Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County v. Joann Christopher

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 05/18/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e Courts, 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, 2011-2012 2101029 Board o f School Commissioners o f Mobile County v. Joann C h r i s t o p h e r Appeal from F e d e r a l M e d i a t i o n and C o n c i l i a t i o n S e r v i c e (FMCS No. 10-04431) THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g Judge. On M a y 7, 2 0 1 0 , R o y D. N i c h o l s , t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t Mobile County Christopher Board o f School Commissioners, o f h i s i n t e n t i o n t o recommend notified of the Joann thetermination of 2101029 her employment p u r s u a n t t o the r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e p o l i c y policy") adopted by the Mobile County Board ("RIF of School Commissioners ("the B o a r d " ) i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h § 16-1-33, A l a . Code The 1975. record indicates n e c e s s i t a t e d the termination the Board's provided other the employees by the things, proposed Board under affirmed former Dismissal Code 1975 Ala. Code Board of her policy. June On 2010, notice stated, among and 17, to elect pursuant ("the and May intent 16, could employment Act problems The a hearing that, superintendent's (repealed 1975). her RIF to Christopher Christopher of Ala. on the termination Fair the the Board planned to conduct termination recommendation, budgetary o f t h e employment o f a number o f superintendent that that FDA"), replaced 2010, contest § contest 36-26-104 36-26-100 the of the et seq., § 16-24C-1 e t by seq., Christopher the i f the termination to § on notified termination the of her employment. On June decision, 17, and that decision. 16, 2011. On 2010, the Christopher A hearing July 12, Board filed affirmed a timely the notice termination of appeal o f f i c e r conducted a hearing 2011, the 2 hearing officer on of March entered a 2101029 decision reversing employment. accept court termination The B o a r d f i l e d i t s appeal. (repealed the See and r e p l a c e d granted former § Christopher's request that request m a t t e r , we a p p e a l has been p e n d i n g , this court 36-26-104, A l a . Code b y § 16-24C-6, A l a . Code the Board's As an i n i t i a l a timely of and a c c e p t e d note that, 1975). the during 1975 This appeal. the time this the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e enacted the S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t ("the S F A " ) , § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. The SFA repealed both the former Teacher ( " T T A " ) , §§ 1 6 - 2 4 - 1 t h r o u g h - 3 8 , A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 replaced For Act (repealed and b y § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) , a n d t h e t h e most p a r t , § 16(b), Tenure A c t No. t h e SFA became effective 2011-270, A l a . A c t s § 16-24C-14, A l a . Code 1975. on J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 . 2011; see a l s o Comment, H o w e v e r , A c t No. 2011-270, t h e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t e s t a b l i s h e d t h e SFA, a l s o s p e c i f i e d t h a t portions o f t h e SFA w e r e t o be e f f e c t i v e b e f o r e Specifically, that A c t No. 2011-270 p r o v i d e s i s now § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( h ) ( 3 ) b e c a m e l e g i s l a t i o n became 2011, w h e n i t was s i g n e d 270. Specifically, i n this by t h e governor. section 16 3 provides: some J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 . that effective law, which occurred FDA. the section at the time the c a s e o n May 26, § 1 6 , A c t No. 2 0 1 1 ¬ 2101029 "(a) Subdivision (2) a n d s u b d i v i s i o n (3) o f subsection (h) o f S e c t i o n 6 shall be e f f e c t i v e immediately f o l l o w i n g passage and a p p r o v a l of t h i s act by the Governor, or i t s otherwise becoming law. and "(b) Subject to the following terms q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , t h e r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s a c t s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e o n J u l y 1, 2 0 1 1 , f o l l o w i n g p a s s a g e a n d approval of this a c t by the Governor, or i t s otherwise becoming law: "(1) Employees who have attained t e n u r e d s t a t u s u n d e r t h e T e a c h e r T e n u r e Law or nonprobationary s t a t u s under the F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t as o f t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s a c t , i n t h e case of t e n u r e d teachers, s h a l l be deemed t e n u r e d t e a c h e r s u n d e r t h i s a c t and, i n t h e case o f n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employees w i t h i n t h e meaning of t h e F a i r Dismissal Act shall be deemed nonprobationary c l a s s i f i e d employees under t h i s a c t . E m p l o y e e s who h a v e n o t a t t a i n e d t e n u r e d s t a t u s u n d e r t h e T e a c h e r T e n u r e Law or nonprobationary s t a t u s under the F a i r D i s m i s s a l A c t as o f t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h i s a c t s h a l l be s u b j e c t t o t h e terms and provisions of this act respecting the attainment of teacher tenure or nonprobationary s t a t u s , and a l l time i n service that would have been credited toward the attainment of either tenure under the Teacher Tenure Law or nonprobationary status under the Fair D i s m i s s a l A c t s h a l l be c r e d i t e d t o w a r d t h e attainment of tenure or nonprobationary status i n the corresponding employment category under t h i s a c t . "(2) A l l employment actions and p r o c e e d i n g s t h a t have been i n i t i a t e d under e i t h e r t h e T e a c h e r T e n u r e Law o r t h e F a i r Dismissal Act that are pending on t h e 4 2101029 effective date of this act shall be completed under the s t a t u t o r y procedures t h a t w e r e i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e