Chilton County Board of Education v. Benita Cahalane Reversed And Remanded.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 08/24/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110532 C h i l t o n County Board o f Education v. B e n i t a Cahalane THOMPSON, P r e s i d i n g J u d g e . The Chilton County Board appeals a d e c i s i o n of a hearing of Education ("the B o a r d " ) o f f i c e r r e v e r s i n g the Board's d e c i s i o n t o suspend i t s employee, D r . B e n i t a Cahalane, f o r 9 0 days w i t h o u t pay. appeal occurred The e v e n t s that a f t e r J u l y 1, 2011, S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t ("the form the basis of this the e f f e c t i v e date o f t h e S F A " ) , § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code 2110532 1975, which, among o t h e r t h i n g s , former F a i r D i s m i s s a l Act e t s e q . , A l a . Code 1975. r e p e a l e d and replaced the ("the FDA"), see f o r m e r § 36-26-100 See § 16-24C-14, A l a . Code 1975 e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f t h e SFA i s J u l y 1, (the 2011). I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t Cahalane i s a " c l a s s i f i e d employee" o f t h e B o a r d as t h a t t e r m i s d e f i n e d u n d e r because of her length of service with t h e SFA the Board, a t t a i n e d the s t a t u s of " n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y employee." 2 4 C - 3 ( 2 ) , A l a . Code 1975 § 16-24C-4(2) terms of (setting forth the the status). rights of the conditions she has See § 16- for attaining We n o t e t h a t t h e SFA parties employment i s " t e r m i n a t e d " p u r s u a n t t o t h a t SFA, that, ( d e f i n i n g " c l a s s i f i e d e m p l o y e e " ) ; and nonprobationary-employee in and when a act. speaks person's Under the h o w e v e r , a s u s p e n s i o n w i t h o u t p a y o f t h e employment o f a n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y e m p l o y e e f o r more t h a n 20 d a y s i s subject to r e v i e w u n d e r t h e SFA i n t h e same manner as i s a t e r m i n a t i o n of employment. The the § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( I ) , A l a . Code 1975. r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t on J u l y 26, 2011, superintendent of the Chilton County Dave Hayden, schools, acting p u r s u a n t t o § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( c ) o f t h e SFA, n o t i f i e d C a h a l a n e o f h i s intention t o recommend t h a t the Board 2 suspend her from her 2110532 employment violation for 90 days without pay; that o f B o a r d p o l i c y as t h e r e a s o n notice f o r the Cahalane t i m e l y c o n t e s t e d t h a t suspension, 6(c), and the Board evidence. conducted the Board a suspension. see § 16-24C- a h e a r i n g at which On S e p t e m b e r 20, 2011, cited i t received issued a decision u p h o l d i n g t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n t h a t C a h a l a n e be suspended without pay f o r 90 seeking days. review a Cahalane by Board's decision, pursuant t o § 16-24C-6(e) o f t h e a appealed hearing the officer SFA. The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r c o n d u c t e d the a h e a r i n g at which i t heard arguments r e c e i v e d no February reversing of 6, the p a r t i e s 2012, the the decision appealed pursuant but hearing of the officer Board. evidence. issued The t o § 16-24C-12, A l a . Code a which the e d u c a t i o n are l a r g e l y undisputed. field for approximately decision Board timely 1975. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e B o a r d r e v e a l s t h e facts, On following C a h a l a n e has w o r k e d i n 30 y e a r s , and b e e n e m p l o y e d by t h e B o a r d f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 y e a r s . time of the i n c i d e n t t h a t g i v e s r i s e to t h i s appeal, she has At the Cahalane was e m p l o y e d as t h e B o a r d ' s c o o r d i n a t o r f o r s p e c i a l e d u c a t i o n , and her office was located in 3 the Board's main office 2110532 building. I t i s undisputed that the Board forbidding the possession of i l l e g a l drugs has a policy on t h e B o a r d ' s property. On t h e m o r n i n g of July 21, 2011, Cahalane discovered a s m a l l bag