In re: Teplick v. Moulton

Annotate this Case

The president of the University of South Alabama and several hospital administrators petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to direct the circuit court to vacate an order that denied their motion for summary judgment, and to enter an order granting their motion. The underlying suit arose from a contract dispute between the University and the former dean of the College of Medicine, Dr. Richard Teplick. Changes in duties to University Hospital administration lead to the elimination of certain positions and a reassignment of Dr. Teplick's duties. Dr. Teplick was unhappy with the reassignment and the University's substitution. Dr. Teplick sued the University and administration in their official and individual capacities alleging among other things, a violation of his due process rights, bad faith, emotional distress, punitive damages, backpay and reinstatement (or "front pay" in lieu of reinstatement). The University answered Dr. Teplick's complaint, raising among other defenses, immunity under Article I of the Alabama Constitution. The University moved for summary judgment. The trial court entered an order denying the University's motion without making any findings of fact or conclusions of law. In a lengthy review of the circuit court record, the Supreme Court concluded the University demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief they requested. The Court granted the petition for the writ and directed the circuit court to enter summary judgment in the University's favor.

Download PDF

REL:01/25/2013 N o t i c e : This 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 Reporter of Decisions, 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1111283 Ex p a r t e Gordon Moulton e t a l . PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : Richard Teplick v. Gordon Moulton e t a l . ) (Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-901752) BOLIN, Justice. Gordon M o u l t o n , t h e p r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f South Alabama ("USA"); Stanley Hammack, the vice president f o r 1111283 Health S y s t e m s a t USA a n d s e n i o r h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r ; D r . Ronald Franks, the vice president and D r . Samuel S t r a d a , USA (hereinafter petitioners"), f o r Health S c i e n c e s a t USA; t h e dean o f t h e C o l l e g e referred petition this of Medicine at to collectively Court for a writ as "the o f mandamus d i r e c t i n g the Mobile C i r c u i t Court t o vacate i t s order denying t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t a n d t o e n t e r an order granting that motion. We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n a n d i s s u e the w r i t . Facts A. D r . R i c h a r d and P r o c e d u r a l History T e p l i c k ' s Employment a n d T e r m i n a t i o n o f t h a t Employment On May 29, 2 0 0 1 , D r . R o b e r t A. K r i e s b e r g , C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e and v i c e p r e s i d e n t t h e dean o f t h e for Medical A f f a i r s f o r USA, n o t i f i e d D r . R i c h a r d T e p l i c k i n w r i t i n g t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n of chief of staff o f USA H o s p i t a l s was b e i n g posted fora p e r i o d o f f i v e d a y s a n d i n v i t e d h i m t o c o m p l e t e a n d r e t u r n an a p p l i c a t i o n , w h i c h was e n c l o s e d . job responsibilities associated K r i e s b e r g l i s t e d a number o f with the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n a n d i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k t h a t t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f w o u l d be a member o f t h e s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e H e a l t h Systems a t USA a n d w o u l d r e p o r t d i r e c t l y t o h i m . K r i e s b e r g a l s o i n f o r m e d 2 1111283 T e p l i c k t h a t the c h i e f o f s t a f f would a l s o h o l d faculty appointment and t h a t patient-care Teplick guaranteed that Kriesberg the chief of s t a f f ' s f o r two y e a r s and t h a t clinical- activities a c c o u n t f o r no more t h a n " 2 0 % o f e f f o r t . " informed a f o r the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f thereafter position further s a l a r y w o u l d be i t would d e t e r m i n e d on a p r o d u c t i v i t y - b a s e d c o m p e n s a t i o n p l a n . applied would a n d was be Teplick hired on O c t o b e r 1, 2 0 0 1 . T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he was h i r e d he d i d n o t e n t e r i n t o a n y w r i t t e n a g r e e m e n t a n d no p r o m i s e s were made t o h i m r e g a r d i n g t h e l e n g t h o f h i s employment as c h i e f o f staff. S t a n l e y Hammack, as USA's s e n i o r h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r , testified create the relatively only that he disagreed chief-of-staff "small operation" a d d e d "an e x t r a with Kriesberg's position made l a y e r o f management." p o s i t i o n and t o h i r e the d e c i s i o n to do USA was a and t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n h o w e v e r , t h a t he s u p p o r t e d K r i e s b e r g ' s chief-of-staff because decision to so. 3 Hammack stated, decision to create the Teplick Hammack once Kriesberg stated that h i s 1111283 disagreement with Kriesberg position i n general, Teplick Teplick's liaison between discharge working Blue as with and the Shield; relative his to Teplick the stated that duties to performing clinical lecturing to also held three College of with efforts; payors such in of separate 1 and duties he Hammack r e p o r t e d he professor Medicine, including and internal medicine. held p o s i t i o n of associate the the Teplick t e s t i f i e d academic to three fellows, also to In staff, positions months e v e r y y e a r and medical served Kriesberg. 4 on various that included and students. Teplick f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d that i n a d d i t i o n to h i s formal titles as various care. chief a surgery, w o r k two residents, as as assisting clinical duties the Kriesberg. serving participating of Medicine. within and c o n t r o l and of a n e s t h e s i o l o g y , also job and USA dean w i t h i n t h e C o l l e g e his staff; of 1 included medical cost T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t he professor directly staff administrative within "need Teplick." third-party administrators to positions of the assisting with quality-assurance Cross-Blue addition reported chief USA planning; committees i r r e s p e c t i v e of initially duties concerned job committees, 1111283 including the overseeing graduate medical education; Compliance and E t h i c s Committee; s e r v i n g s e r v i n g on on t h e B i l l i n g C o m p l i a n c e C o m m i t t e e ; a n d s e r v i n g as t h e USA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o the Veteran's A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H o s p i t a l i n B i l o x i , Teplick testified duties, he had that, no despite h i s various decision-making Mississippi. p o s i t i o n s and authority, no direct s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y o v e r a n y o n e , a n d no a u t h o r i t y t o h i r e o r fire anyone. Kriesberg at which time testified Hammack announced h i s r e t i r e m e n t Teplick that told began that him that "he w o u l d [Teplick] l e f t . " immediate supervisory t o Hammack. Teplick t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was n o t t h a t [ T e p l i c k ' s ] j o b was not h i r e another were position some of secure" Chief-of-staff after S u b s e q u e n t t o Hammack's b e c o m i n g supervisor, responsibilities o f 2004, s h o r t l y a f t e r Hammack became h i s s u p e r v i s o r n e e d e d i n t h e USA s y s t e m " b u t and reporting i n the f a l l Teplick's Teplick's duties and reassigned to others, over graduate-medical-education the including h i s p r o g r a m a n d h i s p o s i t i o n as c o m p l i a n c e o f f i c e r on t h e B i l l i n g Compliance Committee. 5 1111283 Hammack Teplick testified inquired about that soon the status after of Kriesberg retired the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n a n d t h a t he i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k t h a t he was " n o t a f a n " o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n a n d t h a t he w o u l d " s e e how i t works." Hammack d e n i e d eliminate telling Teplick the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n that he w o u l d n o t until after Teplick c h o s e t o l e a v e t h e p o s i t i o n . Hammack a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t some of T e p l i c k ' s responsibilities and d u t i e s were r e a s s i g n e d a t t h a t time f o r the purpose o f c r e a t i n g " b r o a d e r perspective representation, and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " because T e p l i c k , as c h i e f o f s t a f f , h a d no one r e p o r t i n g d i r e c t l y t o h i m . I n J u l y 2007, Hammack began d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h b o t h F r a n k s and S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c h i e f o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , i n c l u d i n g discussing the r e d i s t r i b u t i o n of Teplick's duties eliminating the and t h e p r o j e c t e d position. financial Franks stated savings from that these d i s c u s s i o n s c e n t e r e d on b o t h t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d f i n a n c i a l considerations f o r e l i m i n a t i n g the p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f . F r a n k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Hammack was p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y o p p o s e d t o the chief-of-staff predetermined position to eliminate but that the p o s i t i o n 6 Hammock had n o t a t t h e time these 1111283 d i s c u s s i o n s were t a k i n g p l a c e . discussions centered on Strada also t e s t i f i e d that the the organizational and financial a s p e c t s o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n b u t t h a t he " t h o u g h t " during these d i s c u s s i o n s that the d e c i s i o n to eliminate the p o s i t i o n h a d a l r e a d y b e e n made b y Hammack. Hammack s t a t e d that he d e c i d e d i n the f a l l o f 2008 t o e l i m i n a t e t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . Hammack t e s t i f i e d the decision to eliminate t h e p o s i t i o n was b a s e d that on USA's d i f f i c u l t f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n a t t h e time and h i s b e l i e f that e l i m i n a t i n g t h e p o s i t i o n w o u l d s t r e a m l i n e USA's o p e r a t i o n s a n d bring d i r e c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y between department chairmen and hospital administration. eliminating efficient the thing 2 Hammack t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h o u g h t chief-of-staff position was "the most t o do a n d s a v e money a t t h e same t i m e " a n d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was not based on T e p l i c k ' s j o b performance. Hammack P r e s i d e n t Moulton of the d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , which d e c i s i o n P r e s i d e n t Moulton Hammack informed Teplick i n a meeting informed approved. on O c t o b e r 10, 2008, o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n Hammack t e s t i f i e d that Teplick's salary, benefits, was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $400,000 a n n u a l l y . 2 7 including 1111283 based on USA's organizational financial considerations. encouraged T e p l i c k t o explore USA system. situation On December T e p l i c k by l e t t e r that Hammack other well as on testified that he opportunities w i t h i n the 29, 2008, Hammack f o r m a l l y notified t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n w o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d e f f e c t i v e M a r c h 31, 2009. terminated as T e p l i c k ' s employment was on M a r c h 31, 2009, when t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d . T e p l i c k was t h e l a s t t o h o l d t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f ; h i s former f u n c t i o n s as t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f a r e now b e i n g c a r r i e d o u t by o t h e r s . Teplick difficult the disputes financial Hammack's that to eliminating Hammack testified that, i n the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , c o s t - c u t t i n g m e a s u r e s were t a k e n t o a d d r e s s USA's financial USA's s i t u a t i o n was t h e r e a s o n f o r e l i m i n a t i n g chief-of-staff position. addition contention situation. Hammack testified other precarious that medical t r a n s c r i p t i o n s were o u t s o u r c e d , w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n a s a v i n g s o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300,000. medical-transport that later. Hammack a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a i r - s e r v i c e o p e r a t e d b y USA c l o s e d i n 2002 a n d the renal-transplant program closed "several years" T e p l i c k contends t h a t the c l o s i n g of the a i r - m e d i c a l - 8 1111283 transport service occur w i t h i n position close was transport proximity eliminated, service renal-transplant " s e v e r a l " years the and t h e r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t the c l o s i n g occurring program, later. t o the time program d i d not the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f of the air-medical- i n 2002 a n d t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e according t o Hammack, occurring Hammack s u b s e q u e n t l y c l a r i f i e d c l o s i n g of the r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t that program o c c u r r e d "around 2009." Teplick reduction testified i n lieu that he offered t h a t Hammack r e j e c t e d t h i s i d e a . no formal cost-benefit eliminated; were study was conducted no s a l a r y restructuring raises. As that outsourcing He notes the notes that were a l l o w e d also transcriptions for that concerning the p o s i t i o n ; no o t h e r h i g h - l e v e l p o s i t i o n s transcriptions, Teplick USA. salary T e p l i c k also notes or other c a r r i e d o u t ; a n d , i n some c a s e s , received a of e l i m i n a t i n g the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n but chief-of-staff