Huntsville City Board of Education v. Clark Sharp

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 01/04/2013 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) THOMAS, J u d g e . 2110366 C l a r k S h a r p was Education ("the nonprobationary 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 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 had also failed to comply with was 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 § least 16-13A-9, w h i c h one requires month's o p e r a t i n g b u d g e t to i n reserve. The S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n ("the 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 that Dr. over the raised Craig Board's significant 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 . local P o u n c e y c o n s i d e r e d t o be 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 . I n f a c t , the Board $1,400 p e r p u p i l on i t s s u p p o r t s t a f f . an spent B a s e d on h i s r e v i e w o f t h e B o a r d ' 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 drastic 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 , face 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 t h e s c h o o l system. 2 2110366 The Board decided to c o o p e r a t e w i t h the the former State Superintendent State; i t hired o f S c h o o l s , Dr. Ed Richardson, as a c o n s u l t a n t t o a s s i s t i t w i t h m a k i n g a p l a n t o r e d u c e Board's o p e r a t i n g budget. stage reduction Board, and personnel, 154 Board's personnel. Ultimately, Reduction-in-Force ("RIF") by support by terminating personnel t e r m i n a t i n g the personnel i n M a r c h 2011 remaining collectively A p r i l t h a t he was and in April M a r c h R I F p l a n and all ("the the Policy, of its March RIF probationary as terminating 2011 "the support RIF plan"). 77 nonprobationary A p r i l RIF plan") (the sometimes r e f e r r e d S h a r p was notified in recommended f o r t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment i n notification superintendent, ("the the A p r i l RIF p l a n are c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the A p r i l RIF The nearly two- 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 , r e l e a s i n g nontenured teachers, support to the personnel probationary recommended a its utilizing reduced plan") of Dr. R i c h a r d s o n the Dr. Ann plan. Sharp Roy received from the Board's Moore, r e a d as f o l l o w s : "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 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 is as follows: 3 2110366 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 (those 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 seniority)." 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 employment, 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 . Board notice that he and Sharp then gave the c o n t e s t e d the t e r m i n a t i o n 4 Sharp and that he 2110366 requested ("the a h e a r i n g pursuant to the former F a i r D i s m i s s a l FDA"), f o r m e r § 36-26-100 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, Act 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 by 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 After A l a . Code 1975, effective held before a hearing o f f i c 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 financial hearing officer i s s u e s and noted t h a t the t h a t i t had 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 Maintenance, hearing John Facilities, officer, Brown, the Dr. Richardson Board's Construction, had not Director of 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 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 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 evidence their hearing The that various officer officer also firing the by duties, any 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 t h e s e mechanics d i d a c c o m p l i s h the s t a t u t e r e q u i r e m e n t [ ( 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 e m p l o y e e s " with s a l a r i e s ranging the Board intended supply teachers for f r o m $49,271 t o $141,600 p e r to contract with Teach for year, 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 hearing 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 i n of textbooks. that o f f i c e r s t a t e d t h a t he had lieu recited t h e s e e x p e n d i t u r e s i n the award t o " u n d e r s c o r e the p o i n t that 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 [ , thus that the been the resolved] financial and did issues not faced necessitate 6 by the Board termination had of this 2110366 employee who conceivabl[y] saves money for 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 Board's to 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 argues w i t h i n the system. t h a t the hearing 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 defense to the t e r m i n a t i o n . dismiss the cross-appeal officer's award was wholly factual The filed to B o a r d a r g u e s t h a t we by Sharp b e c a u s e i n Sharp's 7 information the f a v o r and he a should hearing therefore 2110366 has no adverse Personnel (Ala. Bd. decision from which of J e f f e r s o n Cnty. C i v . App. 1985). to v. appeal. Bailey, former § We will appeal. role We 2d t o Sharp c o m p l i e d first consider 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 officer when f a c e d o f employment u n d e r with a RIF p l a n . an Board's to c l a r i f y the a p p e a l from , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2012] 2 0 1 2 ) ; H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. o f Educ. v. S t r a n a h a n , [Ms. 2110252, November 2, 2012] 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 2 ) ; 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 C i t y Bd. o f Educ. v. F r a s i e r , [Ms. 2110427, November 30, So. 3d 863 36-26-103(a). of a hearing termination So. e.g, I n the a l t e r n a t i v e , the Board f u r t h e r argues t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n n o t i c e p r o v i d e d with 475 See, that a justifiable has i t had (Ala. Civ. concluded that a e s t a b l i s h e d as a 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 of a p a r t i c u l a r employee's employment was j u s t i f i a b l e u n d e r a 8 2110366 RIF policy." further Christopher, explained, difficult pursuant with 2 decisions "the 97 So. 3d responsibility regarding to a j u s t i f i e d a t 174. 