Harris v. Owens
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Respondents William Harris, in his official capacity as president of Alabama State University ("ASU"), and the individual members of ASU's Board of Trustees, in their official capacities as members of the Board, appealed a circuit court's order granting the petition filed by Felisa Owens seeking a writ of mandamus and declaratory relief as a result of the termination of her employment with ASU and awarding Owens full backpay and benefits. Upon review, the Court determined that Respondents were statutorily immune from suit for any claim for monetary damages. Therefore, the circuit court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over Owens's claim for backpay and benefits. The Supreme Court vacated the circuit court's order with regard to the backpay issue, but affirmed the lower court in all other respects.
Download PDF
REL: 09/21/2012 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2012 1110421 W i l l i a m H a r r i s , i n h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as p r e s i d e n t o f Alabama S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , e t a l . v. F e l i s a Owens Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t (CV-10-811) WISE, Court Justice. The official respondents, capacity William as p r e s i d e n t Harris ("Harris"), o f Alabama S t a t e in his University ("ASU"), a n d t h e i n d i v i d u a l members o f ASU's B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s 1110421 ("the Board"), Board, i n their official from appeal c a p a c i t i e s as members o f t h e court's the c i r c u i t order granting the p e t i t i o n f i l e d b y F e l i s a Owens s e e k i n g a w r i t o f mandamus a n d declaratory employment relief with as a r e s u l t ASU of the termination and awarding Owens full of her backpay and benefits. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y On O c t o b e r ASU's Office termination 19, 2009, Carmen D o u g l a s , v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f o f Human letter Resources, t o Owens. delivered The l e t t e r a notice-of- stated that Harris had a p p r o v e d a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t o t e r m i n a t e Owens's employment and informed Owens of her r i g h t t o request a hearing i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h ASU p o l i c y . On October October 20, 2009, Owens requested 22, 2009, Owens was p l a c e d hearing, the hearing officer On on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a v e w i t h p a y p e n d i n g t h e outcome o f t h e h e a r i n g . a a hearing. After recommended conducting that Owens be s u s p e n d e d f o r 30 d a y s w i t h o u t p a y . ASU's O f f i c e o f Human R e s o u r c e s hearing 2010. officer's r e c e i v e d a copy o f t h e f i n d i n g s a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n on J a n u a r y Douglas subsequently s e n t Owens a l e t t e r d a t e d 2 4, February 1110421 1, 2010. rejected that the In that letter, the hearing the termination termination 2010; and t h a t Douglas officer's stated that H a r r i s had f i n d i n g s and recommendation; o f Owens's employment was u p h e l d ; t h a t o f h e r employment was e f f e c t i v e January 31, she w o u l d c e a s e r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s M a r c h 1, 2010. Owens a p p e a l e d h e r t e r m i n a t i o n effective t o the Board. Owens s t o p p e d r e c e i v i n g s a l a r y a n d b e n e f i t s on M a r c h 1, 2010. S u b s e q u e n t l y , D o u g l a s s e n t Owens a l e t t e r d a t e d May 7, 2010, i n f o r m i n g her t h a t the Board had upheld the d e c i s i o n t o terminate h e r employment. On June 29, 2010, Owens Mandamus a n d P e t i t i o n in t h e Montgomery filed a "Petition f o rDeclaratory Circuit respondent i n h i s o f f i c i a l Court. f o r Writ and I n j u n c t i v e Harris was Relief" named c a p a c i t y as t h e p r e s i d e n t of as a o f ASU. E l t o n Dean, O s c a r C r a w l e y , Bobby J u n k i n s , T a y l o r Hodge, B u f o r d Crutcher, Thomas F i g u r e s , L a w r e n c e Lemak, M a r v i n W i g g i n s , a n d H e r b e r t Y o u n g were a l s o named as r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e i r capacities alleged as members o f t h e B o a r d . that, a t the time official In her p e t i t i o n , she was n o t i f i e d that Owens H a r r i s had approved t h e recommendation t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment, she was § a permanent employee of ASU; t h a t 3 2.6 o f t h e Non- 1110421 Academic Handbook ("the handbook") e m p l o y e e may n o t be d i s m i s s e d stated that a permanent except through the due-process p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e handbook; and t h a t , i n t e r m i n a t i n g h e r employment, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e d u e p r o c e s s p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e handbook. On A u g u s t 17, 