Ex parte Eddie Chambers. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (In re: Eddie Chambers v. City of Birmingham)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 02/22/2013 Notice: This o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( (334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110537 Ex p a r t e Eddie Chambers PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ( I n r e : Eddie Chambers v. C i t y o f Birmingham) ( J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, CV-11-903526) PITTMAN, J u d g e . Eddie Chambers the p u b l i c - w o r k s City") ("the e m p l o y e e " ) , a worker department o f t h e C i t y employed by o f Birmingham a m u n i c i p a l i t y l o c a t e d i n J e f f e r s o n County ("the was c i t e d b y t h e C i t y i n December 2 0 1 0 f o r h a v i n g f a i l e d t o c o m p l y 2110537 with an earlier order of the City's personnel department d i r e c t i n g him t o a t t e n d anger-management c o u n s e l i n g the City contended t h a t the e m p l o y e e had thereby sessions; violated a number o f s u b s t a n t i v e r e g u l a t i o n s p r o m u l g a t e d by t h e J e f f e r s o n County Personnel Board s i m p l y "the Board"), ( h e r e i n a f t e r "the Personnel Board" i n c l u d i n g regulations addressing or conduct unbecoming a c l a s s i f i e d employee, i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n , n e g l e c t of duty, or and violation of appointing-authority rules d i r e c t i v e s o f s u p e r i o r o f f i c e r s o r s u p e r v i s o r s , among o t h e r s . The employee, a f t e r a h e a r i n g , his employment w o u l d be timely invoked was n o t i f i e d by t h e C i t y terminated, h i s r i g h t to appeal whereupon the that employee from t h a t d e c i s i o n t o the Board. The Board, Ala. Acts Act" ), 1 1945 w h i c h was created pursuant to Act No. ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o , as amended, as a general a c t of p u r e l y l o c a l 248, "the a p p l i c a t i o n b a s e d upon The l e g i s l a t u r e amended A c t No. 248, A l a . A c t s 1945, by m u l t i p l e e n a c t m e n t s i n 1977. S e c t i o n 2 and S e c t i o n 22 o f t h e A c t -- t h e two s e c t i o n s d i s c u s s e d and q u o t e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n -- were e a c h amended i n 1977 t h r o u g h two a c t s : A c t No. 677 and A c t No. 782, A l a . A c t s 1977 ( S e c t i o n 2 ) , and A c t No. 679 and A c t No. 684, A l a . A c t s 1977 (Section 22); a f t e r approval by t h e g o v e r n o r , e a c h o f t h e p e r t i n e n t a c t s became e f f e c t i v e a t 6:00 p.m. on May 23, 1977. The p r o v i s i o n o f S e c t i o n 2 q u o t e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n A c t No. 677 and A c t No. 782, and, l i k e w i s e , t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 22 q u o t e d i n t h i s o p i n i o n a r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y i d e n t i c a l i n A c t No. 679 and A c t No. 684; m o r e o v e r , n e i t h e r t h i s c o u r t n o r o u r supreme c o u r t has b e e n c a l l e d upon t o d e t e r m i n e w h i c h v e r s i o n s 1 2 2110537 a population the restriction therein, 2 2 of the Act regulations and practices l e g i s l a t u r e under " c o n t r o l , by r u l e s and e m p l o y e e s and service Section appointees holding of" populations contained Jefferson of over Act, a dismissed County to and Under S e c t i o n answer t o after the the which charges" B o a r d and the appointing B o a r d must before itself f i n d s an a p p e a l i n g or "order a a public hearing having 22 of the authority authority a [ d i s c i p l i n a r y ] charges" against the classified w i t h i n t e n days a f t e r n o t i c e [ ] appeal from the a c t i o n of the a p p o i n t i n g f i l i n g with exercise i t s municipalities e m p l o y e e "may the employee, hearing officer; of i f the such Board to dismissed, demoted, s u s p e n d e d , o r o t h e r w i s e d i s c i p l i n e d . " I d . this conducted case, such a hearing a hearing that officer in s employee appointed August 2011 by and "shall the authority In whether by written e m p l o y e e g u i l t y o f t h e c h a r g e s , i t has determine by ... , o f a l l p o s i t i o n s i n the 2,500 p e o p l e . municipal i s empowered the be Board issued a is controlling. See 64 v. P e r s o n n e l Bd. o f P o l i c e , Lodge N O . 