Huntsville City Board of Education v. Ann Frasier et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 02/22/2013
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
2110427
H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education
v.
Ann F r a s i e r e t a l .
(FMCS No. 11-02946)
On A p p l i c a t i o n f o r R e h e a r i n g
MOORE, J u d g e .
T h i s c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n o f November 30, 2012, i s w i t h d r a w n ,
and
the following i s s u b s t i t u t e d therefor.
2110427
The
Huntsville
appeals
from
HCBOE's
action
Jodie
a
City
hearing
Board
of Education
officer's
decision
t e r m i n a t i n g t h e employment
Lindstrom,
Johnna
Lamelle,
Rene
("the HCBOE")
reversing
the
o f Ann
Frasier,
Robinson,
Deborah
H a t t o n , B r y a n t B e n s o n , A n t h o n y McCurdy, Freeman M i l t o n ,
Tracy
P o w e l l , Anthony C r u t c h e r , G a r r i s o n F r i e n d , P a t t y Smith,
David
Yarborough,
Berryhill
C a r l F o r d , H a r v e y F i s h e r , Jimmy C o b b l e , a n d S t e v e
(hereinafter
referred
to
collectively
as " t h e
appellees").
Procedural
On A p r i l
Background
25, 2 0 1 1 , Dr. Ann Moore, who was a t t h a t
t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f t h e HCBOE, gave n o t i c e t o e a c h
appellees
a n d t o t h e HCBOE o f h e r i n t e n t
jobs
i n t h e system
notices further stated,
or other
good
ofthe
t o recommend t h e
t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e i r s e r v i c e s due t o a " j u s t i f i a b l e
in
and j u s t
decrease
causes."
i npertinent part:
"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 [ H C B O E ] must
r e d u c e t h e number o f i t s e m p l o y e e s .
To a c c o m p l i s h
t h i s , t h e [HCBOE] has adopted a R e d u c t i o n i n F o r c e
Plan.
The s e l e c t i o n
o f t h e employees
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 years o f
s e r v i c e w i t h i n t h e H u n t s v i l l e S c h o o l System (those
w i t h fewer years o f s e r v i c e i n each
specifically
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 s e n i o r i t y ) . "
2
time
The
2110427
In
response
contested
their
to
Dr.
proposed
Moore's
notices,
terminations,
u n d e r f o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975,
Fair
D i s m i s s a l A c t ("the F D A " ) ,
A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 .
May
17
and
1
2 0 1 1 , t h e HCBOE
recommended t e r m i n a t i o n s .
a s was t h e i r
h e l d b y t h e HCBOE on
voted
to
approve
the
Each o f t h e a p p e l l e e s c o n t e s t e d t h e
on O c t o b e r 24 a n d
2 0 1 1 . On J a n u a r y 26, 2 0 1 2 , t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r e n t e r e d a
decision
r e v e r s i n g t h e HCBOE's d e c i s i o n , c o n c l u d i n g
a c t i o n s h o u l d be t a k e n
from t h e h e a r i n g
officer's
HCBOE p r e s e n t e d
appeal,
accepted
decision.
a n o t i c e of appeal
A f t e r concluding
" s p e c i a l and important
reasons"
s e e f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975,
the appeal
t h a t no
against the appellees.
On F e b r u a r y 3, 2 0 1 2 , t h e HCBOE f i l e d
the
right
a p a r t o f t h e former
HCBOE's d e c i s i o n i n a c o n s o l i d a t e d h e a r i n g
25,
appellees
f o r m e r § 36-26-100 e t s e q . ,
Pursuant t o conferences
18,
the
on June 19,
that
f o r the
this
court
2012.
The
FDA h a s s i n c e b e e n 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 , § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975,
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 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 o o l 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. 3 d 163, 166-67 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 2 ) .
1
3
2110427
E v i d e n t i a r y and S t a t u t o r y Background
I n 2006, t h e A l a b a m a L e g i s l a t u r e p a s s e d t h e S c h o o l F i s c a l
A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ("the S F A A " ) .
Code
1975.
The
SFAA
See § 16-13A-1 e t s e q . , A l a .
mandates
and o p e r a t e
that
under,
a l l local
sound
boards
of
education
adopt,
fiscal-management
policies,
§ 16-13A-1, i n c l u d i n g e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g
a r e s e r v e f u n d 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 .
13A-9,
A l a . Code
provides
1975.
To
f o r the appointment
assure
of l o c a l
v e r i f y a n d r e p o r t on t h e f i n a n c i a l
of
education.
financial
§
16-13A-4,
financial
the
1975.
and a n a l y z e d
SFAA
officers
t r a n s a c t i o n s o f each
A l a . Code
reports are c o l l e c t e d
Financial Officer
compliance,
§ 16-
The
by
to
board
various
the Chief
("CFO") o f t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n .
§
16-13A-2, A l a . Code 1975.
I f , upon a n a l y s i s o f t h e f i n a n c i a l
reports,
that a l o c a l board of education i s
i t i s determined
o p e r a t i n g i n a f i s c a l l y u n s o u n d manner, t h e CFO must p r o v i d e
assistance
to restore
board of education.
to
Superintendent")
provide
on-site
integrity
of that
local
I d . I n some c a s e s , t h e CFO c a n recommend
the Superintendent
State
the f i n a n c i a l
of the State Board
t h a t he
continuous
o r she a p p o i n t
advice
4
of Education
on
("the
a person
day-to-day
to
financial
2110427
operations.
Educ.).
R u l e 2 9 0 - 4 - 1 - . 0 1 , A l a . Admin. Code ( S t a t e Bd. o f
I n extreme cases,
when s u c h
does n o t remedy t h e s i t u a t i o n ,
upon
the
recommendation
Superintendent,
may
continuous
assistance
the State Board of
of
authorize
the
CFO
the State
assume d i r e c t c o n t r o l o f t h e f i n a n c e s
2 9 0 - 4 - 1 - . 0 1 ( d ) , A l a . Admin. Code
and
Education,
the
State
Superintendent to
of a l o c a l board.
Rule
( S t a t e Bd. o f E d u c . ) .
A f t e r t h e e n a c t m e n t o f t h e SFAA, Dr. W a r r e n C r a i g P o u n c e y
assumed t h e d u t i e s o f t h e CFO.
HCBOE
was
almost
immediately
financial practices.
Dr.
Moore
a letter
corrective
finances.
measures
Despite
financial
Dr. P o u n c e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e
records
placed
under
watch
for
i t s
On November 30, 2007, Dr. P o u n c e y w r o t e
advising
her that
i n order
to avoid
that
showed
warning,
that
t h e HCBOE s h o u l d
take
further deteriorating
by
2010, t h e HCBOE's
i t had i n c u r r e d
financial
o b l i g a t i o n s e x c e e d i n g i t s a b i l i t y t o p a y b y a p p r o x i m a t e l y $20
million
a n d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d n o t m a i n t a i n e d a r e s e r v e
o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $16 m i l l i o n
Pouncey
issued
a
report
t h e HCBOE
fund
a s r e q u i r e d b y § 16-13A-9.
t o t h e HCBOE
indicating
that
$35,803,051
f o r t h e f i s c a l y e a r 2009.
i n December
had experienced
5
a
Dr.
2010
shortfall
of
I n h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr.
2110427
P o u n c e y a t t r i b u t e d t h a t s h o r t f a l l t o a d e c r e a s e i n f u n d i n g due
to
several
years
of state
diminishing
local
t a x revenue,
the
t o make
HCBOE
expenditures,
proration
as w e l l
equivalent
particularly
o f budget
and
funds
as t o t h e f a i l u r e o f
anticipatory
i n regard
and
cuts
to staffing,
in
which,
a c c o r d i n g t o D r . P o u n c e y , composed 8 6 % t o 8 7 % o f t h e HCBOE's
budget.
D r . P o u n c e y recommended t h a t t h e HCBOE t a k e v a r i o u s
a c t i o n s t o cure i t s f i n a n c i a l problems,
support
staff
from
1,100 p o s i t i o n s
including reducing i t s
t o 850.