t o take j o b demotions high-level outsourcing were of employees medical t h e employees a f f e c t e d by t o a p p l y f o r o t h e r employment a t that the outsourcing d i d not completely eliminate 9 of medical the function or 1111283 i t s c o s t s ; r a t h e r , i t m e r e l y r e d u c e d c o s t s by c o n t r a c t i n g work the out. B. T e p l i c k ' s Employment Classification G e r a l d G a t t i s , t h e a s s o c i a t e d i r e c t o r f o r Human R e s o u r c e s at USA, testified in his times an stated at-will that pleasure as administrative an at-will o f h i s s u p e r i o r s and position eliminated administrative gives at to that Teplick employee of employee Teplick c o u l d be anytime. e m p l o y e e s s u c h as t h e code " 1 1 0 . " The USA affidavit Gattis served at the or have h i s testified that T e p l i c k were d e s i g n a t e d d e s i g n a t i o n "110" administrative, at a l l USA. terminated Gattis was by i s h i s t o r i c a l l y t h e code managerial, to reflect that category associated f e d e r a l "EEO skill code." G a t t i s t e s t i f i e d that i t he or job a p p a r e n t t o an she i n d i v i d u a l designated i s d i f f e r e n t from a s t a f f responsibilities each executive employees is very of and and as a " 1 1 0 " s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s a l a r y of G a t t i s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t employees as " 1 1 0 " not Gattis "110" also he was subject t o t h e USA entitled t o any 10 due the that designated s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook. s t a t e d t h a t b e c a u s e T e p l i c k was not that employee because of individual. are employee's designated p r o c e s s upon as a separation 1111283 f r o m h i s employment f r o m USA. a l t h o u g h some p e r s o n n e l - a c t i o n exempt," those l i s t i n g s and were Finally Gattis testified that f o r m s l i s t e d T e p l i c k as " s t a f f the r e s u l t of a c l e r i c a l a m i s t a k e b e c a u s e T e p l i c k was n e v e r a s t a f f error employee o f USA. Teplick disputes h i s designation as a " 1 1 0 , " s t a t i n g i n s t e a d t h a t he was a s t a f f e m p l o y e e a n d a f a c u l t y member o f USA. S t a f f employees have separation from t h e i r c e r t a i n due-process r i g h t s employment a t USA. I n s u p p o r t upon of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he was a s t a f f e m p l o y e e , T e p l i c k p o i n t s t o t h e facts t h a t he l a c k e d any r e a l a u t h o r i t y o v e r anyone a n d d i d not have t h e a u t h o r i t y " 1 1 0 s " g e n e r a l l y have t o h i r e o r f i r e individuals; described orientation that Hammack, the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f ... [ t ] h e y have his immediate position supervisor, as b e i n g no one t h a t really t h e m " ; t h a t he was d e s i g n a t e d as " s t a f f " on s e v e r a l action forms; "University and that he o f S o u t h Alabama signed Staff f o r and Employee of "staff reports to personnelreceived a Handbook" a n d g e n e r a l l y an e m p l o y e e d e s i g n a t e d as a " 1 1 0 " does n o t s i g n f o r or r e c e i v e a s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook. The s t a f f - e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k s p e c i f i c a l l y 11 provides: 1111283 " T h i s handbook has been f o r m u l a t e d to assure t h a t a l l s t a f f employees o f the U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h A l a b a m a a r e i n f o r m e d o f t h e p e r s o n n e l p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s of the U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h Alabama. Staff employees are employees who occupy secretarial/clerical, crafts/trades, technical, p r o f e s s i o n a l and s e r v i c e p o s i t i o n s . You should become f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s e p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s and keep t h i s handbook a v a i l a b l e f o r u s e as a reference. "Department heads, other administrative p e r s o n n e l and f a c u l t y a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be s t a f f and t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s handbook may be u s e d as g u i d e l i n e s b u t do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y t o them. D e p a r t m e n t heads and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n n e l s h o u l d , h o w e v e r , be f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f this handbook as t h e y a r e r e s p o n s i b l e for i t s administration. Should issues or questions arise regarding t h i s handbook, t h e d e p a r t m e n t h e a d o r s u p e r v i s o r s h o u l d c o n t a c t t h e Human R e s o u r c e s O f f i c e for c l a r i f i c a t i o n . " The r e c e i p t f o r t h e handbook, s i g n e d b y T e p l i c k , provides, i n p a r t , as f o l l o w s : " I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I am r e q u i r e d t o r e a d and become f a m i l i a r w i t h a l l t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e s e p o l i c i e s , and my s u p e r v i s o r o r d e p a r t m e n t h e a d w i l l a n s w e r any q u e s t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e p o l i c i e s . " I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t n e i t h e r t h i s handbook n o r any provision of t h i s handbook i s or i m p l i e s an employment c o n t r a c t o r any o t h e r t y p e o f c o n t r a c t . I a l s o u n d e r s t a n d t h a t my employment i s f o r an i n d e f i n i t e t e r m and may be t e r m i n a t e d a t any t i m e a t the w i l l o f e i t h e r the employee o r the U n i v e r s i t y . " Gattis testified that "110s" may receive a copy of the " U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h A l a b a m a S t a f f E m p l o y e e Handbook" t o u s e 12 1111283 as a management t o o l b e c a u s e themselves Gattis i t allows with the rules applicable further testified that terminated them t o f a m i l i a r i z e to their i f a staff department. employee was o r s u s p e n d e d t h a t e m p l o y e e w o u l d have c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s under t h e s t a f f - e m p l o y e e h a n d b o o k ; however, a s t a f f e m p l o y e e has no d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e handbook i f t h e e m p l o y e e l o s e s h i s employment b e c a u s e h i s o r h e r p o s i t i o n has b e e n e l i m i n a t e d b y USA. T e p l i c k c o n t e n d s t h a t he was a l s o a f a c u l t y member a t USA and as s u c h was a l s o e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n applicable to handbook. Strada, testified members t h e dean "regular" pursuant of the the College of Medicine, n o n - t e n u r e d , have d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s upon b e i n g d i s m i s s e d from but that p r o c e s s r i g h t s upon b e i n g testified that "110," staff a testified As College an members, b o t h faculty and positions, faculty to rights tenured their that faculty due-process "adjunct" dismissed. individual employee, could and a faculty have Both Strada hold faculty dual discussed of Medicine above, Teplick he h e l d stated the p o s i t i o n 13 and F r a n k s status member. t h a t he was b o t h a "110" a n d a f a c u l t y that no d u e - as a Franks member. within of "professor" the of 1111283 anesthesiology medicine, was and and of surgery, associate of "professor" dean. n e v e r an a d j u n c t a p p o i n t e e . of internal Teplick testified that he T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n the a c a d e m i c p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n t h e C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e he p e r f o r m e d clinical his also s a l a r y was lectured. Teplick testified i n i t i a l l y p a i d by the m e d i c a l references, regular the w o r k and "Memorand[a] of and Reappointment" Surgery for employment, w h i c h were s i g n e d dean o f t h e C o l l e g e of his by final Strada, o f M e d i c i n e d i d n o t pay a p p o i n t m e n t ; r a t h e r , T e p l i c k was on was a on Department of two of years in his capacity u n t i l 2009. S t r a d a him as 9, 2001, testified u n f u n d e d and t h a t a salary for his at the T e p l i c k was time of the adjunct " p a i d s o l e l y as t h e C h i e f h o s p i t a l s i d e o f USA." October t h a t he an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r i n t h a t T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r s h i p was informed Teplick a "professor" the of Medicine. t h e C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e f r o m 2001 S t a f f from the as to S t r a d a t e s t i f i e d t h a t T e p l i c k was College school. i n support of h i s c o n t e n t i o n f a c u l t y member, h i s d e s i g n a t i o n Anesthesiology that part of expressly his initial a p p o i n t m e n t as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r , t h a t t h e a p p o i n t m e n t was a "non-tenure a c c r u i n g any appointment" t h a t d i d not 14 include 1111283 " a d d i t i o n a l compensation." never a regular and as t e s t i f i e d that Teplick his faculty nature," s u c h T e p l i c k was p u r s u a n t t o t h e USA member a t USA not and that afforded the due-process rights f a c u l t y handbook. The record before this C o u r t c o n t a i n s T e p l i c k ' s "Memorandum o f R e a p p o i n t m e n t " t o College of M e d i c i n e f o r each of the T h e s e memoranda s p e c i f i c a l l y professor, contrary designated as an y e a r s 2001 designate T e p l i c k as an to T e p l i c k ' s testimony adjunct professor. 3 through Strada and 2008 r e f e r s the and t o T e p l i c k as "adjunct" from Strada the that said, that y e a r s 2007 because T e p l i c k d i d not s t a t e d t h a t he memorandum b u t Teplick's designation testified a "professor" never Teplick a s k e d t h a t t h e w o r d " a d j u n c t " be d r o p p e d f r o m memorandum b e c a u s e , he word a d j u n c t . adjunct testified "Memorandum o f R e a p p o i n t m e n t " f o r e a c h o f t h e the 2006. t h a t he was the came t o him was a t a l l t i m e s " h o n o r i f i c and v o l u n t a r y i n p o s i t i o n was faculty Strada as Teplick's an adjunct title of "like" agreed to drop the that i t did professor. associate not word change Strada dean the was also one T h e "Memorand[a] o f R e a p p o i n t m e n t " f r o m 2001 t h r o u g h 2004 a c t u a l l y r e f e r t o T e p l i c k as b e i n g a " c l i n i c a l p r o f e s s o r " ; however, S t r a d a e x p l a i n e d t h a t " c l i n i c a l p r o f e s s o r " was the t e r m f o r m e r l y u s e d by USA t o d e s c r i b e " a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r . " 3 15 1111283 created by Kriesberg for h o n o r i f i c i n n a t u r e and Strada was testified never subject no Teplick s a l a r y was t h a t , as to and an that professor, consideration; r e q u i r e d t o p u b l i s h s c h o l a r l y a r t i c l e s ; and was to be evaluated in his title was associated with i t . adjunct promotion the Teplick was never professorial duties. never required Strada also t e s t i f i e d t h a t the e l i m i n a t i o n of the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n had no e f f e c t on T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t adjunct professorship employment stated as chief that Teplick of was not staff never professorship rescinded ended inquired and when i n March about the that the Teplick's 2009. status Strada of his a d j u n c t appointment f o l l o w i n g the e l i m i n a t i o n of the c h i e f - o f staff position. he h e l d the adjunct C. On T e p l i c k h i m s e l f s t a t e d t h a t he was aware t h a t a p p o i n t m e n t t h r o u g h A u g u s t 2009. Teplick's Post-Employment Negotiations June 9, 2009, a f t e r t h e p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f eliminated, Strada r e c e i v e d a r e q u e s t from the chairman of Department of M e d i c i n e r e q u e s t i n g an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r the chairman, not required at that time T e p l i c k responded to a request f o r appointment because 16 the t h a t T e p l i c k be a p p o i n t e d as i n t h a t department. i n d i c a t i n g that was Teplick retained was his 1111283 previous appointment, elimination 2009. of Strada the which was not year. they wished Strada to to testified reappoint that for the surgery department an adjunct professor. reappoint Teplick as Strada further testified t h a t the chairman of the failed to respond a t a l l to the w h e t h e r t h a t d e p a r t m e n t was coming the not adjunct August that they i d e n t i f y those chose of Medicine the t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n A u g u s t 2009 l e t t e r s were s e n t professors school by c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , through to the v a r i o u s departments r e q u e s t i n g adjunct affected Department i n q u i r i e s as going to reappoint T e p l i c k as the e l i m i n a t i o n of the p o s i t i o n as chief s t a f f , T e p l i c k e x p l o r e d o t h e r j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n the system. I n the summer o f 2009, Teplick was in w i t h F r a n k s to a c c e p t a p o s i t i o n i n the C o l l e g e simulation program. letter offer an position in of the to On College a The release August Teplick $40-50,000, negotiations." execute an professor. Following range to 7, of a of Medicine subject to offer would indicating 17 with a further have that he of M e d i c i n e ' s extended contract salary for "in discussions required would USA negotiations 2009, F r a n k s 12-month of Teplick not file by a the and to a 1111283 c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t USA a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e e l i m i n a t i o n chief-of-staff meeting position. on A u g u s t which a "heated" new p o s i t i o n Teplick. This 6, 2009, b e t w e e n was preceded Teplick by a and F r a n k s , i n a r g u m e n t o c c u r r e d b e t w e e n t h e two o v e r t h e i n the College Teplick testified i n the August offer letter of the 7, of Medicine that 2009, being offered he d i d n o t r e s p o n d letter, stating to to the that i t was his first amended the p e t i t i o n e r s i n both " u n a c c e p t a b l e , " " i n s u l t i n g , " and "absurd." D. On F e b r u a r y complaint 4 Procedural History 5, asserting 2010, T e p l i c k claims o f Case filed against t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . Teplick alleged i n count I o f the c o m p l a i n t t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s had v i o l a t e d h i s due-process r i g h t s certain by t e r m i n a t i n g due p r o c e s s he a l l e g e s him without p r o v i d i n g he was e n t i t l e d t o as b o t h a s t a f f member a n d a f a c u l t y member a n d t h a t , due-process r i g h t s , the p e t i t i o n e r s beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y of the law. As i nviolatinghis acted i n bad f a i t h and/or under a m i s t a k e n t o count him I , Teplick and/or interpretation sought damages f o r T e p l i c k o r i g i n a l l y s u e d USA, b u t , i n r e s p o n s e t o a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , he amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o a s s e r t c l a i m s o n l y against the p e t i t i o n e r s . 