t h e a c t i o n o r p r o c e e d i n g was commenced." (Emphasis added.) Section 16-24C-6 procedures Subsection of Act for governs grounds terminations and for terminations, hearings, and (h) o f t h a t s t a t u t e , w h i c h i s r e f e r e n c e d No. 2011-270, quoted above, provides, the appeals. in § in 16(a) pertinent part: " ( h ) The f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l t e r m s , c o n d i t i o n s , and l i m i t a t i o n s a p p l y t o t e r m i n a t i o n s and appeals therefrom: II "(3) Layoffs or other personnel a c t i o n s t h a t are unavoidable r e d u c t i o n s i n the workforce beyond normal a t t r i t i o n due to decreased student enrollment or shortage of revenues as specified in Section 16-1-33, are not s u b j e c t t o c h a l l e n g e or review under t h i s chapter." We note Code o m i t s 270 the concerning Instead, SFA that the codification provisions set the forth effective of in § dates the i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the of SFA 16 i n the of Act that Alabama No. 2011¬ legislation. the e f f e c t i v e dates of the i s s e t f o r t h i n t h e Code C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s N o t e s t o § 16-24C- 6 and § 16-24C-14, A l a . Code 1975. 5 However, "the failure of 2101029 the publisher ... t o i n c o r p o r a t e [thefull t e x t o f § 16, A c t No. 2 0 1 1 - 2 7 0 , ] i n t o t h e C o d e d i d n o t a f f e c t [ t h e ] v a l i d i t y " o f that section. 1988) (explaining "dealing with in that codified which in sections of but remain viable enactment"). Thus, that case, he Nichols was t h a t she c o u l d provisions Christopher terminated On informed Christopher As i s s p e c i f i e d of [ t h e SFA 2011." notified Christopher to the on Board t o the Board's May that 7, her RIF p o l i c y h i s recommendation pursuant t o the June i t had upheld h e r employment. terminated 2 6 , 2 0 1 1 , when "the remainder pursuant contest of the 16-24C-6(h)(3), e f f e c t o n May recommending o f t h e FDA. that subsection 2011-270, employment be t e r m i n a t e d and are not provisions by the governor. b e c a m e ] e f f e c t i v e o n J u l y 1, 2010, ... b e l o n g s customarily and a p p l i c a b l e t o a RIF p o l i c y , took this that (Ala. enactment s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h employment i s 1 6 ( b ) o f A c t No. In legislative [of l e g i s l a t i o n ] provisions No. 2 0 1 1 - 2 7 0 was s i g n e d § of a the e f f e c t i v e date addresses pursuant Rheem M f g . , 524 S o . 2 d 6 3 1 , 633 that category legislative Act Ex p a r t e 17, 2010, t h e B o a r d Nichols's I n that recommendation notification, t h a t she had t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l 6 notified and the Board pursuant 2101029 to the 2010, FDA, which was Christopher provisions hearing of However, the filed the officer in effect FDA a as a time. of authority On appeal, for hearing that on entered officer m a t t e r on J u l y 12, 2 0 1 1 , the notice conducted hearing at his June 23, citing the appeal. March The 16, decision 2011. in this a f t e r t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f § 16-24C- 6(h)(3). This court 16-24C-6(h)(3), actions asked parties parties A l a . Code 1975, s u c h as t h i s enactment the one o f A c t No. was to brief § intended to apply to bar t h a t were p e n d i n g a t the time o f the 2011-270. This court consolidated also in the (Huntsville City no. 2110286 ( H u n t s v i l l e C i t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n v. Board whether appeals--appeal o f E d u c a t i o n v. submit arguments and appear allowed the no. Stranahan) as a m i c i c u r i a e 210252 and appeal Holmes)--to at oral argument; t h o s e two c a s e s a r e h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e Huntsville cases." Those court accepted, concerned the H u n t s v i l l e consolidated City The parties court's request appeals, which appeals from t e r m i n a t i o n s Board and for the of Education's RIF amici briefs curiae on 7 the each this resulting from policy. responded issue, has and to they this each 2101029 appeared a t o r a l argument t o address 24C-6(h)(3) decision officer of barred made an employee's as a r e s u l t appeal of whether a o f a R I F p o l i c y when entered h i s or her decision § 16-24C-6(h)(3), the issue A l a . Code § 16- termination the hearing after the effective Christopher contended t h a t § 16-24C-6(h)(3) does n o t p r e c l u d e h e r c l a i m s . The B o a r d a r g u e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , 270 1975. date t h a t b e c a u s e § 16 o f A c t No. 2 0 1 1 ¬ s p e c i f i e s t h a t § 6 ( h ) ( 2 ) a n d (3) o f t h e a c t ( i . e . , w h a t i s now c o d i f i e d a s § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( h ) ( 2 ) a n d ( 3 ) ) w e r e t o t a k e immediately, those subsections applied to this was p e n d i n g , b u t h a d n o t y e t b e e n d e c i d e d , p a s s a g e o f t h e SFA l e g i s l a t i o n . Education, as amicus action, effect which a t the time of the The H u n t s v i l l e C i t y B o a r d o f curiae, submitted the only brief to a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n o f § 16-24C6(h)(3) i s appropriate; t h e p a r t i e s and t h e other amici curiae each addressed t h a t i s s u e i n t h e i r arguments b e f o r e t h i s during oral "The court argument. general rule i s that statute i s not favored statute retrospective retrospective and must legislative be 8 application of a intent c l e a r l y expressed t o make before a the 2101029 statute will be construed Kittrell v. Benjamin, 396 So. to 2d operate 93, 94 retrospectively." ( A l a . 