2
Dr. Pouncey
t e s t i f i e d t h a t , i f t h e HCBOE h a d n o t a c t e d as r e q u e s t e d , " t h e
S t a t e B o a r d w o u l d have o f f i c i a l l y
control
of the d i s t r i c t "
i n t e r v e n e d and taken
a n d made t h e n e c e s s a r y
over
personnel
cuts.
The
plan
HCBOE a d o p t e d
i n February
an i n i t i a l
2011,
reduction-in-force
("RIF")
t e r m i n a t i n g t h e employment o f , among
o t h e r s , 137 p r o b a t i o n a r y s u p p o r t s t a f f , i . e . , s u p p o r t
who h a d n o t y e t b e e n e m p l o y e d f o r 3 c o n t i n u o u s y e a r s .
that
RIF plan
Richardson,
was
a former
adopted,
t h e HCBOE
Superintendent
retained
of the State
workers
After
Dr. Ed
Board
of
" S u p p o r t s t a f f " r e f e r s t o e m p l o y e e s who d i d n o t s e r v e i n
a teaching capacity.
2
6
2110427
Education,
testified
as
a
consultant.
by d e p o s i t i o n ,
Dr.
agreed
with
Richardson,
who
Dr. Pouncey
that the
HCBOE h a d h a d "no o t h e r c h o i c e " b u t t o r e d u c e p e r s o n n e l .
Pouncey and h i s o f f i c e worked w i t h Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
a
plan
to further
personnel
reduce
expenses
the support
o f t h e HCBOE
l i k e l y t o impact classroom
of
t h e heads
i n a manner t h a t was
least
system
regarding
personnel
Williams,
department,
Richardson
in
the
and which,
of
testified
their
with
support
whom D r . R i c h a r d s o n
the hearing
of
that
the
she
officer.
HCBOE's
had
had
Belinda
human-resources
not agreed
with
Dr.
on t h e number o f p o s i t i o n s t h a t c o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d
h e r d e p a r t m e n t , b u t , she s a i d , D r . R i c h a r d s o n
budge"
the school
jobs.
before
director
t h e n met w i t h many
within
of the supervisors
testified
should i n v e s t i g a t e f o r
departments
many,
would lose t h e i r
Three
conferred
how
Dr. Pouncey developed
Dr. Richardson
of the various
to develop
other
a l i s t of p o s i t i o n s t h a t Dr. Richardson
p o s s i b l e employment a c t i o n .
Dr.
and
instruction.
personnel
also
on h i s p r o p o s a l
t o terminate
"would n o t
t h e employment
o f two
s u p p o r t e m p l o y e e s i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e two s u p p o r t e m p l o y e e s who
had
a l r e a d y l o s t t h e i r j o b s under t h e i n i t i a l
7
RIF plan.
2110427
Marc
Seldon,
the materials
testified
that
including
i t s warehouse
department.
he
managed
Seldon
coordinator
several
areas
f o r t h e HCBOE,
f o r t h e HCBOE,
a n d , a t one t i m e ,
testified
that
he
its
landscaping
had p r o v i d e d
R i c h a r d s o n w i t h an o u t l i n e o f t h e p o t e n t i a l s a v i n g s
c o u l d e x p e c t from c o n t r a c t i n g l a n d s c a p i n g
contractors
reduction
Dr.
Richardson
recommended
p o s i t i o n s of a l l the landscape workers
as w e l l as some o f t h e warehousemen.
felt
like
HCBOE.
o f what
Seldon
positions
w o u l d have
3
e l i m i n a t i n g the
and i n v e n t o r y
clerks,
Seldon t e s t i f i e d
5
area.
4
that
D r . R i c h a r d s o n ' s d e c i s i o n a n d t h a t he
the decision
understanding
t h e impact o f any
employed i n t h e warehouse
had t h e r e a f t e r
he was n o t happy w i t h
t h e HCBOE
services to outside
a n d t h a t he h a d a l s o d i s c u s s e d
i n the workforce
Dr.
had
those
stated
made
positions
that
for elimination
been
accomplished
the plan
from
without
had
a
for
targeted
h i s departments
clear
the
more
"than [ h e ]
liked."
O f t h e a p p e l l e e s , B e n s o n , McCurdy,
work as l a n d s c a p e t e c h n i c i a n s .
3
4
F r i e n d s e r v e s as an i n v e n t o r y
5
Crutcher
i s e m p l o y e d as a
8
Milton,
and
clerk.
warehouseman/mover.
Powell
2110427
J o h n Brown,
facilities,
testified
the d i r e c t o r of construction,
transportation,
that
and
Dr. Richardson
safety
maintenance,
f o r the
had informed
him t h a t h i s
d e p a r t m e n t s w o u l d be h e a v i l y a f f e c t e d b y j o b c u t s .
to
Brown, D r . R i c h a r d s o n
positions
he s u p e r v i s e d
considered
only
equipment
"archaic."
had asked him t o look
one
operator
6
According
a t a l l the
and determine which p o s i t i o n s
t o be n o n e s s e n t i a l .
identified
HCBOE,
Brown t e s t i f i e d
nonessential
--
because,
position
he
said,
that
—
he h a d
building-
i t had
D r . R i c h a r d s o n u l t i m a t e l y recommended
Brown
become
terminating
f r o m Brown's d e p a r t m e n t s t h r e e o f t h e f o u r p a i n t e r p o s i t i o n s ,
7
all
of the mechanics,
9
the
lone welder,
1 0
8
three
of four data-entry
a n d a t l e a s t two c a r p e n t r y
technicians,
apprentices.
1 1
Brown t e s t i f i e d t h a t he f e l t l i k e t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s h a d b e e n
6
Fisher
7
C o b b l e w o r k s as a p a i n t e r .
8
Berryhill
9
S m i t h i s e m p l o y e d as a d a t a - e n t r y
1 0
acts
as a b u i l d i n g - e q u i p m e n t
operator.
i s d e s i g n a t e d as a m e c h a n i c .
technician.
F o r d i s t h e o n l y w e l d e r e m p l o y e d b y t h e HCBOE.
Yarborough i s c l a s s i f i e d
a l s o w o r k s as a l o c k s m i t h .
as a c a r p e n t r y
1 1
9
apprentice
but
2110427
made h a s t i l y
and w i t h o u t
complete
i n f o r m a t i o n and t h a t , i n
some c a s e s , t h e y w o u l d n o t p r o d u c e an e f f i c i e n t outcome.
Dr.
Richardson
appellees
or review
their positions.
or
d i d n o t p e r s o n a l l y meet w i t h a n y o f t h e
firsthand
still
person
the a p p e l l e e s .
hiring
t o the proper
functioning
b y someone.
had been i d e n t i f i e d
independent
I n most i n s t a n c e s , no
t o assume t h e d u t i e s o f
contractors t o perform
the duties of the
The a p p e l l e e s p r e s e n t e d some e v i d e n c e ,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n regard t o automobile-mechanic
i t could
would
I n o t h e r c a s e s , D r . R i c h a r d s o n h a d recommended
eliminated positions.
that
of the
and t h a t h i s o r h e r j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s
have t o be p e r f o r m e d
specific
of
E a c h a p p e l l e e who t e s t i f i e d s t a t e d t h a t h i s
h e r j o b was e s s e n t i a l
s c h o o l system
the a p p e l l e e s ' performance
cost
t h e HCBOE
more
work, i n d i c a t i n g
to hire
independent
contractors.
After
overall,
staff
h i s meetings,
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
recommended
that,
t h e employment o f 45 a d d i t i o n a l p r o b a t i o n a r y s u p p o r t
and
77
nonprobationary
support
employees,
1 2
i.e.,
D r . R i c h a r d s o n f u r t h e r recommended t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f
t h e employment o f 154 n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y
t e a c h e r s and t h e
elimination
of
4.5
nonprobationary
assistant-principal
p o s i t i o n s , w h i c h r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h e HCBOE a p p r o v e d .
12
10
2110427
employees
with
terminated.