4 18 1111283 emotional d i s t r e s s , p u n i t i v e damages, backpay, or " f r o n t pay" i n l i e u o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t , any other l e g a l or equitable r e l i e f Teplick claim asserted against representation reinstatement an a t t o r n e y f e e , a n d t o w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d . i n count I I of the complaint Hammack arising out of a the alleged t o h i m b y Hammack t h a t T e p l i c k ' s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e . " As t o c o u n t I I , T e p l i c k s o u g h t b o t h c o m p e n s a t o r y a n d p u n i t i v e damages, an a t t o r n e y any other l e g a l or equitable r e l i e f "malice" against Strada, alleging withheld an a p p o i n t m e n t a s an a d j u n c t i n h i s being sought both fee, harmed. compensatory and any o t h e r f e e , and t o w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d . T e p l i c k a s s e r t e d i n count I I I o f the complaint resulting fraud that Strada a claim of intentionally professor from him, As t o c o u n t I I I , a n d p u n i t i v e damages, l e g a l or equitable r e l i e f an Teplick attorney t o w h i c h he was entitled. The p e t i t i o n e r s a n s w e r e d other defenses, the complaint, the defenses of State § 14, A l a . C o n s t . 1 9 0 1 , a n d S t a t e - a g e n t raising, among immunity under A r t . I , immunity s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , a n d a d o p t e d b y t h i s C o u r t i n Ex p a r t B u t t s , 775 So. 2d 173 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . 19 1111283 On court January 17, 2012, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , arguing that the a l l the trial claims a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them were b a r r e d b y S t a t e i m m u n i t y a n d S t a t e agent immunity. On M a r c h 7, 2012, T e p l i c k f i l e d h i s r e s p o n s e i n o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n . May 22, 2012, t h e t r i a l court entered an o r d e r On denying the p e t i t i o n e r s ' m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t w i t h o u t m a k i n g any findings of fact or conclusions of law. This petition followed. Standard of Review This C o u r t has s t a t e d : "'While the general r u l e i s t h a t the d e n i a l of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s n o t r e v i e w a b l e , t h e e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t t h e d e n i a l o f a m o t i o n g r o u n d e d on a c l a i m o f immunity i s r e v i e w a b l e by p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f mandamus. Ex p a r t e P u r v i s , 689 So. 2d 794 ( A l a . 1996) .... "'Summary j u d g m e n t i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when " t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o a n y m a t e r i a l f a c t and ... t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . " R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., Young v. L a Q u i n t a I n n s , I n c . , 682 So. 2d 402 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . A c o u r t c o n s i d e r i n g a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t w i l l v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v i n g p a r t y , H u r s t v. A l a b a m a Power Co., 675 So. 2d 397 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) , Fuqua v . I n g e r s o l l - R a n d Co., 591 So. 2d 486 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ; w i l l a c c o r d t h e nonmoving p a r t y a l l r e a s o n a b l e f a v o r a b l e i n f e r e n c e s f r o m t h e e v i d e n c e , Fuqua, s u p r a , A l d r i d g e v. V a l l e y S t e e l C o n s t r . , I n c . , 603 So. 2d 981 ( A l a . 20 1111283 1992); and w i l l resolve a l l reasonable doubts a g a i n s t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y , H u r s t , s u p r a , Ex p a r t e B r i s l i n , 719 So. 2d 185 ( A l a . 1 9 9 8 ) . "'An a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t w i l l , de novo, a p p l y t h e s e same s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Fuqua, supra, Brislin, supra. Likewise, the appellate court w i l l consider only that f a c t u a l m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e of record to the t r i a l court f o r i t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e c i d i n g the motion. Dynasty C o r p . v. A l p h a R e s i n s C o r p . , 577 So. 2d 1278 ( A l a . 1991) , B o l a n d v. F o r t R u c k e r N a t ' l Bank, 599 So. 2d 595 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) , Rowe v. I s b e l l , 599 So. 2d 35 ( A l a . 1992) .'" Ex p a r t e parte T u r n e r , 840 So. 2d 132, 135 ( A l a . 2002) Rizk, mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y petitioner order 791 So. 2d 911, 912-13 ( q u o t i n g Ex (Ala. 2000)). A w r i t of remedy a v a i l a b l e o n l y when t h e can demonstrate: "'(1) a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e sought; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o perform, a c c o m p a n i e d b y a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f another adequate jurisdiction 543 1270, remedy; of the court.'" ( A l a . 2003) 1272 ( A l a . and (4) the properly Ex p a r t e N a l l , invoked 879 So. 2d 5 4 1 , ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e BOC G r o u p , I n c . , 823 So. 2d 2001)). Discussion A. O f f i c i a l - C a p a c i t y C l a i m s 21 1111283 The p e t i t i o n e r s argued judgment, absolutely their motion for a summary and t h e y a r g u e a g a i n i n t h i s p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h e y a r e immune f r o m official them by § in their the claims c a p a c i t i e s under asserted the State against immunity them i n afforded 14. " ' 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 sued f o r damages i n t h e i r official c a p a c i t i e s . 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. (Ala. 2012). In Vandenberg Inc., 81 So. 3d 326, 332 o f Educ., 88 So. 3d 837, v. A r a m a r k E d u c a t i o n a l Services, ( A l a . 2011), t h i s Court s t a t e d : " 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 . 2 0 0 3 ) . 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 . 2 0 0 4 ) . " 22 842 1111283 In Alabama Department of Transportation I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , 990 So. 2d 831, v. Harbert 839-840 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) , t h i s Court stated: "To d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r an o f f i c e r i s , i n f a c t , one Court considers action against a State a g a i n s t the S t a t e , t h i s "'whether "a result favorable to the 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 , " M i t c h e l l [v. Davis, 598 So. 2d 801, 806 (Ala. 1992)], whether the defendant i s simply a " c o n d u i t " t h r o u g h which the p l a i n t i f f seeks r e c o v e r y o f damages f r o m t h e S t a t e , B a r n e s v. D a l e , 530 So. 2d 770, 784 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , and w h e t h e r "a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t t h e o f f i c e r would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s o f t h e S t a t e t r e a s u r y , " L y o n s [v. R i Road C o n s t r . , I n c . ] , 858 So. 2d [257] a t " H a l e y [v. B a r b o u r C o u n t y ] , 885 So. 2d [783] a t 788 [(Ala. 2004)]. Additionally, '[i]n determining w h e t h e r an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e o f f i c e r i s b a r r e d by § 14, t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s u i t o r t h e r e l i e f demanded, n o t t h e c h a r a c t e r o f t h e o f f i c e o f t h e p e r s o n a g a i n s t whom t h e s u i t i s b r o u g h t . ' Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 395 So. 2d 65, 67-68 (Ala. 1980)." This Court a l s o noted i n Harbert State officers sued in their unlimited: 23 t h a t the official immunity capacities afforded is not 1111283 " ' [ S e c t i o n 14] i m m u n i t y f r o m s u i t does n o t extend, i n a l l instances, to o f f i c e r s of the State acting i n their official c a p a c i t y . U n z i c k e r v. S t a t e , 346 So. 2d 931 (Ala. 1977). I n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e w r i t o f mandamus w i l l l i e t o r e q u i r e a c t i o n of s t a t e o f f i c i a l s . T h i s i s t r u e where d i s c r e t i o n i s e x h a u s t e d and t h a t which r e m a i n s t o be done i s a m i n i s t e r i a l a c t . See H a r d i n v. F u l l i l o v e E x c a v a t i n g Co., I n c . , 353 So. 2d 779 ( A l a . 1 9 7 7 ) ; T e n n e s s e e & C o o s a R.R. Co. v. Moore, 36 A l a . 371 ( 1 8 6 0 ) . A c t i o n may be e n j o i n e d i f i l l e g a l , f r a u d u l e n t , u n a u t h o r i z e d , done i n b a d f a i t h or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 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 Co., 280 A l a . 635, 197 So. 2d 428 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . I f judgment o r d i s c r e t i o n i s abused, and e x e r c i s e d i n an a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s manner, mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e t h e r e o f . The w r i t w i l l n o t l i e t o d i r e c t t h e manner o f e x e r c i s i n g d i s c r e t i o n and n e i t h e r w i l l i t l i e to compel t h e performance o f a d u t y i n a c e r t a i n manner where t h e p e r f o r m a n c e o f t h a t d u t y r e s t s upon an a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f f a c t s , or the existence of conditions, to be d e t e r m i n e d b y an o f f i c e r i n h i s j u d g m e n t o r d i s c r e t i o n . See B a r n e s v. S t a t e , 274 A l a . 705, 151 So. 2d 619 ( 1 9 6 3 ) . ' "McDowell-Purcell, (Ala. 1979). I n c . v. B a s s , 370 So. 2d 942, 944 "Moreover, c e r t a i n b a r r e d b y § 14: causes of action are not "'"There a r e f o u r g e n e r a l categories o f a c t i o n s w h i c h 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 n o t come w i t h i n t h e p r o h i b i t i o n o f § 14: (1) actions brought t o compel State 24 1111283 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) actions brought to enjoin State o fficials from en forcing a n 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 t o c o m p e l State officials to perform ministerial a c t s ; and (4) a c t i o n s b r o u g h t u n d e r t h e Declaratory Judgments Act ... seeking construction of a statute and its a p p l i c a t i o n i n a g i v e n s i t u a t i o n . 287 A l a . a t 229-230, 250 So. 2d 677. O t h e r 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 a r e : (5) v a l i d i n v e r s e condemnation a c t i o n s brought against State officials in their 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 b r o u g h t a g a i n s t State o f f i c i a l s in their representative c a p a c i t y and i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , b e y o n d t h e i r a u t h o r i t y o r 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 [ ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] ; U n z i c k e r v. S t a t e , 346 So. 2d 931, 933 (Ala. 1977); Engelhardt v. Jenkins, 273 A l a . 352, 141 So. 2d 193 (1962)."' "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 ] Carter, 395 So. 2d [65,] 68 [(Ala. 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 ' t o § 14; h o w e v e r , i n a c t u a l i t y t h e s e a c t i o n s are s i m p l y not c o n s i d e r e d t o be actions ' " a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e " f o r § 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) . T h i s C o u r t 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 a g a i n s t t h e [ 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 the 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 w o u l d 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 25 1111283 S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s added i n Jones)." 990 So. 2d a t 839-40. T e p l i c k concedes in their official including capacities backpay, b a r r e d by § 14. t h a t h i s claims a g a i n s t the p e t i t i o n e r s "front" relief from capacities i n the form relief The claim 990 and an damages, attorney fee, the petitioners in their are sought official of r e i n s t a t e m e n t to the p o s i t i o n of T e p l i c k contends t h a t h i s r e q u e s t e d e q u i t a b l e i s excepted Harbert, pay, monetary However, T e p l i c k a r g u e s t h a t he a l s o injunctive c h i e f of s t a f f . seeking from So. 2d a t petitioners for injunctive the bar of State immunity. See 840. argue that Teplick failed relief i n his complaint. to plead We note a that p l e a d i n g s a r e t o be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and t h a t e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e i n t e n d m e n t and p r e s u m p t i o n must be made i n f a v o r o f the pleader. See Rule International Refining 2007). is based 8, Ala. & Mfg. Co., R. 972 Civ. P.; So. 2d 784, Ex parte 789 ( A l a . T e p l i c k ' s cause of a c t i o n i n count I of the c o m p l a i n t on an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n 26 of h i s due-process rights. 