1981). "Our Supreme Court has applied a state c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r an act of the legislature can be applied retrospectively and has concluded that the constitution requires that the t i t l e of the act r e f l e c t s the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t f o r r e t r o a c t i v e effect: "'This Court has interpreted § 45 [Alabama C o n s t i t u t i o n o f 1901,] as i m p o s i n g the requirement that where an act is i n t e n d e d t o have r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n , the t i t l e o f the a c t must " f a i r l y and reasonably indicat[e] that the act is retrospective." L i n d s a y v. U n i t e d S t a t e s S a v i n g s a n d L o a n A s s o c i a t i o n , 120 A l a . 1 5 6 , 24 S o . 171 ( 1 8 9 7 ) ; see G a y l e v. E d w a r d s , 261 A l a . 84, 72 S o . 2 d 848 (1954).' "Alabama Educ. Ass'n (Ala. 1980). v. G r a y s o n , 382 So. 2d 501, "The Court of Appeals, after conducting d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of whether a s t a t u t e should a p p l i e d r e t r o a c t i v e l y , s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : " ' I t i s a fundamental p r e c e p t of our jurisprudence that substantive legal i n t e r e s t s s p r i n g from the law i n e f f e c t a t the time such i n t e r e s t s are a l l e g e d t o have a r i s e n or t o have been v i o l a t e d . F o r t h i s r e a s o n , u n d o u b t e d l y i n d u c e d by a sense [of] what i s f a i r and what i s r i g h t , c o u r t s have uniformly been reluctant to construe s t a t u t e s as h a v i n g r e t r o a c t i v e operation, e v e n t h o u g h non o f f e n s i v e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y , unless the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e that a statute i s to operate r e t r o a c t i v e l y i s 9 505 a be 2101029 made c e r t a i n , e i t h e r b y a c t u a l w o r d s , o r c l e a r and n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n . ' " A l a b a m a P o w e r Co. 36 A l a . A p p . 218, cert. denied. by v. D i r e c t o r o f I n d u s . Relations, 221, 54 So. 2 d 786, 788 (1951) "Our Supreme C o u r t r e s t a t e d a g a i n s t r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n of the presumption l a w s , as f o l l o w s : "'The judiciary generally disdains retroactive application of laws because such application usually injects undue d i s h a r m o n y and chaos i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f law t o a g i v e n f a c t s i t u a t i o n ; therefore, the courts w i l l generally indulge every presumption in favor of prospective a p p l i c a t i o n u n l e s s the l e g i s l a t u r e ' s i n t e n t t o t h e c o n t r a r y i s c l e a r l y and explicitly e x p r e s s e d . C i t y o f B r e w t o n v. W h i t e ' s A u t o S t o r e , I n c . , 362 So. 2 d 226 (Ala. 1978).' "Lee v. Lee, 382 S t a t e Home B u i l d e r s 408 (Ala. In the Civ. this App. case, So. 2d 508, 509 L i c e n s u r e Bd. v. (Ala. Grzelak, 1980)." 705 So. the SFA l e g i s l a t u r e intended § 13A-5-9.1, A l a . 1 3 A - 5 - 9 s h a l l be Code 1975 "); 406, 1997). does not that § expressly address 16-24C-6(h)(2) and r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n , as h a v e o t h e r l e g i s l a t i v e See 2d Code applied ("This c h a p t e r § 11-44C-96, A l a . 1975 ("The provisions retroactively shall not C o d e 1975 10 have a whether (3) have enactments. of Section ); § 32-5A-12, retroactive Ala. effect ("This e x e m p t i o n from a l l 2101029 municipal be s a l e s and use taxes r e t r o a c t i v e to October Code 1975, No. 2008-480, and gross 1, 1 9 9 9 . " ) ; Acts 2008, taxes noting that § which amended provided that "'[t]his following and approval o t h e r w i s e b e c o m i n g l a w , a n d s h a l l be 2006.'"); shall and have passage In approval the have it the to 36-30-5, immediately Governor, or i t s retroactive to January 1975 January Governor or 1, ("This 1, section 1999, upon Act upon i t s i t s otherwise law."). the whole, by the A l a . Code effect absence retroactivity, a 45-22-234(b), retroactive and becoming a § by 4 of § a c t s h a l l become e f f e c t i v e i t s passage shall see a l s o § 36-30-5, A l a . Code C o m m i s s i o n e r ' s N o t e , Ala. receipts retroactive the express legislature application. t h a t the legislation upon passage, an legislative t h e c o u r t s must d e t e r m i n e , whether i s clear of intended that the cases 2011-270, that that part of immediately although i t i s not c l e a r whether the legislature apply undecided. 11 take statute effect intended that that section RIF intended of t h e s t a t u t e as I n e n a c t i n g A c t No. legislature governing from statement to a c t i o n s then pending but 2101029 Regardless, retroactively substantive 905 whether turns may on t h e i s s u e w h e t h e r or remedial Substantive party's legal Grzelak, which rights. law,' laws status. supra. creates, parties, be applied the statute Ex p a r t e Burks, affects 487 S o . 2 d defects Casey, method rights of enforcing Remedial or vested but preserve i n existing laws & Supply or alter part statutes right, a Bd. v. of law and d u t i e s o f or remedial the rights or B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y a r e those "'which a n d do n o t d i s t u r b and enforce the right ( A l a . 1983) ( q u o t i n g past and h e a l p r e s c r i b i n g remedies.'" 4 4 5 S o . 2 d 8 7 3 , 875 A l a b a m a Mach. law" i s "[t]hat for their invasion." no c o n t r a c t rights Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e and r e g u l a t e s prescribes transactions, vested to 'adjective, procedural, ( 6 t h ed. 1990). impair State defines, as o p p o s e d which affect "Substantive obtaining redress 844 statute ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; S t a t e Home B u i l d e r s L i c e n s u r e B d . v . G r z e l a k , supra. 1429 a Jones v. Dickson v. C o . , 18 A l a . A p p . 1 6 4 , 1 6 5 , 89 S o . 843, (1921)). Generally, application, retroactively. remedial statutes but substantive See K i t t r e l l may statutes may v. Benjamin, 12 have retroactive n o t be applied 3 9 6 S o . 