3 o r more
years
of continuous
service,
be
Dr. 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 h a d t o make
t h e d i f f i c u l t d e c i s i o n s n e c e s s i t a t e d b y t h e HCBOE's f i n a n c i a l
c o n d i t i o n t o e l i m i n a t e more p o s i t i o n s t h a n t h e s u p e r v i s o r s h a d
recommended.
Working i n c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h W i l l i a m s , and u s i n g
t h e HCBOE's R I F p l a n , w h i c h h a d b e e n i n e f f e c t s i n c e 1979, D r .
R i c h a r d s o n p r o p o s e d a supplement R I F p l a n and c r e a t e d
a
list
o f t h o s e s u p p o r t e m p l o y e e s whose employment he recommended f o r
termination,
including
the
nonprobationary employees.
had
projected
million
the
that
annually
supplemental
following
14
appellees,
save
i n support-personnel
plan.
implementation
a l l of
whom a r e
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he
t h e HCBOE w o u l d
RIF
1 3
1 5
approximately
costs
According
$3.1
by i m p l e m e n t i n g
to
of the supplemental
Dr.
Pouncey,
RIF plan, the
HCBOE w o u l d be s p e n d i n g $492 p e r p u p i l f o r s u p p o r t
personnel,
Robinson, and Hatton a r e
i n the supplemental RIF
plan.
14
seniority.
T h e a p p e l l e e s have m a i n t a i n e d t h e i r employment w i t h t h e
HCBOE t h r o u g h o u t t h e a p p e a l s p r o c e s s a n d c o n t i n u e t o r e c e i v e
t h e i r s a l a r i e s and b e n e f i t s .
15
11
2110427
w h i c h , he s a i d , w o u l d p u t t h e HCBOE i n l i n e w i t h o t h e r
school
boards.
Dr. Moore p r e s e n t e d
the proposed supplemental RIF plan t o
t h e HCBOE, w h i c h a d o p t e d t h e p l a n t h r o u g h a m e e t i n g a n d v o t e
h e l d on A p r i l
based
2 1 , 2 0 1 1 . W i l l i a m s t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d
i t s decision
employees
on
to
the best
terminate
t h e employment
information
that
was
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s were n e c e s s a r y
reasons and t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s would h e l p
of the
available,
f o r economic
t h e HCBOE
reach
a p o s i t i o n of f i s c a l accountability.
In
h i s deposition,
terminations
under
along
with
other
approximately
Dr.
Richardson
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
the i n i t i a l
cost-savings
$46 m i l l i o n
testified
and s u p p l e m e n t a l
measures,
i n savings
that
testified
that the
RIF plans,
would
result
in
over a two-year p e r i o d .
the State
Board
of
Education
w a n t e d t h e HCBOE t o s a v e as c l o s e t o $40 m i l l i o n a s p o s s i b l e
over t h a t two-year p e r i o d i n order t o stave o f f i n t e r v e n t i o n .
Near t h e end o f h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
f o l l o w s on d i r e c t
t e s t i f i e d as
examination:
"[Counsel
f o r t h e HCBOE]:
With
regard
to the
r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e ... [ S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n ] i n
order t o avoid
S t a t e t a k e - o v e r was t o r e d u c e t h a t
12
2110427
38 t o 40 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s t h a t i t n e e d e d t o r e c o v e r .
Am I c o r r e c t ?
"Dr.
Richardson:
He a l s o t e s t i f i e d on
That's i t i n a n u t s h e l l . "
cross-examination:
" [ A p p e l l e e s ' c o u n s e l ] : A n d t h a t was a s t a t e m e n t o f
you n e e d t o c u t 40 m i l l i o n d o l l a r s o r f a c e S t a t e
take-over, correct?
"Dr.
Richardson:
Y e s , y o u n e e d t o make t h o s e
substantial cuts.
Now, i f i t came o u t t o be 3 8 . 5 ,
we w o u l d n ' t have p r o b a b l y q u i b b l e d , b u t t h e y h a d t o
be r e a l l y c l o s e t o t h a t number.
II
"[Appellees'
counsel]:
The k e y was t o s a v e 40
m i l l i o n d o l l a r s o r you're s u b j e c t t o State
take¬
over?
"Dr.
Richardson:
After
hired
a
That's
right."
t h e HCBOE a d o p t e d
new
the supplemental
superintendent,
Dr.
Casey
RIF plan, i t
Wardynski.
Dr.
W a r d y n s k i , i n t u r n , h i r e d s e v e r a l new a d m i n i s t r a t o r s t o e i t h e r
fill
a
vacant p o s i t i o n s or serve
reorganized
Wardynski
created
positions
leadership
split
a
structure.
one j o b i n t o
job entitled
increased
Additionally,
t h e HCBOE as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s i n
two new p o s i t i o n s .
"Director
the
approximately
I n one i n s t a n c e ,
costs
of T r a n s i t i o n . "
for
support
He
Dr.
also
Those
staff.
one month a f t e r t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l
13
2110427
R I F p l a n was a d o p t e d , t h e HCBOE r e h i r e d L e e E d m i n s o n , who h a d
been a p r o b a t i o n a r y
employee.
Brown t e s t i f i e d t h a t
a c t e d as a l i a i s o n f o r t h e HCBOE on o n g o i n g l a r g e
Edminson
construction
p r o j e c t s a n d t h a t h i s e x p e r t i s e h a d e n a b l e d t h e HCBOE t o s a v e
hundreds
of
thousands,
construction
costs.
i f not m i l l i o n s ,
Brown
testified
that
of
dollars
t h e HCBOE h a d
a d v e r t i s e d t h e j o b o p e n i n g a n d t h a t Brown h a d i n t e r v i e w e d
candidates before
eventually
in
r e h i r i n g Edminson a t h i s
four
former
salary.
The
The
The
hearing
Hearing O f f i c e r ' s
o f f i c e r made t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t .
d u t i e s performed by the a p p e l l e e s
performed by o t h e r s
had
or
plans
to f i l l
to reassign
were,
Decision
would s t i l l
upon t h e i r d i s c h a r g e .
have t o be
A l t h o u g h t h e HCBOE
some o f t h e p o s i t i o n s b y r e t a i n e d e m p l o y e e s
or r e d i s t r i b u t e
f o r t h e most p a r t ,
the job duties,
those
plans
vague a n d u n d e v e l o p e d a n d d i d n o t
i n c l u d e an a s s e s s m e n t o f t h e new c o s t s t h a t w o u l d be i n c u r r e d
by t h e HCBOE.
the
costs
necessary
contractors
Likewise,
associated
welding
t h e HCBOE p r e s e n t e d no e v i d e n c e as t o
with
hiring
and p a i n t i n g
to perform
services.
landscaping,
14
contractors
mechanic,
As
to
perform
f o r using
and l o c k s m i t h
2110427
work, t h e h e a r i n g
officer
noted that
the evidence
indicated
t h a t i t w o u l d a c t u a l l y c o s t t h e HCBOE more f o r t h e same work.
In h i s c o n c l u s i o n s
that
t h e HCBOE
terminate
of law, the hearing
had a s s e r t e d
two
reasons
t h e employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s
decrease i n jobs
and o t h e r
f o r seeking
—
o f f i c e r n o t e d t h a t Alabama l a w d e f i n e s
which
i s not arbitrary,
irrelevant
to
maintaining
an e f f i c i e n t
Hartselle
c o m m i t t e e i n good f a i t h
irrational,
the committee's
school
task
of
system."'"
unreasonable,
building
See E l l e n b u r g v.
Bd. o f E d u c . , 349 So. 2d 605, 609 ( A l a .
68 Am. J u r . 2d S c h o o l s § 1 8 3 ) .
"must p r o v i d e
the hearing
hardship,
actions w i l l
was
B a s e d on
r e a s o n e d t h a t t h e HCBOE
t h a t t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n were i n r e s p o n s e t o
and t h a t
i t i s reasonably
improve t h e f i n a n c i a l
The h e a r i n g
HCBOE
Civ.
s u f f i c i e n t p r o o f t h a t i t was s u f f e r i n g a s e v e r e
f i n a n c i a l hardship,
that
officer
or
up a n d
City
that d e f i n i t i o n ,
The
"good c a u s e " a s
1977) ( q u o t i n g
App.
to
a justifiable
f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e FDA.