1111283 However, he does r e q u e s t c e r t a i n i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n t h e f o r m of r e i n s t a t e m e n t count I of to the p o s i t i o n of c h i e f of s t a f f . the complaint i s not a model pleading, i t s u f f i c i e n t l y apprises the p e t i t i o n e r s of Teplick's injunctive Considering relief. pleadings are complaint The to his to adequately be given, the l i b e r a l we conclude Although requested construction that Teplick's states a claim f o r injunctive r e l i e f . p e t i t i o n e r s next argue t h a t T e p l i c k d i d n o t respond t h e a r g u m e n t s i n t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t claims barred by petitioners against the them i n their doctrine of State official c a p a c i t i e s are immunity. Thus, the c o n t e n d t h a t T e p l i c k has w a i v e d any a r g u m e n t i n t h a t r e g a r d a n d t h a t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them i n t h e i r official capacities should be dismissed. This Court stated: " [ T ] h i s C o u r t w i l l a f f i r m t h e t r i a l c o u r t on any valid legal ground presented by the record, r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d was c o n s i d e r e d , o r e v e n i f i t was r e j e c t e d , b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Ex p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , c i t i n g Ex parte Wiginton, 743 So. 2d 1071 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , a n d S m i t h v. E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 537 So. 2d 463 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) . T h i s r u l e f a i l s i n a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y where d u e - p r o c e s s c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e some n o t i c e a t t h e t r i a l l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f t h e b a s i s t h a t w o u l d o t h e r w i s e s u p p o r t an a f f i r m a n c e , s u c h as when a t o t a l l y omitted a f f i r m a t i v e defense might, i f 27 has 1111283 a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n , s u f f i c e to a f f i r m a j u d g m e n t , A m e r i q u e s t M o r t g a g e Co. v. B e n t l e y , 851 So. 2d 458 ( A l a . 2 0 0 2 ) , o r where a summary-judgment movant has n o t a s s e r t e d b e f o r e t h e t r i a l c o u r t a f a i l u r e o f t h e nonmovant's e v i d e n c e on an e l e m e n t o f a c l a i m o r d e f e n s e and t h e r e f o r e has n o t s h i f t e d t h e burden of p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t e l e m e n t , R e c t o r v. B e t t e r H o u s e s , I n c . , 820 So. 2d 75, 80 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g C e l o t e x C o r p . v. C a t r e t t , 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L. E d . 2 d 265 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , and Kennedy v. W e s t e r n S i z z l i n C o r p . , 857 So. 2d 71 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " Liberty Nat'l Life Servs. Found., Ins. P.C., Co. 881 v. U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama 2d So. Health 2003). 1013, 1020 (Ala. A l t h o u g h T e p l i c k f a i l e d t o o f f e r any argument i n o p p o s i t i o n to the p e t i t i o n e r s ' S t a t e - i m m u n i t y argument i n t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , T e p l i c k ' s c o u n t I o f t h e c o m p l a i n t was on n o t i c e t h a t he was bar a p p l i c a t i o n of judgment of the requested i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f s u f f i c i e n t to put the p e t i t i o n e r s seeking the trial injunctive relief rule that court this "on any so as n o t Court w i l l valid affirm legal o r e v e n i f i t was 881 So. not waived the is 2d a t 1020. r e j e c t e d , by Accordingly, we the trial to the ground p r e s e n t e d by t h e r e c o r d , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h a t g r o u n d considered, in was court." conclude that T e p l i c k has argument t h a t h i s c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f e x c e p t e d from the bar of S t a t e 28 immunity. 1111283 If the Teplick's claim bar of State for injunctive relief immunity, we must d e t e r m i n e c l a i m f a l l s w i t h i n one o f t h e r e c o g n i z e d immunity set requested forth above. reinstatement to To the the being provided alleged violation faith and/or extent authority under the first and sixth The First first "Exception" "exception" rights and staff without that the done i n under "exceptions" 990 to State provides of bad a mistaken So. to the bar 2d a t Immunity that "actions brought b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e i m m u n i t y . H a r b e r t , to 990 So. to not 2d T e p l i c k c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s were r e q u i r e d provide position of 840. compel S t a t e o f f i c i a l s to p e r f o r m t h e i r l e g a l d u t i e s " are a t 840. has conceivably asserted a S t a t e i m m u n i t y as s e t f o r t h i n H a r b e r t , 1. chief terminated and/or T e p l i c k has that Teplick o f h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s was i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, claim whether that p o s i t i o n of c e r t a i n due-process beyond survive "exceptions" to State b a s e d on h i s c l a i m s t h a t h i s employment was his i s to as him w i t h due c h i e f of process staff and upon t h e that they e l i m i n a t i o n of failed to do his so. 5 A l t h o u g h T e p l i c k c l a i m s t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a duep r o c e s s h e a r i n g upon t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f h i s p o s i t i o n a t USA, nothing i n the r e c o r d b e f o r e us indicates that Teplick a c t u a l l y r e q u e s t e d a d u e - p r o c e s s h e a r i n g . An e m p l o y e e b e a r s 5 29 1111283 Teplick has no due-process i n t e r e s t i n continued of State Colls. e m p l o y e e who officials, v. claim unless employment w i t h USA. Roth, 408 U.S. City procedural of Evergreen, Supreme Court 680 U.S. of So. Board of Regents (1972). state state the process.'" 229, 233 573 continued f o r d i s m i s s a l may due 2d 565, property "'[A] cause p r o t e c t i o n s of G r o s s v. L o p e z , 419 the a a l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m of e n t i t l e m e n t to employment a b s e n t s u f f i c i e n t the 564 had o r r u l e s p r o m u l g a t e d by under s t a t e law, has he United S t a l l w o r t h v. ( A l a . 1996) (1975)). States demand In (quoting Roth, supra, discussed constitutes a constitutionally protected property what interest: "To have a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n a b e n e f i t , a p e r s o n c l e a r l y must have more t h a n an a b s t r a c t n e e d o r d e s i r e f o r i t . He must have more t h a n a u n i l a t e r a l expectation of i t . He must, instead, have a l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m of e n t i t l e m e n t to i t . I t i s a purpose of the a n c i e n t i n s t i t u t i o n of p r o p e r t y to p r o t e c t t h o s e c l a i m s upon w h i c h p e o p l e r e l y i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s , r e l i a n c e t h a t must n o t be a r b i t r a r i l y undermined. I t i s a purpose of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o a h e a r i n g t o p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a person to v i n d i c a t e those c l a i m s . by " P r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s , of course, are not c r e a t e d t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n . R a t h e r , t h e y a r e c r e a t e d and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a c t u a l l y r e q u e s t i n g a due-process h e a r i n g . P e r r y v. S i n d e r m a n n , 408 U.S. 593 ( 1 9 7 2 ) ; C h r i s t e s o n v. N o r t h w e s t A l a b a m a S t a t e J r . C o l l . , 371 So. 2d 426 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1979) . 30 1111283 t h e i r dimensions a r e d e f i n e d by e x i s t i n g r u l e s o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s t h a t s t e m f r o m an i n d e p e n d e n t s o u r c e s u c h as s t a t e l a w - - r u l e s o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s that s e c u r e c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s and t h a t s u p p o r t c l a i m s o f e n t i t l e m e n t t o those b e n e f i t s . " 408 U.S. a t 577. employer's reason. right On t h e o t h e r h a n d , A l a b a m a r e c o g n i z e s an to terminate Tyson Foods, 2003). an a t - w i l l employee f o r any I n c . v . M c C o l l u m , 881 So. 2d 976 ( A l a . Employment-at-will requires due p r o c e s s Williams v. W a l k e r , upon i s not a property i n t e r e s t that t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e employment. 526 So. 2d 576 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ; B o y e t t v. T r o y S t a t e U n i v . a t Montgomery, 971 F. Supp. 1403 (M.D. A l a . 1997). a. S t a f f - E m p l o y e e Teplick following because, argues that the e l i m i n a t i o n he a r g u e s , he was Status entitled t o due of the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f he was a s t a f f process position e m p l o y e e a n d , as a s t a f f e m p l o y e e , was e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n due p r o c e s s p u r s u a n t t o t h e staff-employee The was p e t i t i o n e r s made a p r i m a an a t - w i l l letter "Chief handbook. administrative facie showing e m p l o y e e o f USA. o f May 29, 2 0 0 1 , e x p r e s s l y n o t i f i e d of Staff would be 31 a member that Kriesberg's Teplick of Teplick the that the Senior 1111283 Administration." G a t t i s , d i r e c t o r o f Human R e s o u r c e s f o r USA, testified Teplick that designation was given was testified designated as a "110," a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees, and t h a t a t a l l t i m e s an a t - w i l l Gattis designated that administrative i t i s very a Teplick e m p l o y e e o f USA. apparent t o an i n d i v i d u a l as a "110" t h a t he o r she i s d i f f e r e n t f r o m a s t a f f employee because o f t h e j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s a l a r y given to that i n d i v i d u a l . that because entitled Teplick was designated t o a n y due p r o c e s s handbook upon s e p a r a t i o n afforded Gattis further stated a "110," he was n o t by the s t a f f - e m p l o y e e f r o m h i s employment a t USA. T e p l i c k r e f u t e d h i s d e s i g n a t i o n as a "110" a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employee by presenting evidence that he lacked any real a u t h o r i t y o v e r anyone a n d t h a t he d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y to hire or f i r e individuals. He a l s o p o i n t e d t o Hammack's d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n as b e i n g orientation ... [t]hey have no one t h a t really them." T e p l i c k a l s o n o t e d t h a t was d e s i g n a t e d several personnel-action received a "University forms of and t h a t South 32 of "staff reports as " s t a f f " on he s i g n e d Alabama to Staff f o r and Employee 1111283 Handbook" t h a t not employees d e s i g n a t e d as "110s" g e n e r a l l y receive. Hammack's position as statement "staff describing orientation ... the they chief-of-staff have no r e a l l y r e p o r t s t o them" was made i n t h e c o n t e x t the of do chief of s t a f f ' s staff authority However, h i s d u t i e s with staff; that of describing T e p l i c k ' s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f was s i m i l a r t o a s t a f f supervisory medical functions. one p o s i t i o n i n that a n d no one r e p o r t e d he h a d no directly t o him. s e r v i n g as a l i a i s o n b e t w e e n USA a n d t h e a s s i s t i n g with quality-assurance discharge efforts; planning; working with assisting third-party a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a n d p a y o r s , s u c h as B l u e C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d ; a n d participating i n various committees r e l a t i v e to cost control and c l i n i c a l c a r e were c e r t a i n l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n n a t u r e . for Teplick's contention that handbook, G a t t i s e x p l a i n e d the staff-employee themselves department. Gattis listings a staff-employee t h a t " 1 1 0 s " may r e c e i v e a copy o f handbook t o u s e as a management t o o l t o familiarize personnel-action he r e c e i v e d As with further the r u l e s applicable to their explained that although some f o r m s l i s t e d T e p l i c k as " s t a f f exempt," t h o s e were t h e r e s u l t o f a c l e r i c a l 33 error and a m i s t a k e 1111283 b e c a u s e T e p l i c k was offered nothing We defines never a s t a f f to dispute abolishment of shortage of funds the p o s i t i o n . " a a o f t h e s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook "separation position ... or of employment due positions or a m a t e r i a l P u r s u a n t t o § 6.1 affirmed this change i n t h e a duties of "layoffs" a n d / o r an the ... by o f t h e handbook, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of to necessitated are not s u b j e c t t o the f i l i n g of a g r i e v a n c e Gattis Teplick t h i s t e s t i m o n y from G a t t i s . n o t e t h a t S e c t i o n 3.3.6 " l a y o f f " as e m p l o y e e o f USA. appeal. staff-employee handbook i n h i s t e s t i m o n y , s t a t i n g t h a t a s t a f f e m p l o y e e has no d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s u n d e r t h e handbook i f t h e e m p l o y e e l o s e s his or her employment b e c a u s e h i s e l i m i n a t e d by USA. Teplick's Therefore, contention T e p l i c k would s t i l l under the The a staff that n o t be terms of the he or her p o s i t i o n has assuming the e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d was a staff employee e n t i t l e d to a due-process staff-employee handbook. of of USA but was an at-will USA, hearing 6 o v e r w h e l m i n g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t T e p l i c k was employee been not administrative S e e D u f f y v. S a r a u l t , 892 F.2d 139 ( 1 s t C i r . 1989) ( n o t i n g t h a t , where r e o r g a n i z a t i o n o r c o s t - s a v i n g m e a s u r e s r e s u l t i n t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f a p u b l i c e m p l o y e e ' s employment as the r e s u l t o f t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s p o s i t i o n , no h e a r i n g i s r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y due p r o c e s s ) . 