2010, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t i n which they argued that Owens c o u l d n o t meet t h e i n i t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a w r i t o f mandamus, i . e . , she could not e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r l e g a l right because she h a d r e c e i v e d w r i t t e n n o t i c e against h e r a n d h a d h a d an t o the order evidentiary sought of the a l l e g a t i o n s hearing before a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ; t h a t t h e p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t s a b o u t w h i c h Owens c o m p l a i n e d d i d n o t amount t o v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e h a n d b o o k ; a n d that, even i f the defects d i d amount t o v i o l a t i o n s of the handbook, any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s a n d w o u l d n o t s u p p o r t Owens's claim f o r r e l i e f . On hearing and, September 7, 2010, t h e c i r c u i t on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' m o t i o n on O c t o b e r 6, 2010, t h e c i r c u i t court conducted a f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , 1 court denied the motion The r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h e September 7, 2010, h e a r i n g . 1 4 1110421 f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . respondents, on June A f t e r conducting 21, 2011, renewed some d i s c o v e r y , t h e their motion for a summary j u d g m e n t , i n w h i c h t h e y a g a i n a r g u e d t h a t t h e a l l e g e d procedural handbook defects and d i d not that, even amount i f the to violations defects of the d i d amount to v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e handbook, any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s and d i d n o t j u s t i f y the r e l i e f and, s o u g h t b y Owens. a f t e r conducting a hearing, r e n e w e d m o t i o n f o r a summary 2 Owens f i l e d a r e s p o n s e , the c i r c u i t court denied the judgment. On S e p t e m b e r 14, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d order. I n that order, the c i r c u i t court s t a t e d that the f a c t s were u n d i s p u t e d a legal a final one. a n d t h a t t h e i s s u e i n v o l v e d was The c i r c u i t court found t h a t , predominantly i n terminating Owens's employment, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e procedures s e t f o r t h i n the handbook. I t also found: "The F o r e w o r d t o t h e Handbook makes c l e a r t h a t ' [ a ] n y p o l i c i e s i s s u e d b y any i n d i v i d u a l s o r a g e n c y i n c o n f l i c t w i t h these p o l i c i e s a r e n u l l and v o i d . ' The a c t i o n s o f t h e o f f i c i a l s a t ASU i n t e r m i n a t i n g [Owens] c o n f l i c t w i t h the p o l i c i e s s e t f o r t h i n the Handbook. R e s p o n d e n t s do n o t d i s p u t e t h e sworn a l l e g a t i o n s of [Owens]; r a t h e r , they argue t h e R e s p o n d e n t s ' f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e mandated p o l i c i e s a t ASU amounts t o h a r m l e s s e r r o r a n d t h a t t h e y a r e 2 T h e r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h i s 5 hearing. 1110421 afforded persuaded wide d i s c r e t i o n . and d i s a g r e e s . The Court i s not "By r e f u s i n g t o f o l l o w t h e mandates o f t h e Handbook, R e s p o n d e n t s a b u s e d t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n a n d exercised that d i s c r e t i o n i n an a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s m a n n e r . As s u c h , mandamus w i l l l i e t o c o m p e l a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . The C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [ O w e n s ' s ] r e q u e s t f o r mandamus a n d d e c l a r a t o r y judgment r e l i e f i s due t o be GRANTED. "The C o u r t h a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e p e t i t i o n , a n s w e r , motions and r e s p o n s e s , o r a l arguments o f c o u n s e l , the applicable law, and h a v i n g reviewed the s u b m i s s i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s , i t i s ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECLARED as f o l l o w s : "(A) that the Respondents have violated their mandatory p o l i c i e s w i t h respect to the termination of [Owens]; "(B) that [Owens] has n o t b e e n p r op e r ly terminated pursuant t o the mandatory p o l i c i e s o f ASU; "(C) t h a t [Owens] s t i l l has p e r m a n e n t s t a t u s as an e m p l o y e e o f ASU; "(D) t h a t [Owens] s t i l l has p e r m a n e n t s t a t u s as an Academic Records A n a l y s t a t ASU; "(E) that the Respondents follow their mandated 6 1110421 policies, reinstating [Owens] t o her former position or another p o s i t i o n w i t h commensurate duties, salary and benefits, w i t h f u l l back pay and back b e n e f i t s ; "(F) t hat Re s p onde nt s r e i n s t a t e [Owens's] pay from t h e date t h a t i t ceased t o the present, with a reinstatement