"'"any g r o u n d p u t f o r w a r d b y a s c h o o l
and
determined
g o o d a n d j u s t c a u s e -- n e i t h e r o f
w h i c h p h r a s e s h a d been d e f i n e d
hearing
officer
likely
that the
c o n d i t i o n o f t h e [HCBOE]."
o f f i c e r assumed, " w i t h o u t d e c i d i n g , " t h a t t h e
suffering
a
severe
15
financial
hardship,
b u t he
2110427
decided
that
t h e HCBOE h a d f a i l e d
t o prove
"by
sufficient
evidence t h a t the a c t i o n taken i n response t o t h i s hardship i s
a necessary
and reasonable
step designed
[its] financial position
that,
by t e r m i n a t i n g
HCBOE w o u l d
payroll
had
reduce
to directly
" The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
t h e employment
i t sobligation
improve
recognized
of the appellees, the
t o pay t h e i r
e x p e n s e s ; h o w e v e r , he a l s o r e c o g n i z e d
n o t proven t h a t i t would a c t u a l l y
associated
t h a t t h e HCBOE
s a v e money f r o m
those
t e r m i n a t i o n s b e c a u s e t h e HCBOE h a d n o t p r o v e n " t h a t t h e work
done
by
the
reassigned
perform
[appellees]
staff
their
outsourced
with
would
no
original
either
diminution
tasks,
or subcontracted
be
performed
i n their
that
ability
to
could
be
t h e work
a t a reduced p r i c e ,
o r t h a t some
o r a l l o f t h e [ a p p e l l e e s ] ' t a s k s c o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d . "
on
the testimony
concluded
savings"
that
o f Brown
and Seldon,
t h e HCBOE w o u l d
from t h e proposed
realize
the hearing
"little
by
Based
officer
o r no
cost
terminations.
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r f u r t h e r d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d
f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e employment o f t h e
appellees
was m a n d a t e d b y f i n a n c i a l
concerns.
o f f i c e r n o t e d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d a s h o r t f a l l o f
16
The
hearing
approximately
2110427
$36 m i l l i o n
savings
address
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
o f $40 m i l l i o n
that
concluded,
to
and t h a t
over
shortfall.
two y e a r s
Therefore,
had t e s t i f i e d
that
a
w o u l d be a d e q u a t e t o
the hearing
officer
a n y s a v i n g s b e y o n d t h a t amount " e x c e e d e d t h e 'due
financial
circumstances'
of i n t e n t t o t e r m i n a t e . "
rationale given i n the notice[s]
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d e t e r m i n e d
that
" b u d g e t c u t s a l r e a d y made a n d e x c l u d i n g i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y [ t h e
proposed t e r m i n a t i o n s under t h e supplemental
have b e e n s u f f i c i e n t
two
RIF plan]
t o a c h i e v e t h i s g o a l o f $40 m i l l i o n
would
over
years."
Finally,
argument
that
the
hearing
officer
rejected
t h e HCBOE's
i t was o v e r s t a f f e d i n c o m p a r i s o n
with
other
l o c a l s c h o o l b o a r d s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e b e c a u s e t h e HCBOE h a d n o t
included i n i t s notices to the appellees the a l l e g a t i o n
overstaffing
had
contributed
to
i t s financial
that
hardship.
M o r e o v e r , t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d p r o v e n
o n l y t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d more s t a f f
school d i s t r i c t s w i t h i n the state.
noted
than other s i m i l a r l y
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
t h a t t h e HCBOE " d i d n o t p r e s e n t
evidence
c i r c u m s t a n c e s on w h i c h t h e [ h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ]
sized
also
o f any o t h e r
can conclude
that
they a r e s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d n o r d i d i t p r e s e n t any q u a l i t a t i v e
17
2110427
evidence
that
those other
s y s t e m s were on s o u n d e r
financial
footing."
Issues
The
HCBOE a r g u e s
on A p p e a l
on a p p e a l
d e c i s i o n was a r b i t r a r y
that
assessed
t h e i s s u e t o be
The HCBOE a l s o a r g u e s t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
in concluding
legal
officer's
a n d c a p r i c i o u s b e c a u s e he a p p l i e d t h e
wrong b u r d e n o f p r o o f a n d i n c o r r e c t l y
decided.
the hearing
notice
We c o n s i d e r
t h a t t h e HCBOE gave t h e a p p e l l e e s
of the reason
f o rtheir
proposed
erred
insufficient
terminations.
those issues out of order.
Notice
The
FDA p r o v i d e d
that
a notice
of intent to
terminate
" s h a l l s t a t e the reasons f o r the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n ,
c o n t a i n a s h o r t and p l a i n
statement 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]
Ala.
Code
1975, f o r m e r
t o comply w i t h
p r o c e s s by b e i n g
employee
listed
§ 36-26-102, [ A l a . Code 1975,] a n d s h a l l s t a t e t h e
t i m e a n d p l a c e f o r t h e ... m e e t i n g on t h e p r o p o s e d
intended
shall
of
§ 36-26-103(a).
termination
Any n o t i c e
f o r m e r § 36-26-103 must s a t i s f y due
reasonably
t h e grounds
c a l c u l a t e d to a l e r t the affected
f o r termination
18
upon
which
an
2110427
employing
board
reasonable
i s relying
opportunity
so
that
t o defend
t h e employee
against
those
has a
grounds.
B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v . A r c h i b l e , 33 So. 3 d 577, 582 ( A l a .
C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , o v e r r u l e d on o t h e r g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e
Soleyn,
33 So. 3 d 584 ( A l a . 2 0 0 9 ) .
In
this
case,
t h e HCBOE s e n t
letters
s t a t i n g that i t proposed t o terminate
to the appellees
t h e i r employment due t o
a " j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs i n the system."
26-102.
As t o t h e f a c t u a l u n d e r p i n n i n g s
16
reason,
t h e HCBOE
further
elaboration.
attorneys
cited
representing
appellees]
were
required
under
properly
given."
"financial
during
the appellees
t h e [FDA],"
whatever
f o r that statutory
circumstances"
Nevertheless,
afforded
without
the hearing, the
s t i p u l a t e d "that [the
due
process
including "that
That s t i p u l a t i o n
F o r m e r § 36¬
they
the notice
effectively
removed
were
was
from
c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n y a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d n o t a d e q u a t e l y
A l t h o u g h t h e n o t i c e s s t a t e d t h a t t h e HCBOE was p r o p o s i n g
t o t e r m i n a t e t h e employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s f o r " o t h e r good
and j u s t c a u s e s , " a t t h e h e a r i n g t h e HCBOE d i d n o t o f f e r a n y
o t h e r r e a s o n f o r t e r m i n a t i n g t h e employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s
other than because o f f i n a n c i a l d i s t r e s s .
Thus, t h e HCBOE
a b a n d o n e d t h a t a l t e r n a t i v e s t a t u t o r y g r o u n d . See g e n e r a l l y
Hooks v. S t a t e , 21 So. 3d 772 ( A l a . C r i m . App. 2008) ( p a r t y
abandons c l a i m b y f a i l i n g t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l i n
support of c l a i m ) .
1 6
19
2110427
informed
had
the appellees
of the " f i n a n c i a l
l e dt o t h e i r proposed terminations.
Mem'l
Hosp.
(recognizing
v.
Andrews,
that
901
stipulation
So.
circumstances"
See G e o r g e H. L a n i e r
2d
relieves
that
714
( A l a . 2004)
opposing
party
from
e s t a b l i s h i n g an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m ) .