2 d 9 3 , 95 2101029 (Ala. 1 9 8 1 ) (a s t a t u t e c a n h a v e r e t r o a c t i v e a p p l i c a t i o n i f i t affects States (Ala. procedural Steel & Mining to substantive Co. v . R i d d l e , thus and therefore only quoted retroactive prospectively the conduct, the fact the conduct application Huff (quoting following application of of procedure after remedial, applicable r e t r o s p e c t i v e l y , or i fi ti s substantive has rules United whether the standard i n the newly enacted Workers' A c t i s t r u l y and court rights); 627 S o . 2 d 4 5 5 , 4 5 7 - 5 8 C i v . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ) ("[W]e m u s t d e c i d e of review W.R. as o p p o s e d regulate that Asset Mgmt. remedial rather supreme f o r allowing statutes: secondary rise Our explanation a new p r o c e d u r a l giving of the rule operable."). "'"Because than primary rule [ i s ] instituted to the suit does n o t make [] r e t r o a c t i v e . " ' " BT S e c s . C o r p . v . Co., 891 So. 2 d 3 1 0 , 316 P r o f e s s i o n a l Mgmt. A s s o c s . , Inc., (Ala. Employees' 2004) Profit Sharing P l a n v . KPMG, L L P , 3 3 5 F . 3 d 8 0 0 , 8 0 3 ( 8 t h C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , quoting i n t u r n L a n d g r a f v. USI F i l m Prods., 5 1 1 U.S. 2 4 4 , 2 7 5 (1994)). Before this court, the Board argued that § is remedial i n nature retroactive application. 16-24C-6(h)(3) and, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i t can v a l i d l y I n making t h a t 13 argument, have the Board 2101029 maintained that guidelines set forth contended RIF l a y o f f s that t h e SFA e m p l o y e e may a s s e r t Section i n § a r e made 16-1-33, affects a violation 16-1-33 p r o v i d e s , pursuant to statutory A l a . Code 1975, and i t the procedure by which an o f t h e mandates o f § 16-1-33. i n pertinent part: " ( a ) When u s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n , t h e f o l l o w i n g words s h a l l have t h e f o l l o w i n g meanings: II "(3) L a y o f f . An u n a v o i d a b l e r e d u c t i o n i n t h e work f o r c e beyond normal a t t r i t i o n due t o decreased student enrollment or shortage of revenues. "(b) Each board shall adopt a written reduction-in-force policy consistent with Section 16-1-30. The p o l i c y s h a l l i n c l u d e , b u t s h a l l n o t b e l i m i t e d t o , l a y o f f s , r e c a l l s , and n o t i f i c a t i o n s o f l a y o f f s and r e c a l l s . The r e d u c t i o n - i n - f o r c e p o l i c y o f t h e b o a r d s h a l l be b a s e d on o b j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a . " In making i t s argument t h a t or procedural i n nature, employees' s u b s t a n t i v e must be t a k e n compliance 6(h)(3)]. for § rights, 16-1-33, That s e c t i o n addressing the Board only contends i . e . , that i n accordance with with § 16-24C-6(h)(3) i s remedial that reductions "[t]he i n force a w r i t t e n p o l i c y adopted i n are unaffected by [§ 16-24C- a f f e c t s t h e remedy o r p r o c e d u r e v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e mandates o f § 16-1-33." 14 2101029 With regard to the d i s t i n c t i o n whether a statute affects s u b s t a n t i v e o r p r o c e d u r a l r i g h t s , our supreme c o u r t has noted: "'"[I]t i s s i m p l i s t i c t o assume t h a t a l l law i s d i v i d e d n e a t l y between ' s u b s t a n c e ' and ' p r o c e d u r e . ' A r u l e o f p r o c e d u r e may h a v e an i m p a c t u p o n t h e substantive result and be no less a rule of p r o c e d u r e on t h a t a c c o u n t . . . . As s a i d i n Hanna v. P l u m e r , 380 U.S. 4 6 0 , 4 7 1 , 85 S. C t . 1 1 3 6 , 1 1 4 4 , 14 L. Ed. 2d 8, 16-17 (1965), 'The line between " s u b s t a n c e " and "procedure" shifts as t h e legal c o n t e x t changes. "Each i m p l i e s d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s d e p e n d i n g upon t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m f o r w h i c h i t i s u s e d . " ' ..."'" M i d d l e t o n v. C a t e r p i l l a r 2007) So. I n d u s . , I n c . , 979 (quoting Schoenvogel 2d 225, 63 N . J . 250 351, I n Ex 307 parte Burks, 2d 53, v. V e n a t o r Group R e t a i l , ( A l a . 2004), 364-65, So. quoting i n turn A.2d 487 571, So. 578 2d 60 ( A l a . Inc., B u s i k v. L e v i n e , (1973)). 905, 906 ( A l a . 1985), supreme c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d whether " t h e amendment t o Code § 36-26-27(a), 1983, Personnel Board termination upon retroactively terminate e f f e c t i v e J u l y 28, a the c i r c u i t to state to a impose state the review employee of i f the system a our 1975, which a l l o w s the State discipline merit less severe employee, Board than appl[ies] determination r e v i e w was pending to before c o u r t a t t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e amendment?" 15 895 In 2101029 determining that supreme c o u r t the statute did apply retroactively, stated: "The amended statute at issue here does not expressly contain any provision for retroactive a p p l i c a t i o n , nor i s t h e r e a c l e a r l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t h a t t h e s t a t u t e so o p e r a t e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e amended p r o v i s i o n may operate r e t r o a c t i v e l y only i f i t i s f o u n d t o be 'remedial.' "Remedial statutes are those relating r e m e d i e s o r modes o f p r o c e d u r e . S t r e e t v. C i t y Anniston, 381 So. 2d 26 ( A l a . 1980); Harlan S t a t e , 31 A l a . A p p . 4 7 8 , 18 So. 2 d 744 (1947). J o n e s v . C a s e y , [445 So. 2 d 873 (Ala. 1983)], r e i t e r a t e d the d e f i n i t i o n of 'remedial s t a t u t e s ' to of v. In we "'... a s t h o s e " w h i c h i m p a i r no c o n t r a c t o r vested right, and do not disturb past t r a n s a c t i o n s , b u t p r e s e r v e and e n f o r c e t h e r i g h t and h e a l d e f e c t s i n e x i s t i n g laws p r e s c r i b i n g remedies." D i c k s o n v. A l a b a m a Mach. a n d S u p p l y Co., 18 A l a . A p p . 164, 165, 89 S o . 843, 844, cert. denied, 206 A l a . 