c o n t a i n i n g a green, l e a f y substance i n h e r v e h i c l e . Cahalane testified borrowed the vehicle, Cahalane parked that her daughter, history removed t h e s u b s t a n c e f r o m h e r v e h i c l e , w h i c h was employee p a r k i n g Once i n h e r o f f i c e , of recently problems. into her o f f i c e . a had drug i n t h e Board's had who l o t , and c a r r i e d i t Cahalane p l a c e d t h e bag c o n t a i n i n g the substance i n a p r e s c r i p t i o n - m e d i c a t i o n bottle b e a r i n g h e r name a n d t h e name o f a m e d i c a t i o n t h a t h a d b e e n prescribed to her. I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t , because o f h e r daughter's h i s t o r y of drug police use, Cahalane station intended t o take the substance for testing. While i n her o f f i c e to a on t h e m o r n i n g o f J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 , C a h a l a n e showed t h e s u b s t a n c e t o a c o w o r k e r , Mandy V a r d e n , s u b s t a n c e was m a r i j u a n a . Cahalane nor Varden marijuana. and asked Varden The r e c o r d was c e r t a i n i f she t h o u g h t t h e indicates whether that neither t h e s u b s t a n c e was Cahalane i n f o r m e d Varden t h a t she p l a n n e d t o t a k e 4 2110532 the substance t o the p o l i c e s t a t i o n d u r i n g her lunch hour t o determine Varden whether testified the that substance was, in she w a r n e d C a h a l a n e fact, that marijuana. i f she were c a u g h t w i t h t h e s u b s t a n c e i n h e r p u r s e o r i n h e r v e h i c l e , she c o u l d go t o jail. L a t e r on t h e m o r n i n g o f J u l y 21, 2011, C a h a l a n e a telephone c a l l from her d o c t o r doctor's office to discuss Cahalane explained that asking received h e r t o come t o t h e t h e r e s u l t s o f some b l o o d she has a serious liver work; condition. Cahalane t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h a t telephone c a l l , she a r r a n g e d t o l e a v e h e r o f f i c e a t 11:30 off work t o c o n s u l t h e r d o c t o r . t o t a k e "a h a l f d a y " Cahalane l e f t her o f f i c e to a t t e n d t h a t d o c t o r ' s a p p o i n t m e n t , b u t she l e f t t h e p i l l b o t t l e c o n t a i n i n g the substance i n a drawer i n her o f f i c e V a r d e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t l a t e r on t h e a f t e r n o o n desk. o f J u l y 21, 2011, she became c o n c e r n e d t h a t , b e c a u s e o f t h e B o a r d ' s d r u g p o l i c y , h e r employment m i g h t be h a d k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was terminated because i n the Board's anti¬ she offices. Therefore, V a r d e n s t a t e d , she i n f o r m e d a n o t h e r c o w o r k e r , P a u l a Thornton, that Varden Cahalane had and T h o r n t o n v e r i f i e d shown that 5 the substance to her. the substance remained i n 2110532 C a h a l a n e ' s o f f i c e , and T h o r n t o n i n f o r m e d W i l l i e Mae W h i t e , t h e a s s i s t a n t s u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f the C h i l t o n County S c h o o l s , o f the presence o f the substance i n Cahalane's office. White, i n t u r n , n o t i f i e d Hayden, who c a l l e d p o l i c e c h i e f B r i a n S t i l w e l l . Hayden, S t i l w e l l , and a n a r c o t i c s o f f i c e r w i t h a d r u g - s n i f f i n g dog met a t t h e B o a r d ' s m a i n o f f i c e s on t h e e v e n i n g o f J u l y 21, 2011, and testified the that dog alerted on Cahalane's t h e s u b s t a n c e was desk. not v i s i b l e Stilwell on Cahalane's d e s k and t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e y were n o t c e r t a i n t h e y h a d p r o b a b l e cause to conduct a search, drawers of Cahalane's The the o f f i c e r s d i d not search the desk. n e x t m o r n i n g , J u l y 22, 2011, Hayden met and T h o r n t o n , and he t h e n met w i t h C a h a l a n e . with Varden Hayden t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t o l d C a h a l a n e t h a t he h a d b e e n i n f o r m e d t h a t she something i n her o f f i c e Cahalane responded, "You c h a r a c t e r i z e d Cahalane she l e f t that s h o u l d n o t be mean the there, marijuana?". as " f o r t h c o m i n g , " and he and had that Hayden stated that t h e i r m e e t i n g t o go t o h e r o f f i c e and r e t u r n e d with the s u b s t a n c e . A p o l i c e o f f i c e r c a l l e d t o the Board's offices c o n d u c t e d a f i e l d t e s t on t h e s u b s t a n c e and c o n f i r m e d t h a t i t was m a r i j u a n a . 