n c i a l based on Stranahan, we conclude n o t i c e p r o v i d e d t o Sharp c o m p l i e d w i t h former § APPLICATION WITHDRAWN; GRANTED; OPINION to the OPINION SUBSTITUTED; OF APPEAL REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS; CROSS-APPEAL 36-26-103(a). JANUARY that the 4, REVERSED 2 013 AND -- AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. 18

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.