6 34 1111283 e m p l o y e e o f USA a n d was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s afforded the handbook. process staff employees Accordingly, r i g h t s based under the staff-employee we c o n c l u d e t h a t T e p l i c k h a s no d u e - on h i s c o n t e n t i o n that he was a staff e m p l o y e e o f USA. b. Faculty-Member Status T e p l i c k c o n t e n d s t h a t he e n j o y e d d u a l e m p l o y e e a n d as a f a c u l t y member. status Teplick as a s t a f f a r g u e s t h a t as a f a c u l t y member o f USA, he was e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s rights that are afforded f a c u l t y members u n d e r the f a c u l t y handbook. The p e t i t i o n e r s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t was not a regular not entitled the f a c u l t y handbook. adjunct f a c u l t y member o f USA a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e due p r o c e s s a f f o r d e d professor Strada College adjunct testified i n the College 2009; t h a t T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t the of Medicine was f a c u l t y members i n that T e p l i c k was an o f M e d i c i n e f r o m 2001 u n t i l p r o f e s s o r s h i p was u n f u n d e d ; d i d n o t pay him a s a l a r y appointment; and t h a t that for his T e p l i c k was " p a i d s o l e l y as t h e C h i e f o f S t a f f f r o m t h e h o s p i t a l s i d e o f USA." testified Teplick t h a t T e p l i c k was n e v e r a r e g u l a r 35 Strada further f a c u l t y member a t 1111283 USA and t h a t h i s f a c u l t y p o s i t i o n was a t a l l t i m e s " h o n o r i f i c and v o l u n t a r y i n n a t u r e . " T e p l i c k was e x p r e s s l y i n f o r m e d upon his as initial appointment that the a p p o i n t m e n t d i d n o t i n c l u d e any a d d i t i o n a l c o m p e n s a t i o n . The petitioners also an presented 2006, adjunct professor. directly which refute designated Teplick's an a d j u n c t t h a t T e p l i c k was "Memorand[a] of of Medicine f o r the years 2001 specifically These professor Teplick's Reappointment" t o the C o l l e g e through adjunct designated "Memorand[a] testimony professor. Teplick of that Finally, as an Reappointment" he was Strada never testified n e v e r s u b j e c t t o p r o m o t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n as a f a c u l t y member and was n e v e r r e q u i r e d t o be e v a l u a t e d in his p r o f e s s o r i a l d u t i e s as were r e g u l a r f a c u l t y members. Teplick presented positions of evidence "professor" "professor" of i n t e r n a l the of Medicine. College lectured duties anesthesiology medicine; within the he h e l d t h e and and a s s o c i a t e T e p l i c k s t a t e d t h a t he and p e r f o r m e d c l i n i c a l referenced, faculty of indicating that College of work as p a r t Medicine. surgery; dean w i t h i n regularly of h i s f a c u l t y Teplick also i n s u p p o r t o f h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he was a r e g u l a r member, h i s designation 36 as a "professor" on the 1111283 "Memorand[a] of Anesthesiology Reappointment" and Surgery to the for his Department final two of years of employment a t USA a n d t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e was no r e f e r e n c e him on t h o s e memoranda as b e i n g We note performing that Teplick's clinical an a d j u n c t faculty work were professor. duties entirely of l e c t u r i n g consistent d e s i g n a t i o n by USA as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r . "Memorand[a] of Reappointment" which t o him refer professor," Strada as testified asked t h a t t h e word " a d j u n c t " because stated from Teplick that, although previous Teplick Teplick's "Memorand[a] as an he a g r e e d adjunct of 2007 a n d 2008, opposed Teplick to came "adjunct t o him t h e word " a d j u n c t . " t o drop t h e word of Reappointment," designation with h i s and be d r o p p e d f r o m t h e memorandum d i d not " l i k e " t h e "Memorand[a] change that as and As f o r T e p l i c k ' s f o r the years "professor" to doing as an a d j u n c t Reappointment" professor. Strada "adjunct" so d i d n o t professor. clearly Additionally, A l l designate Teplick r e c e i v e d no c o m p e n s a t i o n f r o m USA, o t h e r t h a n h i s c o m p e n s a t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f , f o l l o w i n g h i s d e s i g n a t i o n as " p r o f e s s o r " i n the "Memorand[a] o f A p p o i n t m e n t " f o r t h e y e a r s 2007 a n d 2008. 37 1111283 Again, the overwhelming evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t was n o t a r e g u l a r f a c u l t y member o f USA a n d t h a t , Teplick therefore, he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s a f f o r d e d regular f a c u l t y members p u r s u a n t t o t h e f a c u l t y handbook. c. A l l e g e d O f f e r o f P e r m a n e n t Employment Teplick regarding created USA. contends "secure" a property that Hammack's alleged statement employment a l t e r e d h i s a t - w i l l s t a t u s and i n t e r e s t i n h i s continued employment a t T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : " I t has l o n g been t h e l a w i n Alabama t h a t employment i s t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l b y e i t h e r p a r t y f o r any r e a s o n u n l e s s t h e r e i s an e x p r e s s a n d s p e c i f i c c o n t r a c t f o r l i f e t i m e employment o r employment f o r a s p e c i f i c d u r a t i o n . ' [ A ] b s e n t an a g r e e m e n t on a d e f i n i t e t e r m , a n y employment i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be " a t - w i l l , " a n d may be t e r m i n a t e d b y e i t h e r p a r t y , w i t h o r w i t h o u t cause o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n . ' C l a r k v. A m e r i c a ' s F i r s t C r e d i t U n i o n , 585 So. 2d 1367, 1369 (Ala. 1991). F u r t h e r m o r e , employees i n Alabama bear a heavy burden o f proof t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t an employment r e l a t i o n s h i p i s o t h e r t h a n ' a t w i l l . ' The law considers lifetime o r permanent employment c o n t r a c t s t o be e x t r a o r d i n a r y a n d n o t l i g h t l y t o be implied. A l a b a m a M i l l s , I n c . v. S m i t h , 237 A l a . 296, 3 0 1 , 186 So. 699, 704 ( 1 9 3 9 ) . " Howard v . W o l f f Broad. Corp., In order 611 So. 2d 307, 310-11 (Ala. 1992). t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n o f an " a t - will" employment s t a t u s , one must d e m o n s t r a t e : 38 1111283 (1) t h a t t h e r e was a c l e a r a n d u n e q u i v o c a l o f f e r o f l i f e t i m e employment o r employment o f d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n , B a t e s v. J i m W a l t e r R e s o u r c e s , I n c . , 418 So. 2d 903 ( A l a . 1 9 8 2 ) ; (2) t h a t t h e h i r i n g a g e n t had a u t h o r i t y t o b i n d t h e p r i n c i p a l t o a p e r m a n e n t employment c o n t r a c t , A l a b a m a M i l l s , I n c . v . S m i t h , 237 A l a . 296, 186 So. 699 ( 1 9 3 9 ) ; a n d (3) t h a t t h e employee p r o v i d e d s u b s t a n t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e c o n t r a c t s e p a r a t e f r o m t h e s e r v i c e s t o be r e n d e r e d , U n i t e d S e c u r i t y L i f e I n s . Co. v. G r e g o r y , 281 A l a . 264, 201 So. 2d 853 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . ' " II I W r i g h t v. D o t h a n C h r y s l e r 428, 430 ( A l a . 1995) Plymouth (quoting Dodge, I n c . , 658 So. 2d Hoffman-La Roche, I n c . v. C a m p b e l l , 512 So. 2d 725, 728 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) ) . Teplick that that Hammack's a l l e g e d h i s j o b "was s e c u r e " another Chief offer argues and t h a t of S t a f f a f t e r interest testimony i n h i s employment from T e p l i c k Hammack [Teplick] o f p e r m a n e n t employment statement "would n o t h i r e left" so as t o g i v e a t USA. regarding We t o him note c o n s t i t u t e s an him a property the f o l l o w i n g Hammack's a l l e g e d o f f e r o f s e c u r e employment: "Q. [ C o u n s e l f o r p e t i t i o n e r s : ] D i d anyone t e l l you t h a t y o u r j o b was a b s o l u t e l y i n v i o l a t e from being eliminated? "A. Y e s . "Q. Who was t h a t ? "A. Mr. Hammack. 39 1111283 "Q. When d i d he t e l l you t h a t ? "A. S h o r t l y a f t e r he t o o k o v e r as my s u p e r v i s o r a f t e r K r i e s b e r g l e f t he t o l d me t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f was one t h a t he d i d n ' t t h i n k was n e e d e d i n t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n b u t t h a t my j o b was secure. He w o u l d n o t h i r e a n o t h e r c h i e f o f s t a f f after I left. " "Q. D i d he s a y a n y t h i n g b e y o n d t h a t ? F o r e x a m p l e how l o n g y o u w o u l d have t h e j o b ? D i d he d i s c u s s an amount o f t i m e ? "A. H i s i n d i c a t i o n was u n t i l "Q. D i d he s a y u n t i l I chose t o l e a v e . you choose t o l e a v e ? "A. No. " "Q. I b e l i e v e when you t a l k e d a b o u t e x a c t l y what he s a i d I b e l i e v e y o u d i d n ' t s a y he s a i d a n y t h i n g about u n t i l you chose t o l e a v e ? "A. No. What he s a i d i s a f t e r y o u l e a v e we w i l l n o t h i r e I d o n ' t remember t h e e x a c t w o r d s , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n was t h a t t h e j o b w o u l d p e r s i s t u n t i l I l e f t chose t o l e a v e . going go? "Q. He n e v e r l o o k e d a t you a n d s a i d y o u a r e t o have t h i s j o b u n t i l t h e t i m e you d e c i d e t o "A. No. He c e r t a i n l y i m p l i e d i t . "Q. How? "A. I n t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n b y s a y i n g t h e j o b w o u l d , w i l l p e r s i s t u n t i l y o u l e a v e a f t e r w h i c h we w i l l n o t 40 1111283 h i r e a n o t h e r c h i e f o f s t a f f . My a s s u m p t i o n f r o m t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n , t h e i m p l i c a t i o n t o me was t h a t t h e j o b would c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t u n t i l I chose t o l e a v e . "Q. No one e v e r t o l d you that? "A. N o t i n t h o s e w o r d s . " you you? "Q. To j u s t be t o t a l l y c l e a r , t h e words ' u n t i l c h o s e t o l e a v e , ' no one e v e r s a i d t h o s e words t o "A. N o t implication. as I recall. There was a strong " "Q. D i d you t e l l anyone t h e r e t h a t you h a d a r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e you h a d a p e r m a n e n t e n t i t l e m e n t ? "A. Anyone where? "Q. A t USA? D i d you go t o anyone a n d s a y I t h o u g h t I was g o i n g t o have t h i s j o b f o r e v e r o r as l o n g as I wanted? "A. I d o n ' t r e c a l l . you "Q. You a r e n o t s t a t i n g such a broad promise? that anyone e v e r made "A. N o t i n t h o s e w o r d s , no. "Q. Or i n any words c l o s e t o t h a t ? "A. C l o s e enough t h a t I drew t h e i n f e r e n c e . " "Q. You d o n ' t have any c o n t r a c t t h a t w o u l d have 41 1111283 g u a r a n t e e d y o u r employment 2009 i n a n y c a p a c i t y ? with USA b e y o n d M a r c h "A. No." Based "clear on t h e f o r e g o i n g , and unequivocal we c o n c l u d e offer of that lifetime there was no employment or employment o f d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n " a s r e q u i r e d t o overcome t h e employee-at-will status. 658 So. 2d a t 430. T e p l i c k during h i s deposition testimony offer o f employment t h a t Hammack made no d e f i n i t e for a definite time; testified t h a t b a s e d on h i s c o n v e r s a t i o n was an only definite made, time. In the course Teplick w i t h Hammack there employment for a of negotiating v. K e l l y - S p r i n g f i e l d (11th C i r . 1984), similar rather, We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t t h e a l l e g e d " o f f e r " was but f o l l o w i n g a realignment Chastain 1480 " i m p l i c a t i o n " of continued not during contract, admitted the court an employment o f management a t USA. T i r e Co., 733 F.2d 1479, held that t h e words t o t h e ones a l l e g e d t o have b e e n s p o k e n i n t h i s "jobs [were] s e c u r e ; -¬ case t h a t we w o u l d c o n t i n u e on l i k e we h a d b e e n , " made i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a merger and n o t d u r i n g t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f an employment c o n t r a c t , d i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e an offer o f permanent terminable employment at will. 42 b u t an o f f e r o f employment 1111283 Accordingly, substantial lifetime has because evidence Teplick of a has "clear failed to and u n e q u i v o c a l present offer of employment o r employment o f d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n , " he f a i l e d t o overcome t h e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he was an a t - w i l l employee. I n sum, T e p l i c k argued that he h a d a p r o t e c t e d property i n t e r e s t i n h i s c o n t i n u e d employment as c h i e f o f s t a f f a t USA e n t i t l i n g h i m t o due p r o c e s s b a s e d on h i s a l l e g e d status as a s t a f f member a n d a f a c u l t y member a n d on t h e a l l e g e d promise of present permanent substantial employment. Teplick has f a i l e d to e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was a s t a f f member o r a f a c u l t y member o r t h a t an o f f e r o f p e r m a n e n t employment was made t o h i m . that Therefore, he h a d a p r o t e c t e d employment a t USA. he had a Teplick has property interest Because T e p l i c k protected property f a i l e d t o demonstrate i n h i s continued failed to establish interest i n h i s continued employment as c h i e f o f s t a f f a t USA, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s no legal duty to provide eliminating h i s position petitioners owe T e p l i c k chief-of-staff position him as c h i e f with due of s t a f f . process 43 on t h e i r owed h i m before Likewise, the no l e g a l d u t y t o r e i n s t a t e based that alleged him t o t h e f a i l u r e to 1111283 provide h i m w i t h due p r o c e s s . T e p l i c k no l e g a l compel State Harbert, duty, Because t h e p e t i t i o n e r s owed h i s a c t i o n c a n n o t be one " b r o u g h t t o officials to perform their legal duties," 990 So. 2d a t 840, so as t o come w i t h i n t h e f i r s t "exception" to the bar of State 2. The S i x t h currently damages Sixth immunity. "Exception" "exception" to State Immunity to the bar of State stated as f o l l o w s : brought against "[A]ctions State immunity i s for injunction officials in or their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t they had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , authority or i n a mistaken interpretation beyond their of law." Harbert, 990 So. 2d a t 840 ( q u o t i n g Drummond, 937 So. 2d a t 58, q u o t i n g in t u r n Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 39 So. 2d 65, 68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . addressing the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of t h i s "exception" t o t h i s In case, we t a k e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c l a r i f y t h e " e x c e p t i o n , " b e c a u s e as formulated i n Harbert and o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , the "exception" i s m i s l e a d i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s o f l a w r e l a t i v e t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14. I n Ex p a r t e So. 3d Thomas, ( A l a . 