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 o f 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 a d d i t i o n , 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 the 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: " [ T ] h i s c o u r t has d e t e r m i n e d t h a t o u r r e v i e w i s l i m i t e d to whether the d e c i s i o n to terminate c e r t a i n e m p l o y e e s ' employment [ p u r s u a n t t o a R I F p l a n ] i s j u s t i f i e d b e f o r e the s p e c i f i c d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g 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 who i s t o be t e r m i n a t e d a r e made. Necessarily, n e i t h e r the hearing o f f i c e r nor t h i s court i s e n t i t l e d t o second-guess the d e c i s i o n s o f the Board, after the fact of the terminations, regarding whether those terminations a c t u a l l y y i e l d e d the intended results. To do so w o u l d be t o ' " u s u r p t h e r o l e of the school board"' and '"determine t h a t a n o t h e r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e one t a k e n b y t h e s c h o o l b o a r d m i g h t have b e e n w i s e r o r more e q u i t a b l e , " ' w h i c h we a r e n o t p e r m i t t e d t o do. [ C h r i s t o p h e r , 97 So. 3d a t 1175 ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r , 85 So. 3d a t 1 0 1 6 ) ] . ... [ T ] h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r was r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e o n l y w h e t h e r t h e r e was a justifiable d e c r e a s e i n p o s i t i o n s b a s e d on t h e alleged i n s u f f i c i e n t funding. The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r went b e y o n d t h a t i n q u i r y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s were j u s t i f i a b l e i n l i g h t o f a number o f o t h e r f a c t o r s . T h i s , he was n o t p e r m i t t e d t o do. ... [ T ] h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r [ s h o u l d ] d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e was a j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n p o s i t i o n s b a s e d on t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m ' s a l l e g e d f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p , w i t h o u t r e g a r d f o r any s i m u l t a n e o u s m e a s u r e s t a k e n by the Board t o address t h a t hardship o r any circumstances t h a t a r i s e as a c o n s e q u e n c e t o t h e terminations." So. 3d a t . However, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r clearly i n the present case d i d not i n d i c a t e 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 established that i t s financial required to institute c o n d i t i o n was s u c h t h a t i t was t h e RIF p l a n and, 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. statements i n the hearing m i g h t have q u e s t i o n e d officer's award Some o f t h e indicate that he t h e e x t e n t o f t h e RIF p l a n and whether 11 2110366 all the terminations plan were the Board necessary system. Thus, we t o secure reverse the f i s c a l the hearing remand t h e c a u s e t o t h e h e a r i n g award d e t e r m i n i n g the November decrease plan, which he applied the Board the system to certain proved such t h a t a justifiable the A p r i l nonprobationary support r a i s e d by Sharp i n h i s c r o s s termination f r o m t h e B o a r d was d e f i c i e n t b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t sufficient a RIF necessary. information to permit defense t o h i s proposed t e r m i n a t i o n . 103(a), award and at within officer Sharp argues t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d received contain officer's of the 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 t u r n now t o t h e i s s u e appeal. soundness RIF an e m p l o y e e s , i n c l u d i n g S h a r p , was We the A p r i l f o r him t o e n t e r 2011 h e a r i n g , i n jobs imposed under notice of proposed him t o mount Under former § termination was a 36-26- required to " 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 showing 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 in [former] S e c t i o n 36-26-102." S p e c i f i c a l l y , Sharp complains that the notice f a i l e d to contain facts supporting implement takeover the RIF plan, of the school listed regarding the alleged t h e need t o impending s y s t e m b y t h e s t a t e , o r i n d i c a t i n g why 12 2110366 mechanics like Sharp were employment u n d e r t h e R I F Community C o l l e g e selected plan. for termination Sharp r e l i e s So. 3d 588, State 590 (Ala. Civ. 2009), i n which t h i s court determined t h a t a App. v. A r c h i b l e , 33 on B i s h o p of 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 o f 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 § rise 36-26- 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 of 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, a p a r t y may decision that i s wholly a t 865-66. take f a v o r a b l e t o him. of S h a r p ' s employment and employment; thus, Sharp's that appeal a w a r d was B a i l e y , 475 restored wholly i s i n the be of So. Sharp t o a 2d the Board's favorable nature to an a p p e a l f r o m a 