Ex parte Laura Wilson. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Madison County Board of Education v. Laura Wilson)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/30/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080811 Ex p a r t e L a u r a Wilson PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In r e : M a d i s o n County B o a r d of Education v. Laura Wilson) (Case No. FMCS PER CURIAM. Laura Wilson in 05-03316) this petitions case concerning this court f o r a w r i t o f mandamus t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Teacher Tenure 2080811 Act, § 16-24-1 e t In ("the April seq., 2005, 1975. Madison County the Board") terminated teacher employed by d i s m i s s a l pursuant officer was 10(a), Ala. officer The A l a . Code Board a a notice 1975. On appeal, officer had failed Madison C o u n t y Bd. App. hearing parties 2006) to 2007, the reinstating Wilson's appeal to § of Educ. v. I"). this concluded the So. we "remand[ed] the another hearing Tenure supreme court Id. affirmed and Ala. we Code hearing Tenure Act. 1153 (Ala. 2d reversed cause consistent Act." hearing the Teacher Accordingly, 16-24- court, that 984 § employment. 16-24-10(b), Wilson, d e c i s i o n and our to her a hearing hearing, court Teacher and a to p r o p e r l y apply the tenured contested to of this conduct of case, a pursuant pursuant ("Wilson officer's provisions November appeal, her Education of Wilson, Wilson Following decision the Civ. hear 1975. granted 1 Board. of t o § 1 6 - 2 4 - 9 , A l a . Code 1975, Code filed employment the s e l e c t e d to issued the Board at for the the with the 1160. In this court's S e c t i o n 16-24-10(b) p r o v i d e s , i n p a r t , t h a t " [ r ] e v i e w [ o f t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ] by t h e C o u r t of C i v i l Appeals pursuant to t h i s a r t i c l e i s not a matter of r i g h t , but o f j u d i c i a l d i s c r e t i o n , a n d an a p p e a l may be g r a n t e d o n l y when t h e c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e r e a r e s p e c i a l and i m p o r t a n t reasons for g r a n t i n g the appeal." 1 2 2080811 decision 1161 on certiorari review. Ex p a r t e ( A l a . 2007) arose between hearing officer A Wilson whether the Wilson's hearing i n 2005 should remand. Wilson contended that should conduct the hearing who and Upon r e c e i v i n g original originally 2d conduct officer Wilson's dates for a new remand. Board, was letter to officer On appeal" The held. On Wilson stating In that l e t t e r , in the Wilson should December 13, that her i n [ h e r ] ... officer however, 2007, I I , the the Board and because the conduct the hearing, 2007, the Board dismissal process had Wilson's for a sent a become failure new no to hearing case." December and However, the Board c i t e d selection on should hold the hearing. hearing. hearing "participate hearing hearing contacted c o u l d n o t a g r e e on who "final." conducted the o r i g i n a l on parties of So. regarding t h e supreme c o u r t ' s judgment i n W i l s o n hearing recommended the Board had c o n t e n d e d t h a t a new h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ALJ") 984 ("Wilson I I " ) . dispute Wilson, with 27, the chief of the o f f i c e Wilson filed a "notice a d m i n i s t r a t i v e law judge of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearings the Alabama A t t o r n e y General. 3 Wilson filed of direct ("the chief i n the office her n o t i c e of 2080811 appeal p u r p o r t e d l y under § 16-24-21(a), provides: "A s t a t u s and has been d e n i e d education the teacher as r e q u i r e d b y cancellation right to appeal chief ALJ, of Wilson 11, In that dismissal, 2008, the Wilson's 1155. case remand; lacked On for this The original Clarification court whether, on to ALJ ALJ the the t h a t her chief ALJ Wilson's appeal. hearing officer the chief t o make t h a t 2008, W i l s o n of clarify remand, § did not have had been See should ALJ concluded I, 984 in that, hear 16-24- his Wilson's that he determination. In that i t s decision original 4 Wilson stated f i l e d with this Order." the under Wilson because also on officer. stated that, i n 2005. case hearing dismissed appeal concerns appealing to By directing the Board however, jurisdiction M a r c h 26, order of have administrative hearings at the " shall chief So. opinion, an chief