6 9 8 , 89 So. 922 (1921) "445 So. 2d at 875. "We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a m e n d m e n t t o C o d e 1 9 7 5 , § 3 6 - 2 6 - 2 7 ( a ) , i s r e m e d i a l i n n a t u r e , t o u c h i n g upon matters of procedure r a t h e r than s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s , a n d c o r r e c t s w h a t may b e p e r c e i v e d a s a d e f e c t i n the original statute. M o r e o v e r , no s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t i s i m p a i r e d by the expanded r e m e d i e s g r a n t e d t o t h e P e r s o n n e l B o a r d t o be a p p l i e d i n r e v i e w i n g d i s c i p l i n a r y measures a g a i n s t s t a t e m e r i t employees. T h i s i s n o t t o s a y t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s may not be a f f e c t e d by the a p p l i c a t i o n of the s t a t u t o r y change, but t h a t t h i s e f f e c t i s o n l y the r e s u l t of the u t i l i z a t i o n of what i s e s s e n t i a l l y a m a t t e r of Personnel Board procedure." 16 our 2101029 Ex parte We Burks, cannot substantive section the substance a Board's of § 907. the Board RIF argument intended Christopher termination contested of that for § a policy. to 16-1-33 that implement Rather, board Thus, § we provides to do meet not 16-24C-6(h) the that in find is requirements a of 16-1-33. Former § 36-26-102 of the time that employees of a board. requirements adopting statute at with forth the procedural 2d r i g h t s to the and persuasive So. agree sets creating 487 was her FDA, notified employment notification, w h i c h was of and the at e f f e c t i v e at decision the time to she the seek first provided: "Upon t h e c o m p l e t i n g by t h e employee of s a i d p r o b a t i o n a r y p e r i o d , s a i d e m p l o y e e s h a l l be d e e m e d employed on a nonprobationary status and said employee's employment shall thereafter not be terminated except f o r f a i l u r e to perform h i s or her duties in a s a t i s f a c t o r y manner, incompetency, neglect of duty, insubordination, immorality, j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n jobs i n the system, or other good and just causes; provided, however, such termination of employment s h a l l not be made f o r p o l i t i c a l or personal r e a s o n s on t h e p a r t o f any party recommending or voting to approve said termination." We c o n c l u d e t h a t f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 2 , A l a . Code 1975, p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e FDA provided Christopher 17 and other a substantive right 2101029 to challenge RIF policy. not right. that termination hearing [ 1 1 5 2 , ] 1157 986 involving we Code note ( A l a . C i v . App. court has whether 1975, nonprobationary appeal, erred Board reversing its " " ' [ t ] h e d e c i s i o n of Coll. the appeal unless v.] 20080] to and Williams, (quoting § Cmty. C o l l . v. in the Court capricious 4 So. 3d 36-26-104(b), T h o m a s , 13 the or pursuant So. to the in § 36-26-102, employment Christopher: " I f an e m p l o y e e p r o p e r l y c o n t e s t s t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s o r h e r employment, see § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 3 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975 (setting out the procedure f o r c o n t e s t i n g a t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r t h e FDA), t h e employee i s e n t i t l e d 18 cases reasons, former the of must employ a court j u s t i f i a b l y terminated s u c h as context disciplinary officer a board, employee in the 2008). due hearing the on explained, terminations the of that Bishop State that case. decision arbitrary C i v . App. a 16-24C-6(h)(3) in this affirmed Cmty. to curtails hold that § officer the State [(Ala. considerations determining be employment p u r s u a n t 16-24C-6(h)(3), merits We finds Code 1 9 7 5 ) . " This Ala. § hearing shall Appeals 978, the decision. officer Civil to the [Bishop 3d in her Accordingly, regard contends Ala. SFA, of applicable retrospectively With of termination The substantive is the of a 2101029 t o a de n o v o h e a r i n g . § 36-26-104(a), A l a . Code 1975. Pursuant to the s t a t u t o r y charge, the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s h o u l d f i r s t d e c i d e w h e t h e r t h e e m p l o y e r has ' s t a t e d and p r o v e d p r o p e r g r o u n d s f o r t e r m i n a t i n g an e m p l o y e e ' s e m p l o y m e n t . ' B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v. W i l l i a m s , 4 S o . 3 d 1 1 5 2 , 1157 ( A l a . C i v . A p p . 2008). I f the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r concludes that the employer h a s met i t s initial burden, the h e a r i n g officer s h a l l then decide whether the employer d i s m i s s e d the e m p l o y e e t o f u r t h e r an i m p r o p e r m o t i v e , i . e . , f o r p e r s o n a l or p o l i t i c a l reasons. See E x p a r t e W i l s o n , 984 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 7 1 ( A l a . 2007) ( c o n s t r u i n g t h e T e a c h e r T e n u r e A c t , § 16-24-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975). Finally, the hearing officer 'shall d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s s h o u l d be taken r e l a t i v e to the employee: T e r m i n a t i o n of the employee, a suspension of the employee, w i t h or w i t h o u t pay, a r e p r i m a n d , o t h e r d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n , o r no a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e e m p l o y e e . ' § 36-26-104(a), A l a . Code 1975." Bishop S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . In v. Thomas, r e a c h i n g h i s J u l y 12, hearing officer the policy RIF hearing officer set forth the Board; no u s e f u l p u r p o s e officer's few years budgets of resulted throughout Board's financially financial Suffice in Alabama, case, the decision to justified. of the The evidence difficulties facing w o u l d be s e r v e d b y d e t a i l i n g c o n d i t i o n s over the the proration of that the Board had 19 that i t t o say t h a t the h e a r i n g conclusions that financial have 985. the the opinion. at decision in this a d e t a i l e d statement on in this issue 3d 2011, was presented evidence the So. that concluded implement 13 last school-system faced several 2101029 r e c e n t c u t b a c k s t o i t s income, situation clearly worsened during and that t h e Board's the 2010-2011 financial school year supported by the evidence presented i n t h i s T h u s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r are matter. determined that the B o a r d h a d met i t s i n i t i a l burden o f s t a t i n g and p r o v i n g proper grounds Christopher's this f o r terminating case, system. 