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 termination However, not i s due to his 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 is 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. So. of 2d 2 0 0 6 ) ; B e s s v. W a f f l e House, I n c . , 824 13 the 653, So. 2110366 2d 783, 787 whether ( A l a . C i v . App. the hearing notice provided 2001). officer We w i l l t h e r e f o r e consider s h o u l d have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the i n s u f f i c i e n t under 36- t o S h a r p was former § 26-103(a). As we have r e c e n t l y d e t e r m i n e d , the n o t i c e of 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 former § proposed institution 36-26-103(a) t o the need for that to RIF 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 c l a s s a particular So. 3d a t explained employee in that RIF plan. . i n Stranahan: " I n the present case, the Board c i t e d f i n a n c i a l 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 t h e R I F p o l i c y as t h e b a s i s f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s , 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 . As t h e B o a r d p o i n t s o u t , i n A r c h i b l e , [33 So. 3d a t 5 9 0 ] , t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s a t i s s u e were p r o p o s e d b e c a u s e o f a s p e c i f i c s e 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 , and t h i s c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d that more information was required. I t seems axiomatic that a more detailed statement of 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 d e f e n d a g a i n s t t h o s e a l l e g a t i o n s . I n t h i s c a s e , h o w e v e r , t h e r e 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. The basis for the proposed 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 14 2110366 financial difficulties necessitating implementation of the RIF p o l i c y . the " N e i t h e r S t r a n a h a n n o r Holmes d i s p u t e d t h e n e c e s s i t y of the implementation of the RIF p o l i c y . Rather, each argued b e f o r e t h e i r h e a r i n g o f f i c e r t h a t , as t o h i m , t h e d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e was e r r o n e o u s . S t r a n a h a n a n d Holmes a r g u e on a p p e a l , as each d i d b e f o r e t h e r e s p e c t i v e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s , that the notice they received from the superintendent d i d not a f f o r d them sufficient information t o defend against the s p e c i f i c s e l e c t i o n o f 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 . However, t h i s c o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t , once it i s established that financial circumstances warrant the implementation of a RIF p o l i c y , a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r h a s no d i s c r e t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a p a r t i c u l a r e m p l o y e e ' s employment s h o u l d be terminated pursuant t o that RIF p o l i c y ; rather, i n the a b s e n c e o f an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n was made f o r an i m p r o p e r m o t i v e , s u c h d e t e r m i n a t i o n s are w i t h i n the p r o v i n c e of the employing board. Board of S c h . Comm'rs of Mobile Cnty. v. C h r i s t o p h e r , 97 So. 3d a t 176. The d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h i c h e m p l o y e e s a r e t o be d i s m i s s e d p u r s u a n t t o a R I F p o l i c y i s l e f t t o t h e B o a r d , a n d t h e B o a r d was not r e q u i r e d t o p r e s e n t evidence j u s t i f y i n g i t s d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e employment o f a p a r t i c u l a r employee p u r s u a n t t o t h e R I F p o l i c y . C h r i s t o p h e r , s u p r a ; s e e a l s o W a l k e r v . Montgomery C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 85 So. 3d 1008, 1015-16 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2011) ('The B o a r d was e n t i t l e d t o make t h e d e c i s i o n regarding which contract principals would be n o n r e n e w e d o r w o u l d have t h e i r c o n t r a c t s c a n c e l e d . Courts are not p e r m i t t e d t o usurp the r o l e o f the s c h o o l b o a r d and cannot determine t h a t another c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e one t a k e n b y t h e school board might have been wiser o r more e q u i t a b l e . ' ) . T h e r e f o r e , b e c a u s e t h e B o a r d h a d no b u r d e n o f j u s t i f y i n g i t s t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n s made p u r s u a n t t o t h e R I F p o l i c y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t i t was not r e q u i r e d t o i n c l u d e i n i t s 'short and p l a i n ' 15 2110366 statement o f f a c t s a j u s t i f i c a t i o n of i t s d e c i s i o n t o t e r m i n a t e t h e employment o f S t r a n a h a n o r Holmes in particular." So. 3d a t . S i m i l a r l y , i n the present 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 t h e B o a r d was 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. proposed financial The B o a r d was n o t r e q u i r e d t o g i v e S h a r p n o t i c e o f every aspect o f 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 t h e R I F p l a n , t h e a n t i c i p a t e d cost 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 t o determine i n the RIF plan. that Sharp's position Thus, b a s e d would be on S t r a n a h a n , t h e 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 § 36-26-103(a). APPEAL REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH CROSS-APPEAL Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. AFFIRMED. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 16 Bryan, a n d Moore, JJ.,

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.