a hearing before on c o n t r a c t s , ] ... of over service 16-24-9[, which the office which a h e a r i n g b e f o r e the l o c a l board teacher granted 2d continuing I be h e a r d b y t h e o r i g i n a l March jurisdiction attained S e c t i o n ... sought On the has to the [ c h i e f A L J ] remand from W i l s o n 21(a), who A l a . Code 1975, court a motion, i n Wilson hearing "Motion Wilson I to officer asked indicate should 2080811 conduct the hearing conduct the hearing. motu, issued rehearing August dissenting Civ. 2008, opinion, 2008) placing this the withdrew ("Wilson appeal with for a writ of c e r t i o r a r i w i t h January 19, the without opinion, concurring Murdock 3d 158 2009, specially filing ( A l a . 2009) original both p a r t i e s , However, on filing 22, 3d 2008. 157 ( A l a . subsequently t h e supreme a filed court. the a On petition Smith filing an opinion Chief Justice Cobb and Justice IV, Wilson, remand officer the o r i g i n a l Ex p a r t e 16, 2 0 0 9 , i n d i c a t i n g Wilson's case on J u n e 17, still i n Wilson Wilson, seeking 14 So. officer The not r e c e i v e n o t i c e of the February 5 hearing According to issued a letter on t h a t he w o u l d h o l d 2009. a I , a t t e m p t e d t o have conduct a hearing. hearing February did on ("Wilson I V " ) . court's hearing mero I April denied ex Wilson Bryan So. should Justice and Wilson pursuant to this 14 court dissenting opinions. Following the supreme with of Wilson petition in Judge Wilson, III"). court, motion. i t s order v. officer this Wilson's court, of Educ. hearing 22, 2008, to consider C o u n t y Bd. App. On A p r i l order i n order 29, Madison an o r w h e t h e r a new Board a hearing contends on that i t 17, 2009, l e t t e r until 2080811 May 20, 2009, i t received from witnesses anticipated when and e x h i b i t s concerning hearing. 2 hearing officer June 8, Evidently, 2009, the hearing Wilson scheduled a the list scheduled by t h e o r i g i n a l t o b e h e l d on J u n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 9 , was n o t h e l d . Wilson mandamus directing Wilson's hearing petitioned this that the o r i g i n a l and t h a t court for a hearing she be a w a r d e d of writ officer On of hold backpay. "A w r i t o f mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e m e d y , and i t w i l l b e ' i s s u e d o n l y when t h e r e i s : 1) a clear l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r to the order s o u g h t ; 2) a n i m p e r a t i v e d u t y u p o n t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , 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 lack of another a d e q u a t e r e m e d y ; a n d 4) p r o p e r l y invoked j u r i s d i c t i o n of the court.' Ex p a r t e U n i t e d Serv. S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 501 , 503 ( A l a . 1993). A writ o f mandamus will issue only i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r r e l i e f i s u n a v a i l a b l e o r i s inadequate, a n d i t c a n n o t be u s e d as a s u b s t i t u t e for appeal. E x p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & S e r v . C o . , 590 So. 2 d 252 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . " Ex parte (Ala. Empire Fire & Marine I n s . C o . , 720 S o . 2 d 8 9 3 , 894 1998). In Wilson officer's that I, this decision another court reversed and remanded hearing be held. the o r i g i n a l the case 984 So. with 2d hearing instructions at 1160. In The B o a r d a t t r i b u t e s t h e d e l a y i n r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e o f t h e February 17, 2009, letter to that letter's listing an i n c o r r e c t address f o r the Board's attorney. 2 6 2080811 affirming this "[t]he new hearing provisions 1171. of new be the on Teacher selecting filing a Tenure contest 24-9[, subsection Code 1975, of provides, the the 2d at should procedure teacher's provides, pursuant the c a n c e l l a t i o n Section So. officer following that 1975, be 984 to agree. is filed shall Act." specifies Code pursuant hearing immediately contest officer (b) We Act Ala. which concerns hearing original challenging 16-24-10(a), " I f n o t i c e of Tenure] remand. a hearing officer of Section part: hearing conducted [Teacher argues t h a t the The Ala. the shall Wilson conduct the c o u r t ' s judgment, the supreme c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t 