Huntsville City Board of Education v. Margaret Johnson

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 04/19/2013 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 2110392 H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n v. Margaret Johnson Margaret Johnson v. H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f E d u c a t i o n (FMCS No. 11-02931) 2110392 PITTMAN, J u d g e . The Huntsville appeals from Board's approval Margaret a hearing of the Board of Education officer's decision t e r m i n a t i o n of ("the Board") reversing the the employment of J o h n s o n ; Johnson c r o s s - a p p e a l e d , a s s e r t i n g t h a t the hearing o f f i c e r of City e r r e d i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the Board's n o t i c e t e r m i n a t i o n was sufficient. Procedural History On April 25, 2011, Dr. Ann Roy Moore, who was at that time the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t of the Board, sent a n o t i c e t o Johnson and the Board of her intent t o recommend t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f Johnson's employment; t h a t n o t i c e s t a t e d the f o l l o w i n g for the proposed reason t e r m i n a t i o n of Johnson's employment: " 1 . Due t o f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e B o a r d must reduce the number of i t s employees. To a c c o m p l i s h t h i s , t h e B o a r d has a d o p t e d a R e d u c t i o n i n F o r c e P l a n . The s e l e c t i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e e s t o be t e r m i n a t e d i s b a s e d upon t h e j o b classifications a f f e c t e d by t h e R e d u c t i o n i n F o r c e P l a n and y e a r s o f 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 s e r v i c e i n each s p e c i f i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d a r e a t o be t e r m i n a t e d b e f o r e t h o s e w i t h greater seniority)." The Board upheld Dr. Moore's recommendation J o h n s o n ' s employment a t a s p e c i a l s e s s i o n on May Dr. Moore sent a letter notifying 2 Johnson of to terminate 17, 2011, the and Board's 2110392 decision within and 15 of days. her right Johnson contest timely to the the initiated Board and Board's a decision contest termination in a hearing s u b s e q u e n t l y h e l d on t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e was letter to Dr. of Moore, a the and a hearing officer. On January 4, 2012, the hearing d e c i s i o n c o n t a i n i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and the d e c i s i o n s t a t e d , i n p e r t i n e n t officer rendered conclusions of part: "To s u p p o r t t h e p r o p o s e d a d v e r s e a c t i o n , t h e B o a r d m u s t [ ] show i t s a c t i o n s were r a t i o n a l , reasonable, relevant to i t s task, and logical. In less e p h e m e r a l and more c o n c r e t e t e r m s , t h e B o a r d must p r o v i d e s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f t h a t i t was suffering a severe f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p , t h a t the a c t i o n s taken were i n r e s p o n s e t o t h a t h a r d s h i p , and t h a t i t i s r e a s o n a b l y l i k e l y t h a t the a c t i o n s w i l l improve the f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n of the Board. "The H e a r i n g O f f i c e r w i l l assume -without deciding -that the Board is suffering a substantial financial hardship. The Board has presented sufficient evidence, including its b u d g e t a r y s h o r t f a l l and a c o m p a r i s o n o f r a t e s o f support to c e r t i f i e d s t a f f i n s i m i l a r s c h o o l systems to at l e a s t presume a financial hardship for p u r p o s e s of t h i s award. T h i s , however, i s m e r e l y a n e c e s s a r y p r e c o n d i t i o n and n o t , i n and o f i t s e l f , s u f f i c i e n t to p r o v i d e j u s t cause or e s t a b l i s h 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 . The B o a r d a l s o has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g by s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t the a c t i o n taken i n response to t h i s h a r d s h i p i s a n e c e s s a r y and reasonable step designed to directly improve the fiscal position of the 3 a law; 2110392 institutions. burden. Here, the Board failed to carry i t s "... M e r e l y e l i m i n a t i n g [ J o h n s o n ' s ] p o s i t i o n , without r e d u c i n g or e l i m i n a t i n g the d u t i e s or the c o s t o f p e r f o r m i n g t h o s e d u t i e s may reduce the amount o f s a l a r y i n one l i n e i t e m o f t h e B o a r d ' s b u d g e t , b u t i t does n o t p r o v i d e any