Notably,
the hearing
officer
HCBOE's u s e o f t h e g e n e r a l
failed
t o reasonably
d i d not conclude
phrase
notify
"financial
the appellees
that the
circumstances"
of the precise
f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n o f t h e HCBOE o r t h a t t h e n o t i c e s f a i l e d t o
apprise
the
the appellees
supplemental
t h a t economic events had n e c e s s i t a t e d
RIF
plan
under
employment w o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d .
addressed
those
stipulation
acknowledging
issues,
made
by
1 7
that
attorneys
that the appellees
the
appellees'
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
implying
the
which
actually
he h a d h o n o r e d t h e
for
the
had been p r o p e r l y
appellees
notified
In
their
application
f o r rehearing,
the appellees
a t t e m p t t o r a i s e t h e a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e y were g e n e r a l l y
uninformed of the " f i n a n c i a l circumstances"
providing the
b a s i s f o r the supplemental RIF plan.
However, t h e a p p e l l e e s
d i d n o t f i l e a c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l , s e e B e s s v. W a f f l e
House, I n c . , 824 So. 2d 783, 787 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001)
( d e s c r i b i n g a c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l as one f i l e d b y an
a p p e l l e e r a i s i n g i s s u e s f o r r e v i e w i n t h e e v e n t t h e judgment
i n h i s o r h e r f a v o r i s r e v e r s e d ) , a n d , t h u s , we c a n n o t
consider that issue.
1 7
20
2110427
that
their
employment
was
being
terminated
for financial
reasons.
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r a d d r e s s e d
the issue of lack of proper
n o t i c e o n l y as t o " o v e r s t a f f i n g , " t r e a t i n g t h a t p r o b l e m
it
constituted
"financial
an i n d e p e n d e n t
circumstances"
and s e p a r a t e
referred
ground
as i f
from t h e
to i n the notices.
The
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 s t a t e d t h a t , because o v e r s t a f f i n g
might n o t cause f i n a n c i a l
difficulties,
the reference i n the
n o t i c e s t o " f i n a n c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s " d i d not a d e q u a t e l y i n f o r m
the
appellees
that
t h e HCBOE
employment i n o r d e r t o r e d u c e
intended
to terminate
i t s support
staffing
comparable w i t h o t h e r l o c a l boards o f e d u c a t i o n .
p a r t e Soleyn, supra, i n which
their
to levels
B a s e d on Ex
t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t
held
t h a t t h e n o t i c e o f i n t e n t t o t e r m i n a t e must be s u f f i c i e n t t o
a p p r i s e t h e employee o f t h e f a c t s s u p p o r t i n g t h e grounds f o r
termination without referencing "surrounding
the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r reasoned
circumstances,"
t h a t t h e HCBOE c o u l d n o t r e l y on
o v e r s t a f f i n g as a s e p a r a t e ground f o r t e r m i n a t i o n .
The
HCBOE d i d n o t , h o w e v e r , a s s e r t " o v e r s t a f f i n g "
independent
reason
f o r terminating
appellees.
The HCBOE p r e s e n t e d
21
t h e employment
evidence
from
a s an
of the
Dr. Pouncey
2110427
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e HCBOE m a i n t a i n e d f a r more s t a f f t h a n
local
boards o f education,
expenses
of
more
than
resulting
double
i n per-pupil personnel
many
other
school
a c c o r d i n g t o a t l e a s t one e x h i b i t i n t h e r e c o r d .
testified
those
that
t h e HCBOE h a d b e e n
costs i n "flush"
able
school
funding
boards
Dr. Pouncey
to at least
absorb
t i m e s , b u t , he s a i d , when t h e economy
took a downturn, r e s u l t i n g i n decreased
for
other
and
tax revenues a v a i l a b l e
consecutive
years
of
statewide
p r o r a t i o n , t h e HCBOE h a d i n c u r r e d a $ 2 0 - m i l l i o n b u d g e t d e f i c i t
by
failing
to
expenditures
reduce
i t s personnel
accordingly.
Dr.
costs
Pouncey
and
other
testified
that
o v e r s t a f f i n g was one o f t h e m a i n f a c t o r s t h a t h a d l e d t o t h e
financial
circumstances
testified
that,
primary
after
facing
t h e HCBOE.
he h a d i d e n t i f i e d
component o f t h e f i s c a l
concluded
that
Dr. Pouncey a l s o
t h e HCBOE
crisis
could
facing
resume
c o n d i t i o n o n l y by r e d u c i n g i t s p e r s o n n e l
overstaffing
a
as a
t h e HCBOE, he
sound
financial
expenses.
Rather than simply s l a s h p e r s o n n e l i n d i s c r i m i n a t e l y u n t i l
t h e s h o r t f a l l c o u l d be c o v e r e d ,
that
those
personnel
expenses
should
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n had d e t e r m i n e d
be r e d u c e d
only
insofar
as
r e d u c t i o n s a f f e c t e d c l a s s r o o m p e r f o r m a n c e as m i n i m a l l y
22
2110427
as p o s s i b l e .
researched
D r . P o u n c e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a n d h i s s t a f f h a d
the p e r - p u p i l personnel
expenses
of other
boards o f e d u c a t i o n w i t h i n t h e s t a t e and had found t h a t
b o a r d s were d e l i v e r i n g e d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s t o t h e i r
local
those
students
a t a r a t e o f l e s s t h a n h a l f t h e p e r s o n n e l c o s t s o f t h e HCBOE.
Dr.
Richardson
above-average
that
to
i t s increased
r e s u l t s on p a r
other
educational
t h e HCBOE was n o t p r o d u c i n g
e x p e n s e s b u t was a c t u a l l y p r o d u c i n g
personnel
with
testified
school
systems
results
spending
due
f a r less
funds.
That
t e s t i m o n y shows t h a t t h e HCBOE e f f e c t i v e l y u s e d t h e f i n a n c i a l
structure
measure
of other
t h e amount
local
boards of education
of personnel
expenses
as a t a r g e t t o
t h e HCBOE
s a f e l y reduce i n order t o r e s o l v e i t s d e t e r i o r a t i n g
condition
without
compromising
i t s educational
could
financial
mission.
Hence, r e d u c i n g s t a f f numbers t o c o m p a r a b l e s t a t e w i d e
levels
was o n l y a p a r t o f t h e s o l u t i o n t o t h e f i n a n c i a l c r i s i s
facing
t h e HCBOE a n d was n o t an i n d e p e n d e n t g o a l i n a n d o f i t s e l f .
Given a l l the circumstances
i n t h i s c a s e , we h o l d t h a t no
evidence supports the hearing o f f i c e r ' s determination that the
HCBOE
relied
terminating
on
overstaffing
t h e employment
as
a
separate
of the appellees
23
ground f o r
such
that i t
2110427
should
have
expressly
justification.
capriciously
418
U.S.
The
notified
hearing
in finding
539
(1974)
the
officer
otherwise.
appellees
acted
See
(holding that
of
that
arbitrarily
Wolff
v.
and
McDonnell,
a d e c i s i o n of
a
hearing
o f f i c e r must n o t be made a r b i t r a r i l y and c a p r i c i o u s l y b u t must
be
b a s e d on
(holding
some e v i d e n c e ) ;
that
see
a l s o Ex
parte Soleyn,
a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s standard
supra
of
review
applies to f a c t u a l determinations
of h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s
cases).
review of the remainder
We
thus proceed
t h e HCBOE's a p p e a l
had
sufficient
w i t h our
to determine
other
grounds
whether the h e a r i n g
for
rejecting
the
in
FDA
of
officer
proposed
t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s .
Justifiable
The
the
HCBOE r e l i e d on a " j u s t i f i a b l e
sole
ground
appellees.
phrase.
Decrease i n Jobs
for
Alabama
Through
terminating
law
legal
has
not
parlance,
"justifiable"
when a s c h o o l b o a r d
good
for
reducing
the
number o f
Law
Dictionary
reason
positions
See
or
Black's
or
decrease
the
employment
of
the
that
decrease
i s capable
eliminating
in
24
(9th
ed.
jobs
is
of p r o v i d i n g a
the
employees w i t h i n each
944
as
defined
specifically
a
i n jobs"
2009)
number
of
position.
(defining
2110427
"justifiable"
as
"[c]apable
of being
j u s t i f i e d ; excusable; defensible").
financial
circumstances
sufficient
good r e a s o n j u s t i f y i n g
e.g.,
So.