6 2110532 At the h e a r i n g b e f o r e the Board, Cahalane explained that she had p l a n n e d t o t a k e t h e s u b s t a n c e t o t h e p o l i c e t o have i t tested to determine drugs. Cahalane whether her daughter was again using s t a t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t she h a d n o t w a n t e d t o a s k t o l e a v e w o r k b e c a u s e she h a d t a k e n a number o f d a y s o f f w o r k b e c a u s e o f h e r h e a l t h c o n d i t i o n and she d i d n o t want t o miss she any more w o r k . had not m a r i j u a n a and known Cahalane with that, " i f also testified, certainty that the however, that substance was [ s h e had] even thought t h a t i t was" m a r i j u a n a , she w o u l d have i m m e d i a t e l y t a k e n t h e s u b s t a n c e to have i t t e s t e d a t t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n , e v e n i f t h a t r e s u l t e d i n her having to take time o f f work. On q u e s t i o n i n g by the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Cahalane admitted t h a t she c o u l d have a s k e d t o l e a v e w o r k t o have t h e substance t e s t e d . Cahalane admitted that the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t had r e f u s e d h e r r e q u e s t s t o l e a v e w o r k and never t h a t she b e l i e v e d w o u l d have a l l o w e d h e r t o do so h a d she a s k e d . She a l s o he later s t a t e d t h a t she " c o u l d n o t have t o l d [ t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t ] t h a t it was marijuana because then police." 7 [he] would have called the 2110532 Cahalane s t a t e d t h a t s h e "made a b a d d e c i s i o n " i n t a k i n g the substance i n t o h e r o f f i c e a t t h e Board's main o f f i c e . also stated that she b e l i e v e d that She t h e s u b s t a n c e was more s e c u r e i n h e r o f f i c e a t t h e Board's main o f f i c e than i t would have b e e n i f s h e h a d l e f t i t i n h e r v e h i c l e . Cahalane o u t t h a t i t w o u l d a l s o have b e e n a v i o l a t i o n pointed of Board p o l i c y t o l e a v e t h e s u b s t a n c e i n h e r v e h i c l e , w h i c h was p a r k e d on t h e B o a r d ' s p r o p e r t y on t h e m o r n i n g o f J u l y 21, 2011. S t i l w e l l t e s t i f i e d that Cahalane's daughter admitted that she l e f t t h e s u b s t a n c e i n C a h a l a n e ' s v e h i c l e a n d t h a t he f o u n d t h a t a d m i s s i o n t o be c r e d i b l e . S t i l w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t , based on h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he b e l i e v e d the substance from her vehicle daughter about h e r drug use. t h a t Cahalane so s h e c o u l d h a d removed confront her According to S t i l w e l l , Cahalane had i n f o r m e d h i m t h a t h e r d a u g h t e r had t e s t e d p o s i t i v e f o r t h e u s e o f m a r i j u a n a on a "home" d r u g t e s t a d m i n i s t e r e d d u r i n g t h e weekend b e f o r e t h e J u l y 21, 2 0 1 1 , i n c i d e n t . Stilwell test, that, i n response t o t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e home her daughter had i n s i s t e d synthetic marijuana that Cahalane had t o l d that drug she had u s e d a form o f was l e g a l i n A l a b a m a a t t h e t i m e . 8 2110532 S t i l w e l l t e s t i f i e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t s y n t h e t i c m a r i j u a n a does n o t contain s u b s t a n c e s t h a t make i t d e t e c t a b l e In response testified Cahalane to questioning by on d r u g t e s t s . Cahalane, Stilwell t h a t t h e p o l i c e w o u l d have t e s t e d t h e s u b s t a n c e i f had brought the substance t o the p o l i c e s t a t i o n i n order to a s s i s t her i n seeking use. Stilwell t o stop her daughter's agreed t h a t , t e c h n i c a l l y , Cahalane's drug bringing t h e s u b s t a n c e t o t h e p o l i c e w o u l d mean t h a t she h a d an i l l e g a l