r e a l s a v i n g s t o the Board. The p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n may n o t be s u p p o r t e d by s h i f t i n g amounts i n l i n e i t e m s i n a b u d g e t ; i n s t e a d , i t must m e a n i n g f u l l y a d d r e s s t h e f i n a n c i a l t r o u b l e s and p r o v i d e d i r e c t and m e a s u r a b l e r e l i e f from those t r o u b l e s . " The hearing officer present evidence employment would concluded that indicating "have the B o a r d had that failed terminating significant fiscal to Johnson's benefit to the B o a r d , " f o u n d t h a t no a c t i o n s h o u l d be t a k e n a g a i n s t Johnson, and proposed sustained Johnson's objection to the Board's t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r employment. The timely Board timely cross-appealed. the p a r t i e s to f i l e important appealed to this court, and This court entered orders letter briefs reasons" f o r accepting setting the a p p e a l , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, forth a p p e a l and Johnson requiring "special the and cross- former § 36-26-104(b), 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 o r m e r F D A " ) , A l a . 4 2110392 Code 1975, § 36-26-100 e t s e q . this 1 The p a r t i e s complied, and c o u r t a c c e p t e d b o t h t h e a p p e a l and t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l . Facts Dr. C r a i g Pouncey, t h e Deputy S u p e r i n t e n d e n t f o r Finance and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f o r t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , that one o f h i s d u t i e s complied districts was t o make with the State's f i n a n c i a l i n Alabama. 2 sure that requirements r e q u i r e s the Board Board f o r school Fiscal § 16-13A-1 e t t o " m a i n t a i n a minimum r e s e r v e e q u a l t o one month's o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s . " 16-13A-9(a). the Among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h e S c h o o l A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ( " t h e S F A A " ) , A l a . Code 1975, seq., testified fund A l a . Code 1975, § A c c o r d i n g t o D r . P o u n c e y , d u r i n g t h e 2009 f i s c a l year, the Board had a negative balance o f $20 m i l l i o n ; t h u s , b e c a u s e t h e B o a r d was a l s o r e q u i r e d t o a c h i e v e a $16 m i l l i o n The f o r m e r FDA was r e p e a l e d a n d 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 , A l a . Code 1975, § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , e f f e c t i v e J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 . B e c a u s e t h e B o a r d t e r m i n a t e d J o h n s o n ' s employment b e f o r e J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 , a n d 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 f o r m e r FDA i n t h e present case. 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, 166-67 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) . 1 A t r a n s c r i p t o f D r . P o u n c e y ' s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r as p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d . D r . Pouncey d i d n o t t e s t i f y a t t h e h e a r i n g ; a l l r e f e r e n c e s t o Dr. Pouncey's testimony refer t o testimony given in his deposition. 2 5 2110392 f u n d b a l a n c e f o r one month's o p e r a t i n g e x p e n s e s , t h e B o a r d h a d a d e f i c i t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $36 m i l l i o n . that, to address that d e f i c i t , things, c h a n g i n g some bus vehicles minimum maintained amount by received classified d e c r e a s i n g t h e number Board, from the tying State, to adopting a employees, salary staff. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f t h e B o a r d h a d n o t a d o p t e d t h o s e the d e f i c i t , the and the for to address support salaries of freeze recommendations or testified he h a d s u g g e s t e d , among o t h e r routes, the Dr. Pouncey reducing State Board of E d u c a t i o n w o u l d have i n t e r v e n e d and t a k e n o v e r c o n t r o l o f t h e school system. Belinda Williams, resources department, meeting, the Board ("RIF") plan that terminated, which the director of the Board's t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t a F e b r u a r y 10, approved listed an 29 initial job classifications human2011, reduction-in-force classifications included 137 to be employees. D r . E d R i c h a r d s o n , who was h i r e d by t h e B o a r d i n F e b r u a r y 2011, a f t e r t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e i n i t i a l R I F p l a n , t o s e r v e