16-24-20." to as Section teacher's dismissal. in pertinent of teacher selected a for Section 16- contracts,] provided in 16-24-20(b), in pertinent part: " I f a teacher should t i m e l y f i l e a contest from a decision as provided in this article, the e m p l o y i n g b o a r d and t h e t e a c h e r s h a l l , w i t h i n s e v e n d a y s o f s u c h f i l i n g , e i t h e r (1) m u t u a l l y a g r e e u p o n a person to hear the teacher's c o n t e s t , or (2) submit a j o i n t r e q u e s t f o r a p a n e l of a r b i t r a t o r s to the F e d e r a l M e d i a t i o n and Conciliation Services' O f f i c e of A r b i t r a t i o n S e r v i c e s (FMCS)." S e c t i o n 16-24-10(b) addresses this court decision of reverses the a hearing hearing officer 7 the procedure officer's shall be i n v o l v e d when decision: a f f i r m e d on "The appeal 2080811 unless the Court and of C i v i l Appeals finds the d e c i s i o n a r b i t r a r y c a p r i c i o u s , i n which p a r t i e s conduct another of t h i s article." reversed Tenure hearing should before as remand is clearly i s remanded A c t does be h e l d b e f o r e to We the state Berryhill, omitted). The l e g i s l a t u r e , in intended 2004, processes 2004. f o r teachers." Remanding original would before "to be the hearing officer judicially a new hearing 2d that officer or 16-24-10(b) officer when in statutory to the l e g i s l a t i v e effect So. § rule i n t e n t as i n t h e s t a t u t e o r a s may 801 whether hearing cardinal decision i s hearing l a n g u a g e u s e d as w e l l as from t h e r e a s o n parte that the hearing," the now c o n s t r u e original "The i s to give expressed order f o r "another the o r i g i n a l officer. remand may officer's not e x p l i c i t l y necessary. construction the T h u s , when a h e a r i n g a new h e a r i n g directing the court hearing consistent with the procedures and t h e case Teacher case 7, 11 be inferred from f o r the act." ( A l a . 2001 ) Ex (emphasis i n amending t h e Teacher Tenure A c t streamline Title case the contest appeal t o A c t No. 2 0 0 4 - 5 6 6 , A l a . for a new hearing i s consistent with this efficient, officer and whereas the i n t e n t i o n and holding unfamiliar with 8 before Acts a hearing the case would 2080811 undermine If this we intention. were requiring the preclude the to original be Teacher Tenure new a hearing officer the officer is course held. hearing applying hearing reasonable of the that c o n s t r u c t i o n would seemingly hearings from merely that construe selection remanded c a s e s , evidentiary to Such c o r r e c t law to familiar. court's judgment i s r e v e r s e d to circuit court. In presided over on This remand, court's in this hearing officer's 26-100 Code et 1975, seq., as the procedure the facts more with which efficient those the a matter 3d 1152 case. typically and and of u s e d when the trial judge presides governs Code State 1975. appeals to 9 over course. State Community College 2008), supports i n v o l v e d an appeal d e c i s i o n under the F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t , § Ala. a case i s remanded case t y p i c a l l y ( A l a . C i v . App. Bishop the situations, d e c i s i o n i n Bishop v . W i l l i a m s , 4 So. decision cases, original circuit case would Moreover, remanding the case to the reflects the new original officer originally require procedure The hearing who in a l l i s t o s i m p l y remand the case to the hearing officer. that as in applicable officer, a Act Section this 36-26-104(b), court under the our of a 36¬ Ala. Fair 2080811 Dismissal Act. decision unless and That s e c t i o n p r o v i d e s , of the hearing the Court c a p r i c i o u s , i n which this shall article." case the court this court This language may "reverse[d] the present So. 3d a t 1162 ( e m p h a s i s duty directing would the o r i g i n a l 894. this duty. As n o t e d , hearing was s c h e d u l e d this court 17, o f mandamus officer In Bishop decision officer." 