64 v So. 3d 17 ( A l a . 2 0 1 2 ) . To the e x t e n t t h a t such g e n e r a l statutes of local a p p l i c a t i o n , a l s o c o l l o q u i a l l y known as " b r a c k e t b i l l s , " were e n a c t e d on o r b e f o r e J a n u a r y 13, 1978, w i t h o u t o b s e r v a n c e o f t h e n o t i c e and p u b l i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 106 o f t h e A l a b a m a C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901, t h e y were r a t i f i e d i n 1980 by Amendment No. 389 t o t h a t C o n s t i t u t i o n . See g e n e r a l l y Freeman v. P u r v i s , 400 So. 2d 389, 391-92 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) . 2 3 2110537 recommendation to the Board e m p l o y e e ' s employment by S e p t e m b e r 20, three 2011, members, that the t h e C i t y be entered upheld. an order, the affirming termination City's The of the Board, s i g n e d by two termination on of i t s of the e m p l o y e e ' s employment. Section decision Board 22 of the of the Board Act further provides that b a s e d upon a l l p r o c e e d i n g s "[t]he before the s h a l l be f i n a l s u b j e c t t o a p p e a l by e i t h e r p a r t y t o t h e C i r c u i t Court," i . e . , the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Court, "to review questions of law and the question of whether d e c i s i o n o r o r d e r o f t h e B o a r d i s s u p p o r t e d by t h e and l e g a l evidence." Id. Crucially, or not the substantial the Act then states: "The a p p e a l s h a l l be p e r f e c t e d by f i l i n g w i t h t h e D i r e c t o r of Personnel a statement i n w r i t i n g s i g n e d by t h e p a r t y a p p e a l i n g t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t s a i d p a r t y appeals from the d e c i s i o n or o r d e r of the P e r s o n n e l B o a r d t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h s t a t e m e n t s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n t e n d a y s f r o m t h e announcement o f t h e d e c i s i o n or order of the Personnel Board." (Emphasis added.) counsel, The employee i n t h i s sent a l e t t e r S e p t e m b e r 26, 2011, to the Board's p e r s o n n e l was director order, g i v i n g n o t i c e of appeal The e m p l o y e e d i d n o t f i l e a n y t h i n g i n t h e c o u r t u n t i l October i s s u e d , at which through s i x d a y s a f t e r t h e i s s u a n c e by t h e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 20, 2011, that order. case, a c t i n g 5, 2011, t i m e he 4 a "petition Board from circuit 15 d a y s a f t e r t h e B o a r d ' s filed on order for judicial 2110537 review" naming t h e C i t y and the Board as d e f e n d a n t s and i n w h i c h he s o u g h t t o i n v o k e t h e A l a b a m a A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e Act ("the A A P A " ) , § 41-22-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . The Board employee's thereafter filed a motion a p p e a l as u n t i m e l y , n o t i n g dismiss the the employee had f i l e d no p a p e r s w i t h t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t u n t i l a f t e r 10 d a y s had passed a f t e r authority the i s s u a n c e of i t s o r d e r . mandating regulatory that to 3 dismissal provisions, Rule of The the 12.13(b) Board c i t e d appeal ("the one Rule"), as of i t s which p r o v i d e s t h a t an a p p e a l o f a d i s c i p l i n a r y d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e Board " s h a l l be p e r f e c t e d by f i l i n g w i t h t h e D i r e c t o r and the C l e r k o f