as a c o n s u l t a n t to the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t e s t i f i e d 6 that the Board 2110392 had h a d no c h o i c e but t o reduce p e r s o n n e l . he, l i k e Pouncey, f i r s t looked 3 He s t a t e d that a t r e d u c i n g expenses i n areas t h a t would not a f f e c t employees, i n c l u d i n g s e l l i n g v e h i c l e s , o u t s o u r c i n g t h e B o a r d ' s f l e e t management, c h a n g i n g bus r o u t e s , and c h a n g i n g s a l a r i e s so t h a t new e m p l o y e e s w o u l d be e m p l o y e d according to the State's minimum-salary schedule. He t e s t i f i e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t , a t t h e t i m e he made h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n to the Board regarding personnel extent as c u t s , he d i d n o t know t o what t h e B o a r d h a d f o l l o w e d t h r o u g h on t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s t o t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t h a t estimate he also had been unable t h e amount o f r e v e n u e t h a t w o u l d be g e n e r a t e d the s a l e of v e h i c l e s . Dr. Richardson s t a t e d t h a t he to from presented t h e B o a r d w i t h a t w o - y e a r p l a n p u r s u a n t t o w h i c h i t w o u l d make half o f the budget cuts t h e 2013 f i s c a l y e a r savings. He i n t h e 2012 f i s c a l year and h a l f i n f o r a f i n a n c i a l t a r g e t o f $40 m i l l i o n i n testified that he h a d i n c r e a s e d the targeted s a v i n g s t o $40 m i l l i o n b a s e d on c o n c e r n s t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e would make changes effectively decreasing t h e amount the A t r a n s c r i p t o f D r . R i c h a r d s o n ' s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r as p a r t o f t h e r e c o r d . D r . Richardson d i d not t e s t i f y a t the h e a r i n g ; a l l references t o Dr. R i c h a r d s o n ' s testimony r e f e r to testimony given i n h i s deposition. 3 7 2110392 s c h o o l system would r e c e i v e f o r teachers and b e c a u s e he was n o t c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e amount o f t h e s a v i n g s w o u l d t u r n o u t as p r e d i c t e d b e c a u s e t h e f i g u r e s were c o n s t a n t l y e v o l v i n g . A c c o r d i n g t o Dr. R i c h a r d s o n , to m a i n t a i n the i n t e g r i t y in determining system to determine more w i t h and than the Richardson Richardson He terminate, attempted stated that, he spoke i n v a r i o u s departments w i t h i n the with school t h e a b s o l u t e minimum t h e d e p a r t m e n t s c o u l d t h a t , i n some i n s t a n c e s , he supervisors and had of the classroom. which p o s i t i o n s to s u p e r v i s o r s or s t a f f operate i n m a k i n g c u t s , he Williams identified were both willing to testified p o s i t i o n s t o be had give that, had to cut up. Dr. once Dr. t e r m i n a t e d , he had b a s e d on s e n i o r i t y and a supplemental RIF p l a n , which employees w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c job classification w o u l d be consulted w i t h W i l l i a m s to determine, Dr. R i c h a r d s o n he had not terminated. t e s t i f i e d t h a t the i n i t i a l RIF p l a n , which participated in developing, p r o b a t i o n a r y s u p p o r t e m p l o y e e s , o r t h o s e who had had b e e n e m p l o y e d by t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m f o r l e s s t h a n t h r e e y e a r s . Dr. R i c h a r d s o n , i n the s u p p l e m e n t a l by the Board at a meeting on 8 terminated According R I F p l a n , w h i c h was April 21, 2011, the to passed Board 2110392 terminated 4.5 nontenured assistant principals, adopting administrators, 154 n o n t e n u r e d c e r t i f i e d 45 a d d i t i o n a l p r o b a t i o n a r y that certified t e a c h e r s , and s u p p o r t employees. h i s proposed or testified would recommendations He save t h e B o a r d $23 m i l l i o n e a c h y e a r o f t h e t w o - y e a r p l a n . Williams employed testified by the Board; supplemental RIF. testified that that Johnson was her p o s i t i o n the only was listed Wendy S a l a n d y , t h e p r i n t - s h o p she s u p e r v i s e d Johnson, who printer i n the foreperson, printed books, c a r d s , a n d f o r m s f o r t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m , a n d t h a t i t w o u l d be difficult to continue operating Johnson. Salandy stated that, three people, including herself print shop and t h a t , the p r i n t i n busy shop months, without she needed and Johnson, w o r k i n g i n t h e