2012), [Ms. 1111294, O c t o b e r a group 44 26, 2012] of c o r r e c t i o n a l officers 1111283 employed by t h e Alabama Department of Corrections s u e d ADOC a n d i t s t h e n commissioner t h a t ADOC was v i o l a t i n g i t s own r e g u l a t i o n s a n d S t a t e l a w i n Richard Allen ("ADOC") alleging t h e manner i n w h i c h i t : (1) c o m p e n s a t e d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s for overtime; were a l l o w e d (2) r e s t r i c t e d t h e way c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s t o use earned leave; a n d (3) p a i d c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s the d a i l y s u b s i s t e n c e a l l o w a n c e correctional officers relief, as w e l l p r o v i d e d by law. s o u g h t , among o t h e r a s money damages, including attorney ADOC things, injunctive to include i n t e r e s t , p u n i t i v e damages, a n d l i t i g a t i o n backpay fees. and A l l e n moved the t r i a l ADOC a n d A l l e n were e n t i t l e d the t r i a l correctional with c o s t s and expenses, court to dismiss the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s f o r money damages, a r g u i n g Before The court officers to State r u l e d on t h a t filed immunity under motion, that § 14. however, t h e an amended c o m p l a i n t adding the A l a b a m a C o r r e c t i o n s I n s t i t u t i o n F i n a n c e A u t h o r i t y ("ACIFA") as a defendant and a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t A l l e n i n h i s c a p a c i t y as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f A C I F A . The t r i a l court entered d e n y i n g ADOC a n d A l l e n ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s . 45 an o r d e r T h e r e a f t e r , ADOC, 1111283 A C I F A , a n d A l l e n f i l e d an answer t o t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' amended complaint. ADOC, who s u c c e e d e d A l l e n as c o m m i s s i o n e r o f ADOC a n d v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f A C I F A on J a n u a r y 17, ACIFA, a n d K i m Thomas, 2 0 1 1 , moved t h e t r i a l judgment i n their officers' claims seeking court favor, to enter arguing a partial that summary the c o r r e c t i o n a l money damages f r o m ADOC were by t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e i m m u n i t y a n d t h a t t h e c l a i m s A C I F A h a d no f a c t u a l o r l e g a l b a s i s . barred against F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an order denying the motion without s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . ACIFA, a n d Thomas petitioned this Court for a ADOC, writ of mandamus. ADOC a n d Thomas argued i n their petition that the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t them f o r money including immunity backpay, under "exception" § stated were 14. above, barred by However, the doctrine relying upon damages, of State the sixth the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s argued t h a t ADOC a n d Thomas were n o t e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y a s t o the damages c l a i m b e c a u s e , t h e y been a n d c o n t i n u e d t o be w i l l f u l , 46 said, Thomas's a c t i o n s h a d malicious, fraudulent, i n 1111283 bad faith, and b a s e d on a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e This Court s t a t e d : "This Court d i d recognize i n Drummond [Co. v. A l a b a m a Depatment o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 937 So. 2d 56 (Ala. 2001),] t h a t ' " a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n or damages b r o u g h t a g a i n s t S t a t e 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 i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , 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 o f l a w " ' a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d by § 14. Drummond, 937 So. 2d a t 58 ( 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 . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . However, i n A l a b a m a Department of Transportation Harbert International, I n c . , 990 So. 2d 831, 840 (Ala. 2 0 0 8 ) , we f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d the 'exceptions' to State immunity d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond, and our h o l d i n g i n H a r b e r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l makes c l e a r t h a t t h e ' e x c e p t i o n ' t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s now s e e k t o r e l y upon i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s c a s e : "'These a c t i o n s [ a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e t h a t a r e n o t b a r r e d by § 14 and t h a t a r e d i s c u s s e d i n Drummond] 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 " t o § 14; h o w e v e r , i n a c t u a l i t y these a c t i o n s are s i m p l y not c o n s i d e r e d to be a c t i o n s " ' a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e ' f o r § 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) . T h i s C o u r t has q u a l i f i e d those " e x c e p t i o n s , " n o t i n g t h a t " ' [ a ] n a c t i o n i s one a g a i n s t t h e [ 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 directly affect a contract or property 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. v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 1314 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d i n J o n e s ) . ' " 47 law. 1111283 Ex p a r t e Thomas, This officers Court were relied-upon claims So. 3 d a t concluded seeking that money "exception" . because damages the from correctional the State, the i n Drummond d i d n o t a p p l y , and t h e i r f o r money damages a g a i n s t Thomas were b a r r e d b y § 14. F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t n o t e d t h a t ADOC w o u l d s t i l l be e n t i t l e d t o State immunity against even Thomas were i f the c o r r e c t i o n a l permitted b y Drummond officers' claims because "'these " e x c e p t i o n s " t o [State] immunity apply o n l y t o a c t i o n s brought against State o f f i c i a l s ; t h e y do n o t a p p l y t o a c t i o n s the State o r a g a i n s t State agencies.'" 3d a t 1254, against Ex p a r t e Thomas, So. ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f F i n . , 991 So. 2d 1257 ( A l a . Justice 2008)). Shaw, c o n c u r r i n g specially i n Ex p a r t e Thomas, p o i n t e d o u t t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n t h e s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n " we now seek t o r e s o l v e : "I note t h a t , although the 'exception' i n Drummond t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s s e e k t o a p p l y states that 'actions f o r ... damages' may be pursued, such 'actions' refer to only certain limited actions 'against State officials individually ...,' b e c a u s e a c t i o n s f o r damages against officials i n their 'representative' or o f f i c i a l capacities are a c t u a l l y actions seeking t o r e c o v e r money f r o m t h e S t a t e a n d a r e , t h u s , b a r r e d . B u r g o o n v . A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . , 835 So. 2d 1-; ¢-;-!-^^ - , ^ 4 - - ; ^ ^ ^ i - , ^ - , - ; ^ ^ 4 - 48 a A .4-^ ^-P-P-;^-; 1111283 131, 133 ( A l a . 2002) ('A s u i t a g a i n s t a S t a t e agency, o r a g a i n s t S t a t e agents 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 , i s a s u i t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . ' ) . Even those actions against State o f f i c i a l s i n their i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , however, may s t i l l be b a r r e d by § 14, P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 8 1 , 83 ( A l a . 1989) ('State officers and employees, i n t h e i r [ i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , ] ... a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune f r o m s u i t when t h e a c t i o n i s , i n e f f e c t , one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . ' ) , o r b y S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y u n d e r Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) . " Ex p a r t e Thomas, So. 3d a t . I n d e e d , i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a c t i o n s f o r damages against State capacities agents i n their are considered official or representative actions to recover money f r o m t h e S t a t e a n d a r e b a r r e d b y S t a t e i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14. Owens, [Ms. 1110421, September 2 1 , 2012] 2 012); Ex Vandenberg parte v. A r a m a r k Dangerfield, Constr., Alabama (Ala. So. Montgomery Educ. Servs., Bd. So. 3d of (Ala. Educ., I n c . ,supra; supra; Ex 49 So. 3d 675 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ; L y o n s v. R i v e r Inc., State 858 So. 2d 2 5 7 , 261 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ; Dep't parte Road Burgoon v. o f Human R e s . , 835 So. 2d 1 3 1 , 132-33 2 0 0 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e M o b i l e 2d 527 Cnty. H a r r i s v. ( A l a . 2001); C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., Ex p a r t e A l a b a m a Dep't o f F o r e n s i c S c i s . , Butts, Ex p a r t e 709 So. 2d 455 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; Ex p a r t e F r a n k l i n C n t y . Dep't o f Human Res., 49 supra; 815 674 So. 2d 1277, 1111283 1279 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) ; and A l a b a m a S t a t e Docks v. S a x o n , 631 943, 946 ( A l a . 1994). "exception" [to be] can be Accordingly, to the extent the r e a d as a l l o w i n g " a c t i o n s f o r ... brought against State officials So. sixth damages in their r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y , " i t i s an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f l a w as i t p e r t a i n s t o S t a t e i m m u n i t y u n d e r § The sixth "exception," and other for i n j u n c t i o n ... their authorities, can [ t o be] r e a d as a l l o w i n g Harbert "actions brought against State o f f i c i a l s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y and individually where i t a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , their authority Harbert, 990 "exception" actions agents in So. as for in 2d against State mistaken 840. To the law because official represent can capacity, "a suit i n h i s or State c a p a c i t i e s . " Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , extent against T h i s i s so the the read State i t is as the allowing individual only in 3d 468, their 474 or incorrect for injunctive her sixth officials an was law." relief capacity because State o f f i c i a l s 46 So. 50 be that in beyond i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of formulated individual w o u l d be m e a n i n g l e s s . and at i t i s now their of for a injunctive relief statement a or the 14. as c u r r e n t l y s e t f o r t h i n a l s o be 2d act official ( A l a . 2010). 1111283 The allows sixth "exception," "actions officials as f o r damages currently [ t o be] b r o u g h t against also State ... i n d i v i d u a l l y where i t was a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y h a d acted f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y o r i n a mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f law." Harbert, "This formulated, C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d 990 So. 2d a t 840. that a state o f f i c e r o r employee may n o t e s c a p e i n d i v i d u a l t o r t l i a b i l i t y b y ' " a r g u i n g t h a t h i s mere s t a t u s as a s t a t e o f f i c i a l c l o a k s constitutional 81, 781 83 immunity."'" Phillips him w i t h the s t a t e ' s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d ( A l a . 1989) ( q u o t i n g B a r n e s v. D a l e , ( A l a . 1988), Officials quoting i n turn Tort 530 So. 2d 770, Liability i n A l a b a m a , 35 A l a . L. Rev. 153 ( 1 9 8 4 ) ) . of State "Clearly, a s t a t e o f f i c e r o r e m p l o y e e i s n o t p r o t e c t e d b y § 14 when he acts w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , i l l e g a l l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad faith, under beyond interpretation his authority, of the law." However, a c t i o n s a g a i n s t or a mistaken Phillips, State 555 officials or agents i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s are not without l i m i t s . So. 2d a t 83. "State officers and e m p l o y e 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 n d i n d i v i d u a l l y , also a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune f r o m s u i t when t h e a c t i o n i s , i n effect, one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . " 51 Phillips, 555 So. 2d a t 83. 