985; 3d was a justifiable employment, decrease See B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . i n jobs which, i n within v . T h o m a s , 13 S o . 3 d a t s e e a l s o M o b i l e C n t y . B d . o f S c h . Comm'rs v . L o n g , 6, 9 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) a u t h o r i z e d t o determine whether ground the f o r the d i s m i s s a l a school In this system. ("The hearing officer decrease was i n jobs i n § 36-26-102 and - 1 0 4 ( a ) . " ) . c a s e , t h e r e was no a l l e g a t i o n that the Board had an i m p r o p e r m o t i v e when i t t e r m i n a t e d C h r i s t o p h e r ' s pursuant to the RIF policy. 46 S o . the Board proved the asserted justifiable See f o r m e r the employment See f o r m e r § 36-26-102, A l a . Code 1975 ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t a " t e r m i n a t i o n o f employment s h a l l n o t be made forpolitical o f any party recommending o r personal reasons or voting and B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . t o approve on t h e p a r t said termination"); v . T h o m a s , 13 S o . 3 d a t 9 8 5 . We a l s o note t h a t , u n l i k e t h e a p p e l l a n t i n M o b i l e County Board o f 20 2101029 School that its C o m m i s s i o n e r s v. the Board d i d not Long, not appear reductions financial in throughout the Rather, that C h r i s t o p h e r ' s employment. It also the the contested school Board policy system and the at Board that job performance additional salaries should time. arguments Christopher was was undisputed evidence and substantial the systems f o r , the became a v a i l a b l e evidence one terminated was funds school system, for Christopher teacher i n August federal presented employment funds with and 2010 also other and that to rehire regard to her her those follows. employment evidence federal have used those The i s as Christopher for by school C h r i s t o p h e r a r g u e d t h a t , b a s e d on h e r that need caused other employment s h o u l d not have been t e r m i n a t e d . employees' the state. h i s t o r y w i t h , and argued allegation reaching in facing no in Christopher staffing crisis t h e r e was comply w i t h i t s RIF d e c i s i o n to terminate does supra, an of three pursuant presented arts to The t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r was that testimony indicated c o n t r i b u t i o n s toward 21 that and RIF whose policy. e x c e l l e n t employee the instructors instructor. Christopher developing and had The made implementing 2101029 the a r t s program was i n the school presented indicating system. that Christopher i m p a c t on a n u m b e r o f s t u d e n t s w i t h i n Board conceded that i t had In a d d i t i o n , no had had evidence a positive the school system. complaint about The Christopher's work p e r f o r m a n c e and t h a t i t w o u l d have p r e f e r r e d t o m a i n t a i n her employment. The that hearing i n August Education Pursuant funds Jobs to to retention officer 2010 Fund. that local the also received United States Pub. program, L. the educational of education No. jobs. Congress 111-226, federal agencies § evidence indicating created 124 Stat. government for the 1 0 1 ( 3 ) , Pub. L. the 2389. allocated creation No. and 111-226. That f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n s p e c i f i e d t h a t t h e f e d e r a l funds were to be "used expenses, only such as e x i s t i n g employees, to hire new elementary, 101(5)(A), for compensation support to recall employees, and services, or rehire i n order benefits necessary and to other retain former employees, to provide early and childhood, or s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n a l and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s . " Pub. L. No. § 111-226. B a s e d on t h e n o t i f i c a t i o n i n August 2010 t h a t f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d be a v a i l a b l e , 22 that funds the Board from rehired 2101029 some e m p l o y e e s w h o s e e m p l o y m e n t h a d b e e n t e r m i n a t e d to the RIF p o l i c y . officer Dinish f o r the Mobile when t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m those federal funds, Simpson, County School the chief System, financial testified to hire some were t o be u s e d In the Board new decided school-bus t o pay those reversing that l e a r n e d i t was t o r e c e i v e a p o r t i o n o f t o use t h e funds r e h i r e c e r t a i n t e a c h e r s , c u s t o d i a n s , and a s s i s t a n t and pursuant the drivers; employees' Board's principals the federal funds salaries. decision to terminate C h r i s t o p h e r ' s employment, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r d e t e r m i n e d although justified the Board's and t h a t implementation Board's decision pursuant t o the RIF p o l i c y officer after he cited or to former she terminate § was conducts a de were necessary, Christopher's not j u s t i f i e d . 36-26-104(a), novo which The the which of the f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s be the employee, relative to a suspension employee: the hearing provided hearing, 1 was employment o f f i c e r must " d e t e r m i n e taken that of the RIF p o l i c y reductions i n staff to Termination that, hearing should of the o f t h e employee, w i t h o r w i t h o u t pay, The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e d t h a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 90% o f t h e B o a r d ' s b u d g e t was e x p e n d e d o n e m p l o y e e - r e l a t e d expenses. 