B o a r d o f Sch.
3d 163
of
a
legally
morally
An a d v e r s e change i n t h e
school
board
constitutes
a decrease i n jobs.
financial
condition
a
See,
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 ,
( A l a . C i v . App. 2012) ( s c h o o l
deteriorating
or
97
board
experienced
due t o s t a t e
proration);
M o b i l e C n t y . Bd. o f S c h . Comm'rs v . L o n g , 46 So. 3d 6 ( A l a .
Civ.
App. 2010) ( b o a r d
terminated
through
RIF n e c e s s i t a t e d
Anniston
C i t y B d . o f E d u c . , 957 So. 2d 1143 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2006)
(board e l i m i n a t e d
by
employment o f programmer
financial
crisis);
Glass
v.
j o b o f a t t e n d a n c e o f f i c e r , w h i c h was
l o c a l l y f u n d e d , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g o v e r $500,000 l e s s i n f u n d i n g
from
city
Aviation
1988)
than
i n prior
& Tech. C o l l . ,
years);
a n d Woodham
v.
Alabama
537 So. 2d 934, 935 ( A l a . C i v . App.
(recognizing, without d i r e c t l y deciding thepropriety of
the
action, that
had
c o n s i s t e n t l y l o s t money f o r y e a r s i n o r d e r
food-service
justified
college's
facility
termination
or
decision
to
to close
contract
to lease the
f o r food
o f c a f e t e r i a manager).
25
cafeteria that
service
2110427
When a b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n
jobs
as a b a s i s
"the
only
c i t e s a j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n
for discharging
pertinent
a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee,
inquiry
[ i ] s whether
there
B o a r d o f E d u c . o f Lamar C n t y . ,
549,
552
Teacher
proof
(1955)
(construing
Tenure A c t ) .
rests
decrease
on
school
See
C n t y . , 276 A l a . 571,
that
board
that
analogous
v.
375,
82 So.
provision
of
Tipton
574,
had
board
165
to
prove
v. B o a r d
So.2d 120,
failed
to
a
produce
of B l o u n t
(1964)
any
of
"justifiable
o f Educ.
123
2d
former
As p a r t o f t h a t i n q u i r y , t h e b u r d e n
the
i n jobs."
263 A l a . 372,
a
Williams
' 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 [ j o b s ] . ' "
was
(holding
evidence
of
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 c o u l d n o t r e l y on t h a t g r o u n d f o r
t e r m i n a t i n g employment o f t e a c h e r ) ; see a l s o W h i t n e y v.
of
Sch.
T r s . of DeKalb
N.E.2d 1289
letter
due
Cnty.
( I n d . C t . App.
informing
Eastern
1981)
Cmty. S c h .
(mere r e c i t a t i o n
e m p l o y e e t h a t h e r j o b was
f o r budgetary reasons d i d not provide
of j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n j o b s ) .
board
claims
that
poor
financial
being
Board
Dist.,
416
i n notice
eliminated
necessary evidence
Axiomatically, i f a
circumstances
d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f j o b s w i t h i n i t s s y s t e m ,
school
require
the
a
school
b o a r d must, as a t h r e s h o l d m a t t e r , p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f s u c h
26
2110427
poor f i n a n c i a l
circumstances.
The
b u r d e n t h e n r e s t s on
s c h o o l b o a r d t o show t h a t r e d u c i n g p e r s o n n e l
one
w o u l d be a t l e a s t
r a t i o n a l response to address i t s f i n a n c i a l c o n d i t i o n .
T a b o r n v.
(1989)
board
Hammonds, 324
N.C.
(construing North
to
terminate
"'justifiable
decreased
If
546,
Carolina's
the
employment
a
school
board
decrease
presents
in
jobs,"
o f h i s o r h e r employment.
showing t h a t the
employment
contract
380
S.E.2d 513,
statute allowing
of
teachers
517
school
because
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
a f f e c t e d employee to d i s p r o v e
her
552,
See
of
to
...
funding'").
"justifiable
by
the
of
establishes
a good
prima
the
facie
burden
case
shifts
the ground f o r the
of
to
the
termination
for
other
reason
termination
employee.
for
as
Once
reducing
selected his
opposed
a
to
school
t o be
cancelled
board
i t s workforce,
[ i ] s n o t open t o i n q u i r y . ...
[T]he
of s e l e c t i o n i s a matter r e s t i n g e n t i r e l y w i t h the
Board of E d u c a t i o n . "
552.
Rather,
a
W i l l i a m s , 263
nonprobationary
27
A l a . a t 375,
employee
or
the
"the
r e a s o n f o r s e l e c t i n g [a p a r t i c u l a r e m p l o y e e ' s ] c o n t r a c t as
one
a
An e m p l o y e e c a n n o t meet t h a t b u r d e n
school board erroneously
contract
some
a
the
right
employing
82 So.
2d
at
contesting
a
2110427
justifiable
decrease
in
jobs
must
show
"that
there
r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e d e c i s i o n [ t o i m p l e m e n t a RIF]
it
or
is
a
subterfuge
S.E.2d
employee
to
avoid
at
can
519.
status]."
Absent
avoid
rights
such
cancellation
arising
policy,
supra,
his
or
see
Mobile
proof,
of
The
above;
Wilson,
Cnty.
Bd.
263
A l a . 231,
hearing
So.
employment
556,
a
nonprobationary
her
failed
Sch.
employment
to f o l l o w i t s
Comm'rs v.
Long,
under the former
a
P i c k e n s C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . v.
2d 197
did
not
a p p l i e d the
2d 1161
of
e.g.,
82 So.
officer
r a t h e r , he
984
See,
a b o a r d o f e d u c a t i o n has
(1955).
apply
standard
the
law
s e t out
as
"good and j u s t c a u s e "
teacher
with
stated
i n Ex
( A l a . 2007), f o r d e t e r m i n i n g
parte
whether
for terminating
continuing-service status
Teacher Tenure A c t .
I n Ex p a r t e W i l s o n ,
supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t "good c a u s e , "
former
at
or
his
of
[the
i m p e r m i s s i b l y r e t a i n e d a p r o b a t i o n a r y employee i n
or her p o s i t i o n .
Keasler,
the
that
from
T a b o r n , 324 N.C.
c o n t r a c t o n l y by s h o w i n g t h a t t h e b o a r d
RIF
or
no
i s b a s e d on p e r s o n a l , p o l i t i c a l o r d i s c r i m i n a t o r y m o t i v e s
employee's n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y
380
is
in a statute like
Teacher Tenure A c t ,
" ' " ' i n c l u d e s any g r o u n d p u t f o r w a r d by a s c h o o l
c o m m i t t e e i n good f a i t h and w h i c h i s n o t a r b i t r a r y ,
28
the
the
2110427
irrational,
unreasonable,
or i r r e l e v a n t
to the
c o m m i t t e e ' s t a s k o f b u i l d i n g up a n d m a i n t a i n i n g an
e f f i c i e n t school system.'"'"
I d . a t 1168 ( q u o t i n g M a d i s o n C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . v . W i l s o n , 984
So.
2d 1 1 5 3 , 1158
( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ,
quoting
i n turn
E l l e n b u r g v. H a r t s e l l e C i t y Bd. o f E d u c . , 349 So. 2d 605,
10
( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 7 7 ) ,
Schools
quoting
§ 183) ( e m p h a s i s o m i t t e d ) .
the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
a c t i o n s t a k e n were i n r e s p o n s e
reasonably
68 Am.
Jur.
2d
B a s e d on t h a t d e f i n i t i o n ,
p l a c e d t h e b u r d e n on t h e HCBOE t o p r o v e
" t h a t i t was s u f f e r i n g a s e v e r e
is
i n turn
609¬
likely
f i n a n c i a l hardship,
that the
t o t h a t h a r d s h i p , and t h a t i t
that
the actions
the l e g a l
standard
will
improve
the
financial condition."
To
some e x t e n t ,
officer
c o i n c i d e d with the proper
correct
legal
standard,
used by the h e a r i n g
l e g a l standard.