i f J o h n s o n ' s employment was t e r m i n a t e d , she w o u l d be t h e o n l y w o r k e r r e m a i n i n g i n t h e p r i n t shop. stated that she d i d n o t a g r e e terminate Johnson's coordinator print been t h e recommendation Marc f o r the Board, t e s t i f i e d shop, among o t h e r a r e a s . communicated had employment. with She to Seldon, the materials t h a t he s u p e r v i s e d t h e Seldon t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d w i t h Dr. R i c h a r d s o n before the supplemental R I F implemented and t h a t 9 he and Dr. R i c h a r d s o n had 2110392 discussed the t h a t , i f e v e r y o n e i n t h e p r i n t s h o p were s u b j e c t t o supplemental additional that, costs RIF, the schools i n having their i n h i s opinion, would be subject work p r i n t e d . having the p r i n t He to stated shop saved t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m money. Discussion The Board argues that the hearing officer erred in r e q u i r i n g the Board t o prove that the a c t i o n taken i n response to the presumed reasonable position step of rational, financial designed hardship to the i n s t i t u t i o n s " reasonable, relevant " i s a directly and necessary improve the that " i t s actions to i t s tasks, and and fiscal were logical." The B o a r d f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t , a f t e r f i r s t p r e s u m i n g t h a t t h e Board hearing to i s suffering a substantial o f f i c e r erred i n concluding show t h a t financial hardship, the t h a t the Board had f a i l e d i t s a c t i o n s were i n r e s p o n s e t o t h a t financial hardship. In that the notice provided her proposed circumstances, employees. t o Johnson, termination was the Board indicated due financial to r e q u i r i n g t h e B o a r d t o r e d u c e t h e number o f i t s I n 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 , 10 2110392 263 A l a . 372, 82 So. 2d 549 (1955), a t e a c h e r ' s employment was t e r m i n a t e d b a s e d case i n which a on a " d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s , " t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t " t h e o n l y p e r t i n e n t i n q u i r y was 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 t h e number o f t e a c h i n g p o s i t i o n s . ' " 263 A l a . a t 375, 82 Commissioners 176 So. 2d a t 552. In Board of School 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 163, ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) , t h i s c o u r t a d o p t e d t h a t , a n d o t h e r , r e a s o n i n g and d e t e r m i n e d t h a t , "once t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t [ t h e e m p l o y e e ' s ] employment was p r o p e r l y t e r m i n a t e d due t o a justifiable hearing officer termination case, d e c r e a s e i n j o b s w i t h i n t h e s y s t e m was made, t h e had decision no authority of the Board." to second-guess Thus, the i n the present t h e B o a r d was r e q u i r e d t o p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f p o o r financial c i r c u m s t a n c e s and t h a t a r a t i o n a l response t o t h a t c o n d i t i o n w o u l d be t o d e c r e a s e t h e number o f e m p l o y e e s i n t h e school system. Once t h e B o a r d made s u c h a s h o w i n g , t h e b u r d e n s h i f t e d t o Johnson t o prove that the supplemental RIF plan was n o t a r a t i o n a l response t o t h e Board's f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s ; t h a t the Board failed to follow i t s supplemental RIF p l a n , 11 see 2110392 Mobile Civ. C n t y . Bd. App. o f Sch. 2010); Comm'rs v. that employment f o r p e r s o n a l 1975, former § probationary v. K e a s l e r , officer the Board employee. See, A l a . 231, that e.g., 82 So. So. reasons, the B o a r d had Pickens 2d 197 financial hardship, that response to t h a t hardship, and In C h r i s t o p h e r , Ala. C n t y . Bd. (1955). actions financial however, t h i s the number decreased of p o s i t i o n s due funding,"'" courts to The hearing suffering a taken were may not court concluded usurp Christopher, Cnty. Bd. 2011)). (when See there teaching resting of 97 So. 3d Educ., 85 at 175 So. ( q u o t i n g W a l k e r v. 3d 1008, 1016 a "justifiable p o s i t i o n s , " "the entirely with the right decrease of employing 12 of in the Montgomery App. 82 So. 2d a t 552 the number of selection is Board or canceled. (Ala. Civ. a l s o W i l l i a m s , 263 A l a . a t 375, is decrease role s c h o o l b o a r d i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h p o s i t i o n s w o u l d be the that, enrollment the in likely c o n d i t i o n of decreased a of Educ. once i t i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e i s a " ' " j u s t i f i a b l e in Code retained that i t i s reasonably t h a t the a c t i o n s w i l l improve the Board." the 6 (Ala. Johnson's see r e q u i r e d t h e B o a r d t o p r o v e " t h a t i t was severe 3d terminated or p o l i t i c a l 36-26-102; or 263 L o n g , 46 of a matter Education"). 