1 23 2101029 a reprimand, the employee." hearing former that, to other disciplinary Former officer even Ala. Code that, i n the context allowed a hearing i fthe RIF i s necessary, a specific In § 36-26-104(a), concluded § 36-26-104(a) a c t i o n , o r no a c t i o n 1975. The of RIF cases, officer i tshould against t o determine n o t be a p p l i e d employee. determining Christopher's that employment the Board pursuant improperly to terminated the RIF policy, the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r f o u n d t h a t C h r i s t o p h e r was a n e x c e l l e n t w o r k e r and instructor, system lives t h a t h e r employment h a d b e n e f i t e d t h e s c h o o l as a whole, and that o f many o f t h e s c h o o l s y s t e m ' s hearing officer "hastenfed] not a t t r i b u t e any i l l All she had p o s i t i v e l y o f t h e m made h a r d times, and every added.) t o add t h a t i n failing after the termination [did] t o any d e c i s i o n maker i n t h i s case. d e c i s i o n s and choices i n awfully that the Board had t o u s e some o f t h e f e d e r a l f u n d s of Christopher's the terminations 24 made hard (Emphasis employment pursuant acquired to rehire a n d he c a l c u l a t e d t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s c o s t through the [he] c e r t a i n l y The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r a l s o c o n c l u d e d Christopher, However, d e c i s i o n w a s made i n g o o d f a i t h . " erred achieved will students. impacted the savings, t o the RIF 2101029 policy, would not be significantly adversely impacted by rehiring Christopher. We cannot agree w i t h the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t f o r m e r § 3 6 - 2 6 - 1 0 4 (a) a u t h o r i z e d h i m t o d e t e r m i n e , i n t h e absence of allegations termination of a justifiable under of improper particular a RIF motive, policy. In the a l t e r n a t i v e s listed was situations employee's employment i s t e r m i n a t e d under discipline, the employment employee's whether i n which as a f o r m t h e FDA i n former § an of 36-26-104(a) have a f u n c t i o n . The hearing o f f i c e r i s allowed to consider whether, in light of the p a r t i c u l a r and facts the whether a of the lesser conduct case, or termination no disciplinary of the was warranted sanction, " s u s p e n s i o n of t h e employee, w i t h or w i t h o u t pay, a other be under disciplinary action, the o r no circumstances. In action," the would case employee of a or i.e., reprimand, warranted termination p u r s u a n t t o a RIF p o l i c y , however, the conduct of the employee is RIF not at issue. policy termination decrease The purpose of a termination i s cost savings to the of i n the employment jobs employing i s made b e c a u s e i n the system, 25 see pursuant board. of former a to a Where a justifiable § 36-26-102, 2101029 the selection under former of § cost-savings any other 36-26-104(a) in the laws, u t i l i z e d by hearing 549 a the Education (1955), predecessor 263 omitted). The the be Ala. TTA at basis that our her i n which the sanction the long-term case. 263 the 82 So. 2d standard v. 372, So. 2d pursuant to terminated among under In W i l l i a m s Ala. provided for, policy. terminations rejected in this that 375, for she rule. board in seeking supreme for court that employment specifically, school-system have terminated termination that or that 82 a other at teacher's reasons, f o r her was was to 552 (emphasis terminate agreed reason. that failure the for t o move t o e m p l o y e d , w h i c h was evidence argued, personal the case 26 had not school a violation T h i s c o u r t r e j e c t e d t h a t argument, that sought in Williams's Williams terminated a positions.'" board at i s s u e i n t h a t case c i t e d a decrease the a courts e m p l o y m e n t was supported system achieve similar Lamar C o u n t y , and reasons, not of officer employment, however, discipline d e c r e a s e i n t h e number o f t e a c h i n g Williams, as of to could "'justifiable jobs our Williams's employment would context teacher-tenure of of g o a l of the t e r m i n a t i o n p u r s u a n t t o a RIF Further, Board form to of a noting terminate 2101029 William's Further, employment the the been a supported the justifiable positions purported regard the board's decrease a v a i l a b l e , no to that c o u r t h e l d t h a t once i t had evidence had for termination. Our violation. been determined determination in further rule the number i n q u i r y was that of that there teaching necessary supreme c o u r t with explained: "As we see i t , the only pertinent i n q u i r y was w h e t h e r t h e r e was a ' j u s t i f i a b l e decrease i n the number of teaching positions'. That being e s t a b l i s h e d , the reason f o r s e l e c t i n g [ W i l l i a m s ' s ] c o n t r a c t a s t h e one t o b e c a n c e l l e d was n o t o p e n t o inquiry. We find nothing i n the Tenure Act establishing a criterion for determining what particular tenured teacher's contract should be c a n c e l l e d when t h e r e i s a ' j u s t i f i a b l e d e c r e a s e i n the number of teaching positions.' In such situation, i t seems to us that the right of selection i s a matter r e s t i n g e n t i r e l y with the employing Board of Education." Williams, Alabama App. 263 State 1985) teaching 559, of the 82 67 2d a t 552. So. a faced Board Board So. is must ( q u o t i n g Woods v . 