Under t h e
t h e HCBOE h a d t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g
t h a t i t was s u f f e r i n g a s e v e r e f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p a n d t h a t i t s
a c t i o n i n implementing
response
whether
element;
officer
the supplemental
to that hardship.
R I F p l a n was t a k e n i n
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d i d n o t d e c i d e
t h e HCBOE h a d s a t i s f i e d
i t s b u r d e n as t o t h e f i r s t
i n s t e a d , f o r purposes of h i s a n a l y s i s ,
presumed
that
t h e HCBOE
29
was
the hearing
i n a poor
financial
2110427
condition
based
on
Dr.
Pouncey's
an a p p r o x i m a t e l y
budget.
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d i d , h o w e v e r , d e c i d e t h e s e c o n d
element,
had
finding
adopted
financial
million
testimony
regarding
1 8
$36.5
deposition
shortfall
t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v e
the supplemental
problems.
in
i t s
thati t
RIF p l a n
In that
i n response
to
i t s
respect,
the hearing
officer
erred.
The
hearing
officer
found
that
Dr. Pouncey
and Dr.
R i c h a r d s o n h a d d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e HCBOE c o u l d overcome a l l o f
i t s f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s w i t h i n two y e a r s b y c u t t i n g $40 m i l l i o n
i n expenses.
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n p r o j e c t e d t h a t h i s c o s t - c u t t i n g
measures w o u l d save
2011
a n d 2012,
t h e HCBOE $23 m i l l i o n
o r a t o t a l o f $46 m i l l i o n .
per f i s c a l
year i n
Thus, t h e h e a r i n g
o f f i c e r c o n c l u d e d , t h e HCBOE w o u l d s a v e $6 m i l l i o n b e y o n d t h e
stated goal.
supplemental
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r
reasoned
t h a t , because the
R I F p l a n amounted t o a s a v i n g s o f $3.1 m i l l i o n ,
w h i c h was l e s s t h a n t h e $6 m i l l i o n
need t o s a c r i f i c e
e x c e s s , t h e HCBOE d i d n o t
the appellees' jobs i n order to reach i t s
For that reason, the hearing o f f i c e r d i d not d i s c u s s the
e f f e c t o f the evidence p r e s e n t e d by the a p p e l l e e s r e g a r d i n g
t h e h i r i n g o f new a n d a d d i t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t a f f a n d t h e
r e h i r i n g o f Edminson f o l l o w i n g t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e
supplemental RIF p l a n .
1 8
30
2110427
financial
target,
so
the supplemental
officer
misunderstood
RIF plan
was n o t
necessary.
The
hearing
the evidence.
m a t h e m a t i c s show t h a t , b y s a v i n g $40 m i l l i o n
the
HCBOE
operating
would
budget
million).
Unless
only
be
deficit
meeting
i t s annual
($20 m i l l i o n
t h e HCBOE
were
over
x
2
f u n d i n g , w h i c h t u r n e d o u t n o t t o be t h e c a s e ,
two y e a r s ,
$20
years
to receive
Simple
million
=
$40
additional
t h e HCBOE w o u l d
n o t have b e e n a b l e t o p l a c e a n y f u n d s i n r e s e r v e a s r e q u i r e d
by
t h e SFAA.
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
c u t t i n g $46 m i l l i o n
$6 m i l l i o n
specifically
t e s t i f i e d t h a t , by
i n expenditures,
t h e HCBOE w o u l d c r e a t e a
" b u f f e r " against expected
f u t u r e p r o r a t i o n , which
i s p r e c i s e l y t h e purpose o f t h e r e s e r v e funds r e q u i r e d by t h e
SFAA.
19
1 9
The HCBOE n e e d e d t h e " a d d i t i o n a l "
$6 m i l l i o n
to at
S e c t i o n 1 6 - 3 A - 9 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i d e s :
" L o c a l boards o f e d u c a t i o n a r e a u t h o r i z e d t o expend
such r e s e r v e funds i f e i t h e r o f t h e f o l l o w i n g occur:
"(1) The G o v e r n o r d e c l a r e s p r o r a t i o n
i n t h e E d u c a t i o n T r u s t Fund.
"(2) T o t a l s t a t e f u n d s a p p r o p r i a t e d b y
the L e g i s l a t u r e t o the l o c a l boards o f
education
are
less
than
the
same
appropriation
f o r the preceding
fiscal
year."
31
2110427
least
begin
to accumulate
would
still
be o v e r
reserve
goal.
some
$10 m i l l i o n
reserve
short
funds,
although i t
o f i t s SFAA-mandated
2 0
As s e t o u t i n t h e e x c e r p t s
of h i s d e p o s i t i o n
quoted i n
o u r f a c t u a l summary, Dr. R i c h a r d s o n s t a t e d t h a t t h e p u r p o s e o f
saving
$40 m i l l i o n
was
to avoid
having
E d u c a t i o n assume c o n t r o l o f t h e f i n a n c e s
the State
Board
o f t h e HCBOE.
But,
e v e n i f Dr. R i c h a r d s o n h a d o p i n e d t h a t s a v i n g $40 m i l l i o n
two y e a r s w o u l d s o l v e a l l HCBOE's f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s ,
u n d i s p u t e d t h a t he a c t e d s o l e l y as a c o n s u l t a n t
and
n o t as i t s d e c i s i o n maker, w i t h
2 1
of
over
i t is
f o r t h e HCBOE
t h e HCBOE v o t i n g
on a l l
The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r agreed w i t h those c a l c u l a t i o n s i n
h i s o r d e r , b u t he d e t e r m i n e d t h a t he was c o n s t r a i n e d f r o m
c o n c l u d i n g t h a t t h e HCBOE w o u l d n o t s u f f i c i e n t l y c u r e i t s
f i n a n c i a l p r o b l e m s by c u t t i n g o n l y $40 m i l l i o n ,
stating:
"Where [ t h e HCBOE's] a g e n t s have t e s t i f i e d t h a t $40 m i l l i o n i s
s u f f i c i e n t , i t w o u l d be an i n a p p r o p r i a t e s u b s t i t u t i o n o f t h e
wisdom o f t h e H e a r i n g O f f i c e r f o r t h e a c t i o n s o f t h e [HCBOE]
t o s u g g e s t t h a t more i s n e e d e d . "
20
A t l e a s t a t one p o i n t i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n , Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
a l l u d e d t o o v e r c o m i n g t h e $36.5 m i l l i o n s h o r t f a l l t h r o u g h
p e r s o n n e l c u t s , a l t h o u g h he l a t e r t e s t i f i e d r e p e a t e d l y
that
t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e $40 m i l l i o n t a r g e t was t o s t a v e o f f
i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h e S t a t e B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n .
See McGough v.
G & A, I n c . , 999 So. 2d 898 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007) ( h o l d i n g
t h a t d e p o s i t i o n must be v i e w e d as a w h o l e i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e
substance of the deponent's t e s t i m o n y ) .
2 1
32
2110427
the
appropriate
measures
financial crisis.
HCBOE
that
findings
t o adopt
prudently
of the hearing
alleviated
i t s financial
supplemental
case
i t s
the supplemental
RIF p l a n
as a
i n that
officer,
problems
regard.
Contrary
to the
t h e HCBOE h a d n o t a l r e a d y
before
implementing the
R I F p l a n and t h a t a c t i o n remained
necessary.
f i n d i n g s o f f a c t made b y a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r i n an FDA
will
capricious.
be
sustained
unless
they
stand
are
arbitrary
See f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 4 - 1 0 4 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975.
the a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s standard,
not
to
f i n a n c i a l m e a s u r e , a n d t h e above c a l c u l a t i o n s p r o v e
i t acted
The
i n response
Williams t e s t i f i e d without dispute that the
had voted
necessary
t o undertake
i f i ti s completely
and
Under
a finding of fact
will
u n s u p p o r t e d by any e v i d e n c e .
See K i n g v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 885 So. 2d 802 ( A l a . C i v . App.
2004).