of b ene fits and a reinstatement of [Owens] assuming the duties of her p o s i t i o n ; and "(G) that costs are taxed a g a i n s t the Respondents f o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n may commence." (Capitalization i n original.) On O c t o b e r 13, 2 0 1 1 , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s filed a motion t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n a l o r d e r , w h i c h the c i r c u i t court denied. This appeal Standard followed. o f Review "The circuit court's order issuing a writ of mandamus i n v o l v e s o n l y q u e s t i o n s o f l a w . T h e r e f o r e , t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i e s t o b o t h t h e appeal and p e t i t i o n : a de novo s t a n d a r d . See, e.g., G e o r g e v. S i m s , 888 So. 2d 1224, 1226 ( A l a . 2004) ( o b s e r v i n g i n a c a s e i n w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f s o u g h t a p e t i t i o n f o r mandamus t h a t ' [ b ] e c a u s e t h e 7 1110421 f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d and we a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h p u r e q u e s t i o n s o f l a w , o u r s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de novo.')." R e g i o n s Bank v. Reed, 60 So. 3d 868, 877 ( A l a . 2010) . We that, i n Ex p a r t e M i l e s , 841 So. 2d 242, 243-44 ( A l a . 2002), we s t a t e d : "'"A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and i t will be ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order sought; 2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e respondent to perform, accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e remedy; and 4) p r o p e r l y i n v o k e d jurisdiction of the c o u r t . ' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501, 503 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l i s s u e o n l y i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s i n a d e q u a t e , and it c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e f o r appeal. Ex p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . Co., 590 So. 2d 252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " ' " ( Q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e E m p i r e F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 720 So. 2d 893, 894 ( A l a . 1998).) M o r e o v e r , ' [ t ] h e b u r d e n i s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r who s e e k s a w r i t o f mandamus t o show t h a t e a c h e l e m e n t r e q u i r e d f o r i s s u a n c e o f t h e w r i t has b e e n s a t i s f i e d . ' Ex p a r t e P a t t e r s o n , 853 So. 2d 260, 263 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002) ( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g Co., 601 So. 2d 423 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . " Ex p a r t e S e r i o , 893 So. 2d 1148, 1150 Discussion 8 note ( A l a . 2004). 1110421 The it respondents argue t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t g r a n t e d Owens's p e t i t i o n for a writ erred when o f mandamus a n d h e r r e q u e s t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g m e n t and a w a r d e d Owens b a c k p a y a n d benefits. The r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e immune any c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y 1901, the and t h a t there c i r c u i t court's from damages u n d e r A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . was n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t judgment. A. I n i t i a l l y , the respondents contend that the c i r c u i t court erred say, i n awarding they Owens b a c k p a y a r e immune from and b e n e f i t s because, liability p u r s u a n t t o A r t . I , § 14, A l a . C o n s t . f o r monetary 1901. they damages 3 " ' I t i s s e t t l e d beyond c a v i l t h a t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s c a n n o t be s u e d f o r damages i n t h e i r official capacities. B u r g o o n v. A l a b a m a S t a t e Dep't o f Human R e s . , 835 So. 2d 131, 132-33 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) . ' Ex p a r t e D a n g e r f i e l d , 49 So. 3d [675,] 681 [ ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ] . " Ex p a r t e Montgomery C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . , 27, 2012] So. 3d , [Ms. 1101401, J a n u a r y ( A l a . 2012). I n Vandenberg v. A r a m a r k E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 81 So. 3d 326 ( A l a . 2 0 1 1 ) , t h i s Court stated: T h e r e s p o n d e n t s do n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o i m m u n i t y as t o Owens's c l a i m s f o r mandamus a n d d e c l a r a t o r y judgment r e l i e f . 3 9 1110421 " T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t t h e i m m u n i t y a f f o r d e d t h e S t a t e by § 14 a p p l i e s t o i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f t h e S t a t e and S t a t e o f f i c e r s s u e d i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s when s u c h an a c t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y an a c t i o n a g a i n s t the S t a t e . L y o n s v. R i v e r Road C o n s t r . , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, 261 ( A l a . 