2110392 Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r element requiring the Board e r r o n e o u s l y a d d e d an to j u s t i f y the termination Johnson's employment o v e r t h a t o f a n o t h e r s i m i l a r l y employee, that addition was i n error. Because of situated the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d i d n o t r e a c h t h a t f i n a l e l e m e n t , h o w e v e r , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e e r r o r was harmless. See R u l e 45, A l a . R. App. With r e g a r d t o the q u e s t i o n whether that i t was officer to suffering a financial assumed, w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e Board had adopted the supplemental financial hardship. officer We RIF P. the B o a r d had p r o v e d hardship, t h a t i t was the and hearing proceeded f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t i t had plan in response to that agree w i t h the Board t h a t the h e a r i n g erred i n that regard. The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e B o a r d h a d p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h e c o s t s a v i n g s t h a t w o u l d be from the termination of Johnson's employment, derived opining that e l i m i n a t i n g her p o s i t i o n , "without r e d u c i n g or e l i m i n a t i n g the duties the o r t h e c o s t o f p e r f o r m i n g t h o s e d u t i e s [ , ] may amount o f s a l a r y i n one l i n e i t e m of the Board's reduce budget, b u t i t does n o t p r o v i d e any r e a l savings to the Board." hearing the Board officer determined that 13 had presented The no 2110392 e v i d e n c e o f any cost savings t o be derived from the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n o f J o h n s o n ' s employment and n o t e d t h a t S a l a n d y t e s t i f i e d that a person indicated "the filling P r i n t Shop c o u l d n o t be the E m p l o y e e ' s d u t i e s " and t h a t the p r i n t shop p r o v i d e d t h e B o a r d compared t o o u t s o u r c i n g We the note only first that employee operated a net that, testified that i f everyone s u p p l e m e n t a l RIF, costs for their testimony, in the in and the the i n the Dr. print schools printing. however, would r e s u l t he that print she w o u l d be of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s a n a l y s i s , evidence of "the v a l u e employee, violates W i l l i a m s , supra, the shop is were the no requiring established that indication shop. to the additional in the employment Regardless, the Board to a provide particular i n Christopher not usurp the r o l e of school board i n determining w h i c h e m p l o y e e s s h o u l d be in reducing positions. 14 be discussed subject Johnson's print t h a t t h e c o u r t s may t h e number o f to "difficult." had o f t h e work p r o d u c e d " by rule and subject to terminating closing had would shop Richardson There that Seldon cost savings o p e r a t i n g t h e p r i n t shop w i t h o u t J o h n s o n w o u l d be Seldon without t h a t work. Salandy t e s t i f i e d remaining that had and the selected 2110392 The testimony of both Dr. Pouncey and Dr. Richardson i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s made i n t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l RIF plan Dr. were necessary i n b a l a n c i n g the Board's budget. R i c h a r d s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d a t t e m p t e d t o make c u t s t h a t l e a s t i m p a c t e d t h e c l a s s r o o m and t h a t t h e s u p e r v i s o r s he w i t h were n o t w i l l i n g was required facilities, safety to t o g i v e up cut. John maintenance, t h e number o f e m p l o y e e s F. Brown, construction, f o r the s c h o o l system, spoke testified the director transportation, that he disagreed positions. required By with the effectively to present a decision to some p e o p l e terminate concluding that cost-benefit analysis the of and h a d s u p e r v i s e d had b e e n t e r m i n a t e d f r o m t h e i r employment that he he and those Board was r e g a r d i n g "the v a l u e o f t h e work p r o d u c e d " by e a c h e m p l o y e e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e specific terminations enacted in the supplemental RIF r