t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , a statement in writing, s i g n e d by the party appealing, to the e f f e c t that s a i d p a r t y appeals from the d e c i s i o n or o r d e r of the Board t o the C i r c u i t C o u r t , w h i c h s t a t e m e n t s h a l l be f i l e d w i t h i n ten (10) c a l e n d a r days f r o m t h e announcement o f t h e d e c i s i o n or order of the Board." (Emphasis added.) Although Section 22 of the Act p r o v i d e s t h a t a p p e a l s f r o m d i s c i p l i n a r y o r d e r s o f t h e B o a r d a r e t o be "assign[ed] shall ... jointly Personnel to three C i r c u i t review the Board," record the Board's Judges of motion the was of s a i d C i r c u i t who hearing before the set for a hearing We a g r e e w i t h t h e B o a r d t h a t i t i s n o t a s t a t e a g e n c y as t o whose o r d e r s a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s g o v e r n e d by t h e AAAPA. See C i t y o f Dothan P e r s . Bd. v. DeVane, 860 So. 2d 881, 883 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) . 3 5 2110537 b e f o r e a s i n g l e j u d g e a c t i n g as t h e c h a i r , o r p r e s i d i n g j u d g e , of the three-judge panel. After considering the Board's m o t i o n r e l y i n g upon t h e R u l e , t h e e m p l o y e e ' s o b j e c t i o n r e l y i n g upon the Act, unilaterally employee's The and the granted 4 Board's the reply, the Board's motion notice of presiding and judge dismissed the appeal. employee filed a appeal to this court. However, S e c t i o n 22 o f t h e A c t p r o v i d e s t h a t i n a p p e a l s to the c i r c u i t c o u r t from adverse r u l i n g s of the Board, " t h e r e be no appeal Nevertheless, (Ala. to as we C i v . App. decision in any noted 2002), such appellate a court of i n Ex p a r t e D i x o n , a party aggrieved matter i s not a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s ; he o r she may by without file 841 a a Alabama." So. review circuit limits court this properly d e c i s i o n i s supported there ha[s] been [a] court to "'a applied remedy review law,'" l e g a l evidence,'" violation of in a petition for a writ the by any 2d a 1273 circuit-court c e r t i o r a r i i n t h i s c o u r t , as t o w h i c h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e of shall of the of standard whether the "'whether the and party's "[whether] fundamental A l t h o u g h t h e e m p l o y e e has c o n t e n d e d i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g t h a t the p r e s i d i n g judge of the three-judge p a n e l h e a r i n g h i s a p p e a l d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o a c t u n i l a t e r a l l y on a d i s p o s i t i v e p r e t r i a l m o t i o n , we have p r e v i o u s l y h e l d s q u a r e l y t o t h e c o n t r a r y . Ex p a r t e P e r s o n n e l Bd. o f J e f f e r s o n C n t y . , 513 So. 2d 1029, 1031 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 7 ) . 4 6 2110537 rights." So. 2d City 841 456, So. 457 2d a t 1278 ( A l a . C i v . App. of H u n t s v i l l e , have considered 580 the So. court's decision Board's order The as 2d 1983), 1323 employee's circuit accordance ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e J a c k s o n , a on a an Thus, appeal writ we from the from the appeal of v. certiorari in practice. e m p l o y e e c o n t e n d s , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e R u l e i s c o n t r a r y to the A c t i n the f i e l d from Evans (Ala. 1991)). employee's for w i t h our customary citing purported the petition and 733 order of the Board and o f p e r f e c t i o n o f an a p p e a l that, to the e x t e n t of the c o n f l i c t a r i s i n g t h e r e f r o m , t h e A c t must p r e v a i l s u c h t h a t h i s a p p e a l s h o u l d be deemed t i m e l y . We agree. Whereas t h e A c t s t a t e s t h a t an a p p e a l f r o m a d e t e r m i n a t i o n by t h e B o a r d i n an employee-disciplinary matter employee's personnel Board's filing director