substance i n her possession. the However, S t i l w e l l stated that p o l i c e d i d not charge people i n such s i t u a t i o n s because "we have t o u s e common s e n s e sometimes." We n o t e t h a t C a h a l a n e was n o t c h a r g e d w i t h result of Further, had the marijuana i t does n o t a p p e a r Cahalane's Cahalane In having i n her from t h e r e c o r d a c r i m e as a possession. on a p p e a l that c o w o r k e r s o r t h e members o f t h e B o a r d d i s b e l i e v e d that the marijuana belonged t o her daughter. h i s decision, the hearing officer acknowledged that d e f e r e n c e was t o be a f f o r d e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d , b u t he reversed decision decision, was the Board's decision, concluding a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s . the hearing officer found 9 that that that I n reaching that Cahalane d i d not 2110532 i n t e n d t o have an and that she illegal s u b s t a n c e on determined employment was The the that the action, FDA governs and the f o r an a c t i o n by a school hearing," the h e a r i n g Teacher A l a . Code 1975. 2 The f o r m e r FDA custody of the The 36-26-102, A l a . officer enacted a hearing to Act ("the sets SFA forth to review f o r a "de novo a f t e r which t o determine whether the d e c i s i o n Code 1975. or p e r s o n a l Under the reasons." TTA, an a v a i l a b l e under f o r m e r § 36-26-104, A l a . Code 1975, "for p o l i t i c a l a Cahalane's Tenure provided of facts. was b o a r d t h a t were f o r m e r l y o f f i c e r was t h e B o a r d was former employee t o o b t a i n t h e TTA. see this property hearing suspension which procedures and The given T T A " ) , § 16-24-1 e t s e q . , t h e FDA 90-day 1 "manifestly unjust," SFA, replace Board's " a c c i d e n t a l l y found h e r s e l f with s u s p i c i o u s s u b s t a n c e on s c h o o l g r o u n d s . " also the of Former § a teacher could a p p e a l a t r a n s f e r o r a t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s o r h e r employment t o The B o a r d ' s m a i n o f f i c e s , a t w h i c h C a h a l a n e ' s o f f i c e l o c a t e d , a r e n o t on t h e g r o u n d s o f a s c h o o l . 1 was T h e SFA a l s o s e t s f o r t h p r o c e d u r e s f o r n o t i f y i n g t h e e m p l o y e e o f t h e s c h o o l b o a r d ' s i n t e n d e d a c t i o n and o f i t s decision a f t e r a hearing. See § 16-24C-6. C a h a l a n e does n o t a l l e g e t h a t she d i d n o t r e c e i v e p r o p e r n o t i c e p u r s u a n t t o t h e requirements of the SFA. 2 10 2110532 d e t e r m i n e i f t h a t a c t i o n was " a r b i t r a r i l y u n j u s t . " See f o r m e r § 16-24-7 a n d f o r m e r § 1 6 - 2 4 - 1 0 ( a ) , A l a . Code 1975. U n d e r t h e FDA, a n d u n d e r t h e TTA, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r was t h e f i n d e r o f fact, and the hearing officer's d i s p u t e d f a c t s was e n t i t l e d 962 So. 2d 814, 823-24 16-24-10(a) hearing deferential t o deference. ( A l a . 2007) o f t h e TTA officer regarding See Ex p a r t e (reiterating authorized of a school review decision de board's novo Dunn, t h a t former § review by t h e d e c i s i o n and a f f o r d e d to the d e c i s i o n of the hearing b a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e the officer i t r e c e i v e d ) ; Montgomery C n t y . Bd. o f E d u c . v. Webb, 53 So. 3d 96, 114 n. 3 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 8 ) , rev'd on o t h e r 2009) (under t h e FDA, t h e h e a r i n g fact, g r o u n d s , Ex p a r t e Webb, 53 So. 3d 121 officer (Ala. was t h e f i n d e r o f a n d h i s o r h e r d e c i s i o n was e n t i t l e d t o d e f e r e n c e ) ; s e e a l s o Ex p a r t e C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 7 So. 3d 3 6 3 , 368-69 ( A l a . Civ. App. 2008) (a p a n e l tenus h e a r i n g before deference which the record a hearing o f f i c e r of the hearing the hearing officer from t h e o r e d i d not afford to the d e c i s i o n of the hearing b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e ) . decisions reviewing officer that proper was The a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s r e v i e w e d t h e officers cases, i.e., in was t h e f i n d