4 the hearing June officer 8, Wilson court. and W i l s o n t h a t he r e f u s e d t o & Marine, hearing t o be h e l d , i n this o f mandamus a showing On case had to hold Empire F i r e 2009. i n this a writ officer absent do n o t i n d i c a t e , the o r i g i n a l that the case. hearing remand, the o r i g i n a l f o r June a writ on hearing Ex p a r t e hearing for hearing hearing n o t be a p p r o p r i a t e perform at a order added). the o r i g i n a l to hold arbitrary officer's the hearing remand[ed] t h e cause t o t h e o r i g i n a l the appeal i s t h e same a s t h e l a n g u a g e and Although on hearing consistent with the procedures found i n § 16-24-10(b) g o v e r n i n g State, be a f f i r m e d of C i v i l Appeals finds the d e c i s i o n p a r t i e s conduct another of officer i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The 200 9, filed 720 S o . 2 d scheduled before her The m a t e r i a l s a the petition before does n o t a s s e r t , that h e a r i n g o f f i c e r has r e f u s e d t o conduct a h e a r i n g . 10 2080811 Accordingly, materials before compelling in Wilson's writ of a t t h i s p o i n t i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a n d b a s e d on t h e us, the o r i g i n a l case. Id. we cannot issue a hearing officer writ of to conduct mandamus a hearing T h e r e f o r e , we d e n y t h e p e t i t i o n fora mandamus. PETITION DENIED. Pittman, Bryan, Thomas, Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s and Moore, J J . , concur. i n the result 11 only, with writing. 2080811 THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g I conclude mandamus was mandamus her that concurring i n the result Laura Wilson's essentially 26, 2008, petition f o r a writ of for a writ of t h e same r e l i e f "motion Civ. County Bd. o f Educ. App. 2008) Wilson's court's (Ala. ("Wilson petition ruling 2009) i n Wilson ("Wilson which this Our 14 S o . 3 d 157 supreme of c e r t i o r a r i III. sought i n S e p t e m b e r 4, 2 0 0 8 . v. W i l s o n , III"). f o rwrit Wilson for clarification," c o u r t u l t i m a t e l y d e n i e d by o r d e r dated Madison only. The p e t i t i o n not t i m e l y f i l e d . seeks March Judge, with court regard Ex p a r t e W i l s o n , See (Ala. denied to this 14 S o . 3 d 158 IV"). When, a f t e r r e m a n d , t h e d i s p u t e a r o s e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s c o n c e r n i n g w h e t h e r a new h e a r i n g o f f i c e r Wilson d i d not take opposition of courts seeks before the o r i g i n a l relief i n this a s t o how Wilson this taken ("the B o a r d " ) . clarification" appellate adversarial to the position Education for an t o compel i n 2007 b y f i l i n g litigation by t h e Madison Rather, court, Wilson seeking to proceed. the Board hearing s h o u l d be to take officer; position County filed a advice In t h i s part she c o u l d a timely petition 12 appointed, in Board "motion from the petition, in a have hearing sought f o ra writ of 2080811 mandamus s h o r t l y Madison afer the release of this County Board of Education (Ala. C i v . App. 2006), parte Wilson, stated court's opinion i n v. W i l s o n , and o u r supreme c o u r t ' s o p i n i o n i n Ex 984 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . i n her special 984 S o . 2 d 1 1 5 3 concurrence i n Wilson As J u s t i c e Smith IV, supra: " C h i e f J u s t i c e Cobb, i n h e r d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n , asserts that the petitioner, Laura W i l s o n , 'has s o u g h t r e d r e s s i n e v e r y r e a s o n a b l e manner i n s e e k i n g an a n s w e r t o t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a new h e a r i n g o f f i c e r i s r e q u i r e d on r e m a n d . ' 14 S o . 3 d a t 1 6 0 . However, instead of filing a 'motion for c l a r i f i c a t i o n , ' W i l s o n c o u l d h a v e s o u g h t mandamus r e l i e f d i r e c t i n g t h a t a h e a r i n g be commenced b e f o r e the original hearing officer after the Madison County Board of Education r e f u s e d t o proceed i f the m a t t e r was n o t h e a r d b e f o r e a new h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . " 14 S o . 3 d a t 159 I conclude (Smith, J . , concurring that Wilson d i d not f i l e w r i t o f mandamus w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e she Ex failed parte 2003). to p r o p e r l y invoke Troutman Sanders, specially). this fora time and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t the j u r i s d i c t i o n L L P , 8 66 Accordingly, f o rthat reason, 13 petition of this S o . 2 d 547 , I concur court. 550 ( A l a . i n the result.

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.