order, "perfected" director extent of and that the o n l y by a the notice within Rule 10 appeal days by of with the that the such an with the To the both of the circuit court. a the is statement of of appeal a adoption the Board's issuance such clerk Board, of states filing w i t h the i s " p e r f e c t e d " by means o f regulation that p u r p o r t s t o amend a d u l y e n a c t e d s t a t u t e , has s o u g h t t o impose a further proceedings prerequisite before the upon Board parties before 7 their to disciplinary appeals may be 2110537 deemed p e r f e c t e d , the Board has done so in the absence of authority. " I t i s s e t t l e d law t h a t t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f a s t a t u t e w i l l p r e v a i l i n any c a s e i n w h i c h t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e s t a t u t e and a ... r e g u l a t i o n . " ' I t i s axiomatic that administrative r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s must be consistent with the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l or statutory a u t h o r i t y by w h i c h t h e i r p r o m u l g a t i o n i s authorized. "A regulation ... which o p e r a t e s t o c r e a t e a r u l e o u t o f harmony w i t h t h e s t a t u t e , i s a mere n u l l i t y . " T h i s is b e c a u s e an administrative board or agency is purely a creature of the legislature, and has o n l y t h o s e powers c o n f e r r e d upon i t by i t s c r e a t o r . ' "An a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y c a n n o t u s u r p powers or c o n t r a v e n e a s t a t u t e . " Ex p a r t e C r e s t w o o d Hosp. & N u r s i n g 47 ( A l a . 1995) Florence, 417 M a n h a t t a n Gen. (1936)). (citations So. 2d 191, E q u i p . Co. legislative Home, I n c . , omitted; quoting Ex 670 So. parte 193-94 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) , q u o t i n g v. C o m m i s s i o n e r , 297 U.S. 2d 45, City of i n turn 129, 134 i n t h i s case, enforced the 5 Because the c i r c u i t c o u r t has, R u l e t o b a r an a p p e a l t h a t , a c c o r d i n g perfected by the employee, we t o t h e A c t , was conclude that that properly court has Ex p a r t e C i t y o f F l o r e n c e e r r o n e o u s l y a t t r i b u t e s p a r t o f t h e q u o t e d m a t e r i a l t o L y n c h v. T i l d e n P r o d u c e Co., 265 U.S. 315 ( 1 9 2 4 ) ) , a c a s e t h a t i s c i t e d b u t i s n o t q u o t e d by t h e Court i n Manhattan General. 5 8 2110537 erred. We therefore r e v e r s e t h e judgment under review 6 and remand t h e c a u s e f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o a l l o w t h e e m p l o y e e ' s appeal t o proceed. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Although p e t i t i o n s f o r extraordinary writs directed to c i r c u i t c o u r t s , s u c h as p e t i t i o n s f o r t h e w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , a r e o r d i n a r i l y g o v e r n e d b y R u l e 21, A l a . R. App. P., t h i s c o u r t t r e a t s c a s e s s u c h as t h i s one, i n w h i c h r e v i e w b y t h i s c o u r t has been sought o f judgments o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t r e v i e w i n g d e c i s i o n s o f t h e B o a r d , as a p p e a l s f o r purposes o f p r e p a r i n g r e c o r d s and b r i e f s , and t h e n a t u r e o f t h i s c o u r t ' s p r i o r judgments i n such cases r e f l e c t s that t r e a t m e n t ( i . e . , we " a f f i r m " o r " r e v e r s e " t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s u c h c a s e s r a t h e r t h a n " g r a n t " o r "deny" a p e t i t i o n f o r , o r i s s u e , a w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i ) . E.g., Ex p a r t e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 870 So. 2d 742, 747 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2003) . Our d i s p o s i t i o n i n t h i s c a s e r e f l e c t s o u r a d h e r e n c e t o t h a t custom. 6 9

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.