T h e r e f o r e , we c o n c l u d e
that the hearing o f f i c e r
acted
a r b i t r a r i l y a n d c a p r i c i o u s l y i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e HCBOE d i d n o t
need t o implement
already achieved
the supplemental
RIF plan
a l l of i t s f i n a n c i a l
because
i t had
goals.
As t o t h e l a s t e l e m e n t f r o m h i s a n a l y t i c a l f r a m e w o r k , t h e
hearing o f f i c e r noted
indicating
that
t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d r e c e i v e d i n f o r m a t i o n
discharging
the appellees
33
would
reduce the
2110427
HCBOE's e x p e n d i t u r e s
b y t h e amount o f t h e a p p e l l e e s '
s a l a r i e s b u t t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d n o t c o n s i d e r e d
replacing
factual
performed
the costs of
by t h e a p p e l l e e s .
That
f i n d i n g i s somewhat i n a c c u r a t e b e c a u s e some e x h i b i t s
presented
of
the services
combined
t o t h e HCBOE i n d i c a t e t h e e x p e c t e d r e p l a c e m e n t c o s t s
some s e r v i c e s .
Nevertheless,
the record
does
support
a
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e HCBOE d i d n o t p e r f o r m a c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s
as t o e a c h i n d i v i d u a l a p p e l l e e t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r r e t e n t i o n
of
h i s or
her
elimination.
position
would
In that regard,
be
more
the hearing
efficient
officer
concluded
t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d u s e d "an o v e r l y s i m p l i s t i c a n a l y s i s . "
question before
the
HCBOE
than
The
t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , h o w e v e r , was n o t w h e t h e r
had used
t h e most
appropriate,
thorough,
and
reasonable
method f o r d e s i g n a t i n g t h e e m p l o y e e s who w o u l d be
discharged
under t h e supplemental RIF p l a n ,
s e e T a b o r n , 324
N.C. a t 559, 380 S.E.2d a t 521,
b u t w h e t h e r t h e method i t d i d
use,
was r a t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e
no m a t t e r how s i m p l i s t i c ,
purpose of reducing personnel
circumstances.
Although
costs given thee x i s t i n g
a t one p o i n t
exigent
i n h i s decision the
h e a r i n g o f f i c e r e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d t h a t t h e HCBOE h a d n o t a c t e d
rationally
i n formulating
the supplemental
34
RIF plan, h i s
2110427
decision
could
the
as a w h o l e
reflects
have, and s h o u l d
h i s conclusion
have, a c t e d
that
t h e HCBOE
more r a t i o n a l l y b y u s i n g
a n a l y s i s advocated by the a p p e l l e e s .
That
law.
analysis,
however,
v i o l a t e s w e l l - s e t t l e d Alabama
The r u l e f r o m W i l l i a m s , s u p r a ,
as r e c e n t l y r e i t e r a t e d i n
Board o f S c h o o l Commissioners o f M o b i l e County v. C h r i s t o p h e r ,
supra,
holds
that,
"'"justifiable
decreased
once
decrease
enrollment
i t i s determined
i n t h e number
or decreased
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
hearing
that
there
of positions
funding"'"
is a
due t o
and t h a t t h e
pursuant t o t h a t ground, a
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 o f t h a t p a r t i c u l a r employee f o r d i s c h a r g e .
97 So.
3d a t 175 ( 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.
3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1016 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 1 1 ) ) .
benefits
costs
of the services provided
of
replacing
necessarily
correctly
those
undertook
targeted
by t h e a p p e l l e e s ,
services,
t o determine
the appellees'
termination.
35
By e x a m i n i n g t h e
the hearing
and t h e
officer
whether
t h e HCBOE h a d
specific
employment f o r
2110427
The
appellees
employees.
2 2
selected
any
supplemental
service.
all,
clearly
proved
that
they
were
valuable
However, i t i s d o u b t f u l t h a t t h e HCBOE c o u l d have
support
RIF plan
employees
who
See C h r i s t o p h e r ,
for inclusion
d i d not provide
i n the
some
necessary
97 So. 3d a t 176 ("[M]any, i f n o t
o f t h e employees i n v a r i o u s s c h o o l systems throughout t h e
s t a t e a r e e x c e l l e n t e m p l o y e e s who have h a d p o s i t i v e i m p a c t s on
school
did
systems through
not t e s t i f y
that
their
employment.").
Dr.
t h e HCBOE w o u l d e x p e r i e n c e
Richardson
no a d v e r s e
c o n s e q u e n c e s due t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n s o f t h e employment o f t h e
appellees.
Dr. R i c h a r d s o n
merely
recommended e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h o s e
l e a s t impact t h e classroom
testified
he h a d
p o s i t i o n s he b e l i e v e d w o u l d
i n s t r u c t i o n of the students.
HCBOE e v i d e n t l y a g r e e d w i t h D r . R i c h a r d s o n ' s
discharging i t s "unfortunate
that
The
a s s e s s m e n t when
burden" o f making t h e " d i f f i c u l t
d e c i s i o n s regarding which p o s i t i o n s t o e l i m i n a t e pursuant t o
[ t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l R I F p l a n ] . " I d . The h e a r i n g
not
"'usurp
the role
of the school
board,'"
officer
could
i d . (quoting
D r . 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 n o t recommended t h e
t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e employment o f a n y o f t h e a p p e l l e e s f o r p o o r
performance or l i k e cause.
2 2
36
2110427
Walker
v. Montgomery Bd. o f E d u c . ,
85 So. 3d a t 1 0 1 6 ) , b y
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 .
We c o n c l u d e ,
applying
therefore, that thehearing o f f i c e r erred i n
an i n c o r r e c t a n a l y s i s when d e t e r m i n i n g
HCBOE a c t e d
appellees.
discussed
rationally
i n terminating
whether the
t h e employment o f t h e
B a s e d on t h a t e r r o r , as w e l l as t h e f a c t u a l e r r o r s
herein,
o f f i c e r must be
we h o l d
that
the decision of the hearing
reversed.
Conclusion
We r e v e r s e
the d e c i s i o n of the hearing
officer,
a n d we
remand t h e c a u s e f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e same h e a r i n g
o f f i c e r b a s e d on t h e s t a n d a r d s o u t l i n e d h e r e i n .
We
instruct
t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e HCBOE p r o v e d t h a t
i t was s u f f e r i n g f r o m a v a l i d f i n a n c i a l h a r d s h i p ,
whether the
HCBOE a d o p t e d i t s s u p p l e m e n t a l R I F p l a n due t o t h a t
hardship,
one
and whether t h e supplemental RIF p l a n
amounted t o
r a t i o n a l method o f r e s p o n d i n g t o t h a t f i n a n c i a l
under t h e circumstances,
hardship
w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e HCBOE
c o u l d have u s e d a more t h o r o u g h a n d r e a s o n a b l e
a p p r o a c h when
s e l e c t i n g t h e i n d i v i d u a l e m p l o y e e s t o be d i s c h a r g e d .
hearing
financial
I f the
o f f i c e r d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e HCBOE l a w f u l l y t e r m i n a t e d
37
2110427
t h e employment o f t h e a p p e l l e e s due t o a j u s t i f i a b l e
in
jobs,
issues
the hearing
raised
followed
by
retained
appellees' positions.
rely
The
shall
only
within
not conduct
officer
shall
address
as
any
t o whether
probationary
GRANTED;
WITHDRAWN; OPINION
t h e HCBOE
employees
i n the
those t a s k s , the h e a r i n g
any f u r t h e r h e a r i n g s ,
but should
adduced a t t h e p r e v i o u s
produce
OPINION
SUBSTITUTED;
hearing.
h i s d e c i s i o n on remand
90 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h i s
APPLICATION
remaining
R I F p l a n a n d / o r w h e t h e r t h e HCBOE
To a c c o m p l i s h
on t h e e v i d e n c e
hearing
should
the appellees
i t s supplemental
impermissibly
officer
officer
decrease
OF
NOVEMBER
opinion.
30, 2 0 1 2 ,
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH
INSTRUCTIONS.
Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n , Thomas, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . ,
concur.
38
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.