1111283 In addition, official or as discussed agent may p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e to actions individual be in further detail entitled Cranman, 792 asserted against him to So. below, State-agent 2d 392 or her a State immunity (Ala. 2000), in his as or her considerations, this capacity. Accordingly, b a s e d on t h e foregoing Court today r e s t a t e s the s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n " i m m u n i t y u n d e r § 14 as t o the bar of State follows: (6)(a) a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n brought a g a i n s t S t a t e 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 where i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , 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 o f l a w , 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, 197 So. 2d 428 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , and (b) a c t i o n s f o r damages b r o u g h t a g a i n s t S t a t e o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y where i t i s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y had a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , b e y o n d t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , o r 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, s u b j e c t t o the limitation t h a t t h e a c t i o n n o t be, i n e f f e c t , one a g a i n s t t h e State. P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 83 ( A l a . 1989). The to the "exception" circumstances as r e s t a t e d i n ( 6 ) ( a ) above i s a p p l i c a b l e presented here; Teplick i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n the form of r e i n s t a t e m e n t has requested to the p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f b a s e d on h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s acted i n bad faith, beyond t h e i r authority, or in mistaken i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w when t h e y e l i m i n a t e d t h e p o s i t i o n o f 52 1111283 chief of staff, resulting in the employment, w i t h o u t f i r s t p r o v i d i n g to which Teplick position he claims he termination of h i s h i m w i t h t h e due p r o c e s s i s entitled. As discussed above, was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any due p r o c e s s a t t h e t i m e t h e of chief of s t a f f was eliminated because he has f a i l e d t o show t h a t he h a d a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n t h e c h i e f - of-staff Because T e p l i c k due position. was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any p r o c e s s , we c a n n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t bad faith, beyond their the p e t i t i o n e r s authority, or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f l a w when t h e y e l i m i n a t e d position without providing him w i t h in a acted i n mistaken the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f due p r o c e s s . Wallace, supra. Accordingly, claim because for injunctive we relief have concluded does n o t f a l l recognized "exceptions" to the bar of 14, the p e t i t i o n e r s Teplick's that within Teplick's one o f t h e S t a t e immunity under § a r e e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t as t o c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them i n their official capacities. B. I n d i v i d u a l 1. Due-Process 53 Claims Claim 1111283 Teplick's due-process claim against the p e t i t i o n e r s i s b a s e d on t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment b y USA as a r e s u l t of the e l i m i n a t i o n affording him c e r t a i n entitled. acting the i n their official of organizational Teplick's damages v. i n deciding to based Thus, i n their i s i n effect Milton capacities staff concerns, which r e s u l t e d are barred Espey, by S t a t e So. 14 2d beyond interpretation position 1201 of Phillips, ( A l a . 1978) Milton, authority, i n eliminating so as t o remove them f r o m Also, "The 356 So. 2d a t 1202. d i d not a c ti n or in the the p r o t e c t i v e to the extent Teplick 54 a mistaken chief-of-staff S t a t e i m m u n i t y a n d make them i n d i v i d u a l l y l i a b l e P h i l l i p s , supra. . supra; c a n n o t be c i r c u m v e n t e d b y s u i n g t h e their law money § 14 where t h e as d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , t h e p e t i t i o n e r s faith, and against the seeking under one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . 356 eliminate financial brought capacities immunity o f f i c i a l o r agent i n d i v i d u a l l y . " bad on were i n the termination of any c l a i m s individual p r o h i b i t i o n of section Further, without the p e t i t i o n e r s of chief employment. petitioners position due p r o c e s s t o w h i c h he c l a i m s he was T h e r e c a n be no d i s p u t e t h a t position claim of the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f seeks cloak of to Teplick. injunctive 1111283 relief i n t h e form of reinstatement to the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n from t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , t h a t c l a i m i s m e a n i n g l e s s b e c a u s e t h e p e t i t i o n e r s c a n a c t on behalf o f USA without relief only i n their the necessary i n their supra. to a asserted against authority to provide we summary conclude judgment that on and a r e the requested Ex p a r t e Dickson, the p e t i t i o n e r s are the due-process claim them i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 2. F r a u d Teplick capacities individual capacities. Accordingly, entitled official asserted Claim a claim fraud i n count I I of the c o m p l a i n t a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n b y Hammack that Teplick's Hammack a r g u e s position that as chief of he i s immune f r o m staff suit was "secure." as t o T e p l i c k ' s f r a u d c l a i m a g a i n s t him i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y p u r s u a n t t o the doctrine Cranman, of State-agent supra. This Court immunity s e t f o r t h i n Ex i n Cranman stated the t e s t f o r S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y as f o l l o w s : "A S t a t e a g e n t s h a l l be immune f r o m civil l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r p e r s o n a l c a p a c i t y when t h e c o n d u c t made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e a g e n t i s b a s e d upon t h e a g e n t ' s "(1) formulating plans, p o l i c i e s , or designs; or 55 parte 1111283 "(2) e x e r c i s i n g h i s o r h e r judgment i n t h e administration of a department o r agency of government, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , examples such as: " ( a) adjudications; m a k i ng "(b) allocating "(c) negotiating admi n i s t r a t i ve resources; contracts; "(d) hiring, firing, transferring, assigning, or supervising personnel; or "(3) d i s c h a r g i n g d u t i e s i m p o s e d on a d e p a r t m e n t or agency by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n , i n s o f a r as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n p r e s c r i b e s t h e manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s a n d t h e S t a t e a g e n t p e r f o r m s t h e d u t i e s i n t h a t manner; o r "(4) e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f the c r i m i n a l laws o f t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement o f f i c e r s ' a r r e s t i n g or attempting to a r r e s t persons; or "(5) e x e r c i s i n g j u d g m e n t i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f d u t i e s imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n i n r e l e a s i n g p r i s o n e r s , counseling or r e l e a s i n g persons of unsound mind, o r e d u c a t i n g students. "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary i n the f o r e g o i n g statement of the r u l e , a State agent s h a l l n o t be immune f r o m c i v i l l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r personal capacity "(1) when t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r l a w s o f t h e U n i t e d States, or the C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h i s State, or laws, r u l e s , or regulations of t h i s State enacted or promulgated f o r the purpose of r e g u l a t i n g the activities of a governmental agency require otherwise; or 56 1111283 "(2) when t h e State agent a c t s willfully, m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , b e y o n d h i s or her a u t h o r i t y , or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law." Cranman, 792 So. 2d a t 405. Additionally: " ' T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d a " b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g " process when a party raises the defense of S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y . ' Ex p a r t e E s t a t e o f R e y n o l d s , 946 So. 2d 450, 452 ( A l a . 2006) . A S t a t e agent a s s e r t i n g S t a t e - a g e n t immunity 'bears the burden of d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s a r i s e from a f u n c t i o n t h a t would e n t i t l e the S t a t e agent to i m m u n i t y . ' 946 So. 2d a t 452. Should the State a g e n t make s u c h a s h o w i n g , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e p l a i n t i f f t o show t h a t one o f t h e two c a t e g o r i e s of e x c e p t i o n s to S t a t e - a g e n t immunity r e c o g n i z e d i n Cranman i s a p p l i c a b l e . The e x c e p t i o n b e i n g a r g u e d here i s t h a t 'the State agent a c t e d w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , o r b e y o n d h i s o r h e r a u t h o r i t y . ' 946 So. 2d a t 452. One o f t h e ways i n w h i c h a p l a i n t i f f can show t h a t a S t a t e agent a c t e d beyond h i s or her a u t h o r i t y i s by p r o f f e r i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t the S t a t e agent f a i l e d '"to discharge duties pursuant to d e t a i l e d r u l e s or r e g u l a t i o n s , s u c h as t h o s e s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t . " ' G i a m b r o n e v. D o u g l a s , 874 So. 2d 1046, 1052 (Ala. 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u t t s , 775 So. 2d [173] a t 178 [ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ] ) . " Ex p a r t e It would Kennedy, 992 So. 2d 1276, i s c l e a r t h a t Hammack was entitle him to State-agent second c a t e g o r y of e x c e p t i o n 1282-83 (Ala. 2008). engaged i n a f u n c t i o n immunity pursuant i n Ex p a r t e Cranman. to that the Hammack was e x e r c i s i n g h i s j u d g m e n t i n h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s as t o USA 57 1111283 personnel when he a l l e g e d l y made T e p l i c k bases h i s f r a u d claim. the statement Therefore, upon which i t was i n c u m b e n t upon T e p l i c k t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t one o f t h e two e x c e p t i o n s State-agent immunity recognized i n Ex parte a p p l i c a b l e . T e p l i c k a r g u e s t h a t Hammack a c t e d representing therefore, Cranman to was fraudulently i n t o h i m t h a t h i s employment was s e c u r e a n d t h a t , Hammack was n o t e n t i t l e d u n d e r Ex p a r t e Cranman. to State-agent In t h i s case, the a l l e g e d immunity fraudulent c o n d u c t b y Hammack made t h e b a s i s o f T e p l i c k ' s f r a u d c l a i m i s the same a l l e g e d fraudulent conduct that forms t h e b a s i s o f T e p l i c k ' s a r g u m e n t t h a t Hammack's c o n d u c t removed h i m f r o m t h e protection of State-agent Teplick argues that immunity. Hammack i s p r e c l u d e d from claiming S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y u n d e r Ex p a r t e Cranman b e c a u s e , he s a y s , Hammack a c t e d fraudulently i n assuring him t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was s e c u r e a n d t h e n s u b s e q u e n t l y e l i m i n a t i n g that p o s i t i o n . T e p l i c k contends t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r K r i e s b e r g r e t i r e d i n the f a l l o f 2004, he i n q u i r e d o f Hammack a s t o t h e s t a t u s o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n a n d Hammack i n f o r m e d h i m of h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p p o s i t i o n t o t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n b u t a s s u r e d T e p l i c k t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e " 58 b u t t h a t he 1111283 "would n o t h i r e another C h i e f o f S t a f f a f t e r [ T e p l i c k ] Although spoken Teplick admits t o h i m , he that states these that, express through manner o f s p e a k i n g , a n d [ t h e ] c o n t e x t " drew t h e i n f e r e n c e that the chief of staff; "words, of the conversation, he of s t a f f was T e p l i c k contends t h a t because o f t h i s a s s u r a n c e b y Hammack, he c o n t i n u e d as were n o t Hammack's h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f s e c u r e u n t i l he c h o s e t o l e a v e . USA words left." he h i s employment w i t h d i d not look for other employment a t a t i m e when he was y o u n g e r a n d more e m p l o y a b l e ; and he d i d n o t m a i n t a i n certain clinical certifications that w o u l d have made h i m more e m p l o y a b l e . The a c t a l l e g e d b y T e p l i c k t o be f r a u d u l e n t Hammack's a s s u r a n c e o f T e p l i c k ' s f u t u r e p e r m a n e n t employment as c h i e f o f s t a f f and h i s subsequent e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h a t p o s i t i o n t h e n a t u r e o f p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d . See N a t i o n a l D o n a l d s o n , 664 So. 2d 871 ( A l a . 1995) . promissory fraud is in S e c . I n s . Co. v. This Court discussed i n S o u t h l a n d Bank v. A & A D r y w a l l Supply Co., 21 So. 3d 1196, 1210 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) : "'A c l a i m o f p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d i s "one b a s e d upon a p r o m i s e t o a c t o r n o t t o a c t i n t h e f u t u r e . " ' Ex p a r t e M i c h e l i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , I n c . , 795 So. 2d 674, 678 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g P a d g e t t v. Hughes, 535 So. 2d 140, 142 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . 59 1111283 "'"The e l e m e n t s o f f r a u d a r e (1) a false representation (2) o f a m a t e r i a l e x i s t i n g f a c t (3) r e a s o n a b l y r e l i e d upon b y t h e p l a i n t i f f (4) who s u f f e r e d damage as a p r o x i ma t e c o ns e que nc e of the misrepresentation. To prevail on a p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d c l a i m ... , two a d d i t i o n a l e l e m e n t s must be s a t i s f i e d : (5) p r o o f t h a t at the time of the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the defendant had the i n t e n t i o n n o t t o p e r f o r m t h e a c t p r o m i s e d , a n d (6) p r o o f t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t h a d an i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . " ' " M i c h e l i n North America, 795 So. 2d ( q u o t i n g P a d g e t t , 535 So. 2d a t 1 4 2 ) . " A heavier fraud b u r d e n i s p l a c e d upon a p l a i n t i f f case Indus., than i n an o r d i n a r y I n c . , 93 So. 3d 918 fraud 678-79 in a case. ( A l a . 