561, So. Comm'n, 477 p o s i t i o n s , much situation." Ala. Tenure ("[W]hen discretion' 259 A l a . a t 375, 2d be after 2d left See 438, with to a l s o May 440 a the considering (Ala. reduction 27 841 (1953)). Civ. in 'enlightened the Board of Educ. of Walker 840, v. entire Cnty., 2101029 In W a l k e r v. 2100930, Nov. 2011), t h i s supra, 4, Montgomery County Board 2011] contract pursuant to a similar principal a termination like to had whose provision in the number of her other or decreased other remain employment among Christopher board (Ala. Civ. App. , argument a s s e r t e d by for, in enrollment 3d [Ms. court c i t e d the above-quoted p o r t i o n of W i l l i a m s , in rejecting decrease So. of Education, in options employed; contract So. 2 Walker available due to case, have arguments, been terminated. This to decreased . Also, that the i t that would allow her Walker argued contended employment of o t h e r , p r o b a t i o n a r y p r i n c i p a l s could allowed justifiable 3d a t had a terminated that "'[a] positions case, in that been things, funding.'" this had Walker, court i n other rejected that the schools Walker's concluding: "Although Walker's c o n t r a c t f a l l s under the [Teacher A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t ('TAA')] a n d n o t t h e TTA, we h a v e f o u n d no p r o v i s i o n i n t h e TAA t h a t ' e s t a b l i s h [ e s ] a c r i t e r i o n f o r d e t e r m i n i n g what p a r t i c u l a r [ c o n t r a c t p r i n c i p a l ' s ] c o n t r a c t s h o u l d be c a n c e l l e d when t h e r e is a "justifiable decrease in the number of W a l k e r v. M o n t g o m e r y C o u n t y B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n , supra, was d e t e r m i n e d u n d e r t h e p r o c e d u r e set f o r t h i n the Teacher A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 16-24B-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h governs the employment of s c h o o l p r i n c i p a l s . 2 28 2101029 [ p r i n c i p a l ] p o s i t i o n s . " ' W i l l i a m s , 263 A l a . a t 3 7 5 , 82 So. 2 d a t 5 5 2 . The B o a r d was e n t i t l e d t o make the d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g which c o n t r a c t principals w o u l d be n o n r e n e w e d o r w o u l d h a v e t h e i r c o n t r a c t s canceled. Courts are not p e r m i t t e d to usurp the r o l e o f t h e s c h o o l b o a r d and c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e t h a t a n o t h e r c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e one t a k e n b y the s c h o o l b o a r d might have been w i s e r o r more equitable. S t a t e ex r e l . S t e e l e v. B o a r d o f E d u c . o f F a i r f i e l d , 252 A l a . 2 5 4 , 2 6 1 , 40 So. 2 d 6 8 9 , 695 (1949), overruled on other grounds, Ex parte J a c k s o n , 625 So. 2 d 425 (Ala. 1992)." Walker, So. In this 3d case, at . l i k e the a p p e l l a n t s i n W i l l i a m s , supra, Walker, supra, pursuant to a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n a l l o w i n g such a termination due "justifiable jobs to a Christopher's t h e s y s t e m c a u s e d by employment decrease" i n the law or financial constraints. Thomas, 13 So. at 1171, 1153 Coll., 3d State 1999), 795 precedent at See 985 Bishop (citing App. Coll. rev'd So. and 2d the 2006) Ex FDA has interpreting State Cmty. often teacherColl. v. Wilson, 984 So. 2d 984 So. 2d (both parte construing v. Ruth, 795 on other grounds, 709 The within o f E d u c . v. W i l s o n , M a d i s o n C n t y . Bd. (Ala. Civ. Athens App. and caselaw. terminated number o f been i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o cases tenure was and So. (Ala. 2000). similarity in 29 the 2d Ex 703, the TTA)); 706 (Ala. parte Athens and Civ. State Accordingly, given statutory language that at 2101029 issue i n this case to that of Williams, supra, we apply the reasoning Walker to the facts of this It i s undisputed necessary school and system, that, and h o l d i n g s of Williams and case the RIF p o l i c y that was the financial terminations and Walker, case. i n this given supra, condition of the o f t h e e m p l o y m e n t o f some o f t h e B o a r d ' s e m p l o y e e s was r e q u i r e d p u r s u a n t to the RIF p o l i c y . As w i t h t h e TTA a n d t h e T e a c h e r A c c o u n t a b i l i t y A c t , § 1 6 - 2 4 B - 1 e t seq., A l a . Code forth i n t h e FDA f o r d e t e r m i n i n g should See be t e r m i n a t e d Williams, supra; allegation in 1975, t h e r e Regardless, i t s when a R I F p o l i c y and Walker, was termination the hearing i n terminating officer which of a board's supra. must be correct officer decision Christopher's that this that employment. Christopher's there i s no i t s RIF p o l i c y in determined employees implemented. Further, t h a t t h e Board d i d n o t comply w i t h reaching erred a r e no e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a s e t the The service case. Board hearing through her employment has been i n v a l u a b l e , a f a c t t h a t i s n o t d i s p u t e d by the Board. However, once t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n that employment was to decrease properly i n jobs within terminated due the system was 30 Christopher's a made, justifiable the hearing 2101029 officer had decision of the Board. We note conclude school no authority that that second-guess the experience many, systems to i f not a l l , throughout of this and other the state The n e e d t o t e r m i n a t e school-system b y many b o a r d s agree with that pursuant decisions to a justified not permitted Williams, Based officer for usurp So. 3d a t on erred Christopher's reverse to the of We f o r making t h e to eliminate rests and t h e courts " a r e the school we conclude that board." the i n r e v e r s i n g the Board's d e c i s i o n t o the hearing burden . the foregoing, employment teachers of a RIF p o l i c y officers role their the state. positions implementation t h e Board and t h a t hearing employees systems through throughout which with us t o i n various are excellent the responsibility regarding leads i s an u n f o r t u n a t e of education difficult court t h e employment o f employees faced the Board termination o f t h e employees who h a v e h a d p o s i t i v e i m p a c t s o n s c h o o l employment. the pursuant officer's to hearing terminate i t s RIF p o l i c y . We d e c i s i o n and remand t h e cause the entry of a decision i n conformity 31 with this decision. 2101029 R E V E R S E D AND REMANDED. Pittman and Bryan, J J . , concur. Thomas and Moore, J J . , concur writings. 32 i n the result, without

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.