2003) . We have s p e c i f i c a l l y ' e x t e n d e d t h e r e s t r i c t i o n on s u i t s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e f o u n d i n § 14 " t o t h e s t a t e ' s i n s t i t u t i o n s o f h i g h e r l e a r n i n g " and h a [ v e ] h e l d t h o s e i n s t i t u t i o n s a b s o l u t e l y immune f r o m s u i t as agencies of the S t a t e . ' Ex p a r t e T r o y U n i v . , 961 So. 2d 105, 109 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g T a y l o r v. T r o y S t a t e U n i v . , 437 So. 2d 472, 474 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . This § 14 b a r a l s o p r o h i b i t s ' a c t i o n s a g a i n s t o f f i c e r s , t r u s t e e s , and e m p l o y e e s o f s t a t e u n i v e r s i t i e s i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s . ' A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. J o n e s , 895 So. 2d 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) . We have, however, s t a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n causes o f a c t i o n a r e n o t b a r r e d by § 14: II I II 'There a r e f o u r general categories of a c t i o n s which i n A l a n d v. Graham, 287 A l a . 226, 250 So. 2d 677 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , we s t a t e d do not come within the p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 14: (1) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t t o compel S t a t e o f f i c i a l s to perform t h e i r l e g a l d u t i e s ; (2) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t t o enjoin S t a t e o f f i c i a l s f r o m e n f o r c i n g an u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l a w ; (3) a c t i o n s to compel State officials to p e r f o r m m i n i s t e r i a l a c t s ; and (4) actions brought under the Declaratory Judgments A c t ... seeking c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s t a t u t e and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n a g i v e n situation. 287 A l a . a t 229-230, 250 So. 2d 677. Other a c t i o n s w h i c h a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d by § 14 are: (5) valid inverse condemnation actions brought 10 1110421 against State o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y ; and (6) a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r damages brought against State o f f i c i a l s in their representative capacity and i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was alleged that they had acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y or i n a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of law. W a l l a c e v. B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o f Montgomery C o u n t y , 280 A l a . [635] a t 639, 197 So. 2d 428 [(1967)]; U n z i c k e r v. S t a t e , 346 So. 2d 931, 933 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; E n g e l h a r d t v. J e n k i n s , 273 A l a . 352, 141 So. 2d 193 ( 1 9 6 2 ) . ' " "'Drummond Co. v. A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 937 So. 2d 56, 58 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g [Ex p a r t e ] C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d [65,] 68 [ ( A l a . 1980)]) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . These a c t i o n s a r e s o m e t i m e s r e f e r r e d t o as " e x c e p t i o n s " to § 14; however, in actuality these a c t i o n s a r e s i m p l y n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be actions " ' a g a i n s t the State' for § 14 p u r p o s e s . " P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n C o r p . , 835 So. 2d 137, 142 ( A l a . 2002) . This Court has q u a l i f i e d t h o s e " e x c e p t i o n s , " noting t h a t " ' [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one against the [ S ] t a t e when a f a v o r a b l e r e s u l t f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t or p r o p e r t y r i g h t of the S t a t e , or would r e s u l t i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y o f money f r o m t h e [ S ] t a t e . ' " A l a b a m a A g r i c . & Mech. U n i v . v. J o n e s , 895 So. 2d 867, 873 ( A l a 2004) (quoting Shoals Cmty. Coll. ^ C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i ^ App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n J o n e s ) . ' "Alabama Dep't o f T r a n s p . v. H a r b e r t 990 So. 2d 831, 840 ( A l a . 2008) . As 11 I n t ' l , Inc., I clarified in 1110421 Harbert, these 'exceptions,' i n c l u d i n g the e x c e p t i o n f o r a c t i o n s s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment under the D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , a p p l y o n l y t o a c t i o n s a g a i n s t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s , not a c t i o n s a g a i n s t S t a t e agencies. I d . a t 841. The defendant boards of trustees are corporate bodies governing the universities, and t h e r e i s no e x c e p t i o n to the i m m u n i t y a f f o r d e d t h e S t a t e by § 14 t h a t w o u l d permit the trial c o u r t t o e n t e r t a i n an action against them, regardless of whether monetary, i n j u n c t i v e , or d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i s b e i n g sought. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e b o a r d s o f t r u s t e e s a r e due t o be d i s m i s s e d as p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o a l l t h e c l a i m s a l l e g e d by t h e s t u d e n t s , and we n e e d o n l y c o n s i d e r those claims as they r e l a t e to the university a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and t h e f o o d - s e r v i c e v e n d o r s . 7 II " However, although the students may seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , § 14 still immunizes those S t a t e o f f i c i a l s f r o m any c l a i m f o r money damages. H a r b e r t , 990 So. 2d a t 839-41." 7 81 So. 3d a t 332-33 In this case, (some e m p h a s i s § 14 immunizes c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y damages. not have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r b a c k p a y and b e n e f i t s . 978 So. 2d jurisdiction exercise 17 [a (Ala. court] i t s power to added). the Therefore, jurisdiction See respondents from any the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d o v e r Owens's c l a i m for Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f T r a n s p . , 2007). may "'"'Lacking take dismiss the no action [claim] subject other matter than Any to other a c t i o n t a k e n by a c o u r t l a c k i n g s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s 12 1110421 n u l l and v o i d . ' " ' Ex p a r t e B l a n k e n s h i p , [(Ala. 2004)] (quoting State v. Drive, 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 B e a c h v. D i r e c t o r o f Revenue, App. 1996)." a t 27. it Property a t 2018 Rainbow quoting i n turn 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo. C t . ( A l a . 1999), Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a D e p ' t o f T r a n s p . , 978 So. 2d Thus, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r was v o i d t o t h e e x t e n t purported t o award backpay remedy i n s u c h a situation, jurisdiction vacate 893 So. 2d [303,] 307 i n the t r i a l the t r i a l court's a n d b e n e f i t s t o Owens. when we find no subject-matter c o u r t , i s t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and judgment." Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . , 999 So. 2d 891, 898 ( A l a . 2008) . we d i s m i s s circuit benefits, the respondents' appeal court's final a n d we v a c a t e "Our order Accordingly, as t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e awarding Owens backpay that p o r t i o n of the c i r c u i t and court's order. B. The respondents a l s o contend that the c i r c u i t court e r r e d when i t g r a n t e d Owens's p e t i t i o n declaratory relief for a writ o f mandamus a n d because "there i s i n s u f f i c i e n t evidence i n the record to s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . The e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h i s C o u r t shows t h a t Owens was p r o v i d e d a l l p r o c e s s t h a t she was due a n d t h a t any d e v i a t i o n f r o m 13 1110421 t h e s t r i c t u r e s o f p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n ASU's Handbook amounts t o ' h a r m l e s s e r r o r ' a n d does n o t form a s u f f i c i e n t basis f o r overturning ASU's employment d e c i s i o n . " ( R e s p o n d e n t s ' b r i e f , a t p. 15.) We n o t e t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c i t e no s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t argument, i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of t h e i r harmless-error o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P. "'The p u r p o s e o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P., o u t l i n i n g the requirements f o r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s , i s t o c o n s e r v e t h e time and energy of t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t and t o a d v i s e t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y o f t h e p o i n t s he o r she i s o b l i g a t e d t o make. U n i t e d S t a t e s v. L e v y , 391 F.3d 1327 ( 1 1 t h C i r . 