2012). at promissory- Heisz v. Galt "'[A] r e c k l e s s misrepresentation c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e f r a u d where t h e a l l e g e d misrepresentation relates misrepresentation r e l a t e s t o some f u t u r e t o some future event. event, shown t h a t t h e p e r s o n m a k i n g t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n Where t h e i t must be intended not t o do t h e a c t p r o m i s e d a t t h e t i m e t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n made.'" (Ala. Hillcrest C t r . , I n c . v . Rone, was 711 So. 2d 901, 906 1997) ( q u o t i n g R u s s e l l v i l l e P r o d . C r e d i t A s s ' n v. F r o s t , 484 So. 2d 1084, 1087 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . of-staff p o s i t i o n was eliminated a f t e r Hammack a l l e g e d l y a s s u r e d 60 The f a c t t h a t t h e c h i e f approximately four years T e p l i c k t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n was 1111283 s e c u r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t a l o n e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r e s e n t i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f Hammack t o d e c e i v e o r n o t t o p e r f o r m when he a l l e g e d l y made t h e s t a t e m e n t . alone i s not s u f f i c i e n t evidence to perform.'" & Supply " ' [ F ] a i l u r e t o perform t o show a p r e s e n t i n t e n t n o t H e i s z , 93 So. 3d a t 925 ( q u o t i n g Gadsden Co. v . Washburn, Teplick as p r o m i s e d points to Paper 554 So. 2d 983, 987 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . the discussions between Hammack, Franks, and S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e c h i e f - o f staff position Hammack as e v i d e n c e allegedly o f Hammack's i n t e n t , represented t o him t h a t a t the time his position as c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e , " t o d e c e i v e h i m a n d n o t t o p e r f o r m as promised. T e p l i c k contends Hammack was a s k i n g F r a n k s that as e a r l y as J u l y 2007 a n d S t r a d a t o f i n d ways t o " a b s o r b " t h e d u t i e s o f t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f a n d t h a t he was n o t i n f o r m e d of t h e d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s i t i o n u n t i l October Teplick's decided argument to i n this eliminate regard i m p l i e s t h a t Hammack h a d the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f Hammack's d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Franks 2008. position and S t r a d a before and t h a t h i s d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h F r a n k s a n d S t r a d a were s i m p l y on how " t o make it work." evidence, This argument, which i s flawed. 61 i s not supported by t h e 1111283 Hammack's a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n employment occurred shortly after r e t i r e m e n t i n t h e f a l l o f 2004. to Teplick of Kriesberg "secure" announced h i s However, t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e e a r l i e s t a n y d i s c u s s i o n s b e g a n among Hammack, and Strada regarding the e l i m i n a t i o n of the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was i n J u l y 2007, some two a n d o n e - h a l f Hammack h a d a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d 2004 t h a t Franks, h i s employment years a f t e r to Teplick i n the f a l l of was s e c u r e . Franks testified that t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s among him, Hammack, a n d S t r a d a c o n c e r n e d t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e chief-of-staff philosophical position opposition Hammack h a d n o t d e c i d e d these d i s c u s s i o n s make t h e d e c i s i o n and to despite the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f Hammack's position, t o e l i m i n a t e the p o s i t i o n a t the time began. Hammack t e s t i f i e d to eliminate u n t i l t h e f a l l o f 2008. that, 7 t h a t he d i d n o t the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f position Hammack i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k i n O c t o b e r S t r a d a a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Hammack c e n t e r e d on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a n d f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . However, when a s k e d i f Hammack h a d a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s i t i o n when t h e d i s c u s s i o n s began, S t r a d a r e p l i e d " I t h i n k s o . " Given t h e t e s t i m o n y o f Hammack a n d F r a n k s , however, t h i s t e s t i m o n y b y S t r a d a does n o t c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f a l a c k o f p r e s e n t i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f Hammack n o t t o p e r f o r m a s p r o m i s e d i n t h e f a l l o f 2004. See West v . F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1989) ( d e f i n i n g " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " 7 62 1111283 2008 t h a t t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f was b e i n g Teplick that was o f f i c i a l l y notified by l e t t e r eliminated. i n December t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n w o u l d be e l i m i n a t e d M a r c h 3 1 , 2009. Teplick continued 2008 as o f i n h i s employment as t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f u n t i l t h a t p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d on M a r c h 3 1 , 2009. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t among Hammack, F r a n k s , a n d S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g discussions thee l i m i n a t i o n of t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n d i d n o t b e g i n u n t i l J u l y 2007 a n d that the d e c i s i o n to eliminate Hammack u n t i l the f a l l beginning i n July Hammack's part represented t h e p o s i t i o n was n o t made b y o f 2008. Therefore, 2007 do n o t e v i d e n c e i n the f a l l to Teplick that of 2004, a present when chief-of-staffposition. Teplick also points of h i s job duties he i n t e n t on allegedly h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e , " d e c e i v e T e p l i c k o r n o t t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d the the discussions S o u t h l a n d Bank, to by e l i m i n a t i n g supra. t o t h e r e m o v a l b y Hammack o f s e v e r a l and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as c h i e f of staff as " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t a n d q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded p e r s o n s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d " ) . 63 1111283 shortly after Kriesberg retired as further evidence of Hammack's p r e s e n t i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e h i m a n d n o t t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d a t t h e t i m e Hammack a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d h i s p o s i t i o n a s c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e . " t o him t h a t Hammack a d m i t t e d t h a t he was o p p o s e d t o t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n b a s e d on o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and m a n a g e r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s informed Teplick of that fact. of Teplick's Kriesberg was with duties and a n d t h a t he h a d A l t h o u g h Hammack removed some responsibilities shortly r e t i r e d a n d T e p l i c k b e g a n r e p o r t i n g t o Hammack, not u n t i l Franks J u l y 2007 t h a t Hammack f i r s t and S t r a d a chief-of-staff the f e a s i b i l i t y position. The r e m o v a l began began r e p o r t i n g as the philosophical creating were hospital objections Hammack e x p l a i n e d duties t o h i m was w h o l l y i t discussing of e l i m i n a t i n g the o f some o f T e p l i c k ' s d u t i e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s b y Hammack s h o r t l y a f t e r duties after consistent administrator Teplick w i t h Hammack's and his known to the p o s i t i o n of chief of s t a f f . t h a t some o f T e p l i c k ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a n d reassigned "broader at that time representation, f o r the purpose perspective of and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " b e c a u s e T e p l i c k , as t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f , h a d no one r e p o r t i n g d i r e c t l y t o him. F u r t h e r , 64 Teplick continued to 1111283 s e r v e as t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r y e a r s a f t e r Hammack removed some o f h i s d u t i e s p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d cannot job conclude duties that and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; t h e i n the f a l l o f 2008. A c c o r d i n g l y , Hammack's r e m o v a l and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s we o f some o f T e p l i c k ' s shortly after Teplick began r e p o r t i n g t o h i m e v i d e n c e s an i n t e n t on t h e p a r t o f Hammack t o deceive Teplick, allegedly or not to perform represented to " s e c u r e . " S o u t h l a n d Bank, Based Teplick as p r o m i s e d , that when he his position was supra. on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we conclude f a i l e d t o present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that Teplick has creating a question of f a c t as t o w h e t h e r Hammack a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y i n e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n so a s t o remove Hammack f r o m t h e u m b r e l l a o f p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e - a g e n t immunity. indicating and Teplick failed t h a t Hammack h a d a p r e s e n t not to perform assured "secure." to present Teplick as p r o m i s e d that We n o t e evidence i n t e n t t o deceive him a t the time his position further that substantial as c h i e f Teplick he allegedly of s t a f f was acknowledged i n h i s d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he i s n o t c l a i m i n g t h a t anyone l i e d t o h i m a n d a d m i t t e d t h a t he h a s no p r o o f t h a t anyone s t a t e d s o m e t h i n g t o 65 1111283 him they knew t o be u n t r u e . See S o u t h l a n d Bank, supra, ( h o l d i n g t h a t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made r e c k l e s s l y o r i n n o c e n t l y will n o t s u s t a i n an a c t i o n a l l e g i n g Segrest v. L e w i s , 907 So. 2d 452 promissory f r a u d ) ; and ( A l a . C i v . App. 2005) ( h o l d i n g t h a t i n n o c e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s do n o t f a l l w i t h i n the e x c e p t i o n to State-agent i m m u n i t y a p p l i c a b l e when State agents a c t w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad f a i t h , beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y , o r under a mistaken the law). Accordingly, because e s t a b l i s h by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence interpretation of Teplick has t h a t Hammack failed intentionally m i s l e d o r d e c e i v e d h i m a t t h e t i m e Hammack a l l e g e d l y him to assured h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e , " Hammack i s e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y as t o t h e f r a u d c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t h i m i n his individual capacity. 3. " M a l i c e " C l a i m T e p l i c k a s s e r t e d i n count I I I o f t h e complaint a c l a i m o f "malice" withheld 8 against Strada, a l l e g i n g an a p p o i n t m e n t that Strada as an a d j u n c t r e s u l t i n g i n T e p l i c k ' s b e i n g damaged. intentionally professor from him, S t r a d a was e n t i t l e d t o T h e r e i s no c a u s e o f a c t i o n i n t h i s S t a t e f o r " m a l i c e . " The t e r m " m a l i c e " i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d a s a m e a s u r a b l e d e g r e e o f c o n d u c t t y p i c a l l y u s e d t o a s s e s s damages. See § 6¬ 11-20, A l a . Code 1975. 8 66 1111283 State-agent appointing immunity with or not appointing professor. Therefore, demonstrate that fraudulently, mistaken acted i n bad f a i t h , Kennedy, supra. evidence i n opposition the extent against Strada that to Teplick willfully, the to maliciously, failed law in from professor Teplick. to present to Strada's j u d g m e n t as t o t h e " m a l i c e " t h a t he was e n t i t l e d shifted adjunct beyond h i s a u t h o r i t y , o r under a of Teplick he t o o k i n T e p l i c k t o a p o s i t i o n as Strada as a d j u n c t t o any a c t i o n the burden interpretation appointment to regard withholding Ex motion t o State-agent immunity. has a l l e g e d parte any a r g u m e n t o r for a c l a i m b a s e d on S t r a d a ' s Teplick the 9 summary contention Accordingly, a cognizable claim i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , S t r a d a was e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y as t o t h a t claim. Conclusion The the p e t i t i o n e r s have d e m o n s t r a t e d a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o relief t h e y have requested. Accordingly, we g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t t h e t r i a l court to T e p l i c k h a s n o t r a i s e d an a r g u m e n t r e l a t i v e t o t h e "malice" count i n h i s b r i e f i n response t o the p e t i t i o n f o r t h e w r i t o f mandamus. Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t T e p l i c k h a s a s s e r t e d a c l a i m o f " m a l i c e , " he h a s a b a n d o n e d t h a t c l a i m . See T u c k e r v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t . , 864 So. 2d 317, 319 ( A l a . 2003) . 9 67 1111283 enter a summary judgment claims asserted against i n f a v o r o f t h e p e t i t i o n e r s on a l l them in both their official i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s b a s e d on t h e d o c t r i n e s o f S t a t e immunity and S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y . PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. Parker, Shaw, M a i n , W i s e , and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t s . 68 and

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.