a t i o n a l l y addressed the f i n a n c i a l circumstances of the Board, the hearing whether the officer i m p e r m i s s i b l y attempted determine " 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 by s c h o o l board might Walker, to 85 So. have b e e n w i s e r o r more 3d a t 1016. E d u c . v. F r a s i e r , See also Huntsville [Ms. 2110427, Feb. 22, 2013] 15 equitable." C i t y Bd. So. 3d of 2110392 (Ala. C i v . App. 2013). Because the hearing officer acted o u t s i d e t h e s t a t u t o r y r e v i e w a u t h o r i t y c o n f e r r e d by t h e f o r m e r FDA, we r e v e r s e the cause 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 , and we for further consideration b a s e d on t h e p r e c e d i n g In her termination may Johnson n o t i c e t o h e r was affect the Because hearing address the argument. officer argues that the Board's d e f e c t i v e under the p r o v i s i o n s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n officer's Johnson 4 notice f a i l e d to provide facts" supporting the h e a r i n g analysis. cross-appeal, o f t h e f o r m e r FDA. by remand decision argues a "short the reason given that and p l a i n of that on issue remand, the we termination statement of the for termination. Code 1975, f o r m e r § 36-2 6 - 1 0 3 ( a ) . Soleyn, 33 So. 3d 584 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) , and B i s h o p S t a t e Community C o l l e g e v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 588 C i t i n g Ex p a r t e See A l a . (Ala. Civ. App. 2009), Johnson a s s e r t s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e n o t i c e f a i l e d t o m e n t i o n the reasons hearing f o r her officer, termination including a a r g u e d by funding the Board deficit, to the a potential J o h n s o n f i r s t r a i s e d t h e argument t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d a d e f e c t i v e t e r m i n a t i o n n o t i c e i n her post-hearing brief. Without conclusively deciding whether Johnson properly preserved t h e i s s u e f o r a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w , we a d d r e s s t h e argument o u t o f an abundance o f c a u t i o n . 4 16 2110392 takeover the o f t h e B o a r d ' s f i n a n c e s , o r any termination of Johnson's employment. Soleyn, t h e e m p l o y e e s were t e r m i n a t e d So. at 3d 591. In the condition requiring present In Archible and b a s e d on m i s c o n d u c t . case, there are no specific a l l e g a t i o n s of misconduct f o r Johnson t o defend a g a i n s t . H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Bd. 1, 2013] So. Additionally, B o a r d had takeover o f E d u c . v. S t r a n a h a n , no an on a rather, relation the Johnson's (Ala. presented funding deficit independent reason employment; to , e v i d e n c e was relied as 3d difficulties i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the a potential that Johnson f u r t h e r a s s e r t s t h a t the were that the State Johnson's r e f e r r e d to and s u p p l e m e n t a l RIF 2013) . i n d i c a t i n g that r e a s o n s were notice App. for terminating financial See 2110252, M a r c h Civ. or those termination [Ms. 33 only in cited in required the plan. Board f a i l e d to inform h e r o f t h e r e a s o n s t h a t h e r p o s i t i o n as a p r i n t e r was selected to may be terminated. As discussed above, the courts usurp the r o l e of the s c h o o l systems i n s e l e c t i n g the e m p l o y e e s t o be terminated. t h e B o a r d must s p e c i f y t h e of RIF employment o f e a c h e m p l o y e e a f f e c t e d by i s without specific Thus, J o h n s o n ' s a s s e r t i o n reasons regarding merit. 17 the the not that termination supplemental 2110392 J o h n s o n does n o t argue that financial difficulties not r e q u i r e the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the supplement RIF; did rather, she a r g u e s t h a t a l l t h e r e a s o n s t h a t l e d t o t h o s e difficulties were n o t We i n the Board's n o t i c e sufficient that listed notice was proposed agree termination with Johnson of given her that to to her. Johnson employment, the content of and conclude regarding we that the thus cannot notice would i n d e p e n d e n t l y w a r r a n t the s e t t i n g a s i d e of the t e r m i n a t i o n her employment o f f i c e r was APPEAL (a d e t e r m i n a t i o n that, we note, the of hearing s i m i l a r l y u n w i l l i n g t o make). REVERSED AND CROSS-APPEAL AFFIRMED. Thomas, Moore, and Thompson, P . J . , REMANDED. Donaldson, J J . , concur. concurs i n the 18 result, without 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.