2004) ( d i s c u s s i n g the r u l e t h a t i s s u e s not b r i e f e d a r e waived and R u l e 28, F e d . R. App. P., w h i c h s e t s out t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a p p e l l a t e b r i e f s i n the f e d e r a l c o u r t s ) . Rule 28(a)(10), A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e argument s e c t i o n of the appellant's b r i e f s h a l l s e t out "the contentions of the a p p e l l a n t / p e t i t i o n e r with respect to the i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , and t h e reasons t h e r e f o r , with c i t a t i o n s t o the cases, statutes, o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d r e l i e d on." A d d i t i o n a l l y , " ' [ i ] t i s n o t t h e f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o make a n d a d d r e s s l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on u n d e l i n e a t e d general propositions not supported by s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r argument.'" B u t l e r v. Town o f A r g o , 871 So. 2d 1, 20 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Dykes v . Lane Trucking, I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) . ' "Ex p a r t e B o r d e n , 60 So. 3d 940, 943 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . Because G r a c i e has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e . " 14 1110421 Van V o o r s t v. F e d e r a l E x p r e s s C o r p . , 16 So. 3d 86, 92-93 ( A l a . 2008). It i s well established that general propositions o f law a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d " s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y " f o r p u r p o s e s o f R u l e 28. Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 So. 2d 92 (Ala. 1985).' S.B. v. S a i n t James Sch., 959 So. 2d 72, 89 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) . T h i s C o u r t w i l l not 'create l e g a l a r g u m e n t s f o r a p a r t y b a s e d on undelineated g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s u n s u p p o r t e d by a u t h o r i t y o r argument.' S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 So. 2d 76, 79 (Ala. 1992) . Further, i t is well settled that " [ w ] h e r e an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y f o r an a r g u m e n t , t h i s C o u r t may a f f i r m t h e j u d g m e n t as t o t h o s e i s s u e s , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t ' s duty nor i t s f u n c t i o n to p e r f o r m a l l the legal r e s e a r c h f o r an a p p e l l a n t . " ' S p r a d l i n v. B i r m i n g h a m Airport Auth., 613 So. 2d 347, 348 (Ala. 1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Sea Calm S h i p p i n g Co., S.A. v. C o o k s , 565 So. 2d 212, 216 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . " A l l s o p p v. B o l d i n g , The only 86 So. citations r e s p o n d e n t s ' argument s t a n d "[t]he doctrine 3d to authority f o r the g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s that that e r r o r , i n order of an by appellate court procedural aspects of to f u r n i s h a ground f o r view board" with proceedings and less before body t h a n when d e a l i n g w i t h p r o c e d u r a l lower court.' included i s generally applied to administrative should ( A l a . 2011). the prejudicial decision 960 in r e v e r s a l , must be a 952, review that "'[a]n strictness an administrative aspects occurring i n a S t a t e v. A l a b a m a P u b l i c S e r v i c e C o m m i s s i o n , 15 the 293 1110421 Ala. 553, 562-63, 307 So. 3d 521, Hamrick, 388 So. 3d 981, 984 respondents do n o t c i t e contention to t h e i r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h handbook. that supports their r u l e would that the harmless-error apply the procedures s e t f o r t h i n argument i n t h i s A l a . R. App. P., portion Therefore, However, t h e 4 the respondents' we w i l l the 1980) . F e r g u s o n v. does n o t c o m p l y w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , regard and (Ala. any a u t h o r i t y specific the 528-29 ( 1 9 7 5 ) . " not consider this of the c i r c u i t issue. Accordingly, court's final we order affirm granting mandamus a n d d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f . For the above-stated reasons, we dismiss the appeal i n s o f a r as i t i s f r o m t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s order final a w a r d i n g Owens b a c k p a y a n d b e n e f i t s , a n d we v a c a t e portion of the c i r c u i t court's final order. a f f i r m that portion of the c i r c u i t court's However, judgment that we granting mandamus a n d d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f . T h i s C o u r t i n F e r g u s o n was r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n b y t h e Board of Medical Examiners. A l s o , t h i s Court i n Ferguson n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was a s t a t u t e t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d t h a t the h a r m l e s s - e r r o r r u l e a p p l i e d t o d e c i s i o n s o f t h e Board o f Medical Examiners. However, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s do n o t c i t e a n y statute that provides that the harmless-error rule applies to the review o f a d e c i s i o n o f t h e Board i n t h i s case. 4 16 1110421 AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART AND JUDGMENT VACATED IN PART. Malone, C.J., and M u r d o c k , Shaw, a n d M a i n , Woodall, Stuart, J J . , concur. 17 Bolin, Parker,
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.