e r o f f a c t , u n d e r an 11 i n those 2110532 " a r b i t r a r y and 3d a t 127; In § c a p r i c i o u s " standard. Ex p a r t e Dunn, 962 this case, 16-24C-6(c). So. Ex p a r t e Webb, 53 2d a t So. 816-17. the Board conducted a h e a r i n g pursuant The SFA also provides in the the d e c i s i o n of a s c h o o l board; e v e n t an e m p l o y e e a p p e a l s for a hearing to the relevant provision states, i n pertinent p a r t : " E x c e p t as h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , t h e a p p e a l s h a l l be submitted to the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . The hearing o f f i c e r s h a l l h o l d a hearing. Deference i s given to t h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e e m p l o y e r . ... " § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( e ) , A l a . Code 1975. A t t h e a p p e a l b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r , t h e p a r t i e s and the hearing officer discussed whether h e a r i n g b e f o r e the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r presented, argued Rather, the as that had the i t or she FDA was and the SFA authorized at which evidence TTA. might However, n e i t h e r entitled to a de novo presented at the hearing before hearing. the a v a i l a b l e to t e s t i f y should the h e a r i n g n e e d c l a r i f i c a t i o n on any e v i d e n c e matter was submitted of the p a r t i e s , and or i s s u e . to the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r neither party 12 objected. that officer Accordingly, on t h e with Board, although Cahalane's a t t o r n e y a d v i s e d the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r C a h a l a n e was be party b o t h p a r t i e s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y were s a t i s f i e d evidence a the arguments 2110532 The B o a r d a r g u e s on a p p e a l t h a t t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r i n r e v e r s i n g i t s d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h e SFA; hearing officer decision. the FDA, fails to afford i t contends t h a t the proper deference to i t s As t h e B o a r d p o i n t s o u t , t h e SFA i s d i f f e r e n t which would have applied to set forth a s p e c i f i c hearing o f f i c e r SFA failed erred specifies "deference" the l e g i s l a t u r e i n that i t standard pursuant to which the i s t o review the d e c i s i o n of the Board. only that i s t o be § 16-24C-6(e). to Cahalane, "a from hearing" be conducted a f f o r d e d to the d e c i s i o n and of the The that Board. With r e g a r d to the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the SFA, stated: "The r e p e a l e r p r o v i s i o n s o f A c t 2 0 1 1 - 2 7 0 [ , w h i c h enacted the SFA and repealed the FDA,] n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g , and e x c e p t as e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d o t h e r w i s e i n t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e t e r m s and p h r a s e s u s e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (a) t o i d e n t i f y t h e r e a s o n s on w h i c h t e r m i n a t i o n may be b a s e d and i n s u b s e c t i o n ( f ) t o d e s c r i b e t h e s t a n d a r d s by w h i c h d e c i s i o n s o f t h e e m p l o y e r a r e t o be r e v i e w e d by h e a r i n g o f f i c e r s s h a l l be deemed t o c a r r y t h e m e a n i n g t r a d i t i o n a l l y a c c o r d e d t h e t e r m s and p h r a s e s by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e under p r i o r law." § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( n ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . 16-24C-6 does n o t contain 3 However, s u b s e c t i o n a reference to the (f) of § " s t a n d a r d s by T h e s u b s e c t i o n s r e f e r e n c e d i n § 6 o f A c t No. 2011-270, A l a . A c t s 2011, t h e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t e n a c t e d t h e SFA, a r e i d e n t i c a l t o t h o s e c o d i f i e d a t § 16-24C-6, A l a . Code 1975. 3 13 2110532 w h i c h d e c i s i o n s o f t h e e m p l o y e r a r e t o be r e v i e w e d by officers." Thus, "deference" other than the to the d e c i s i o n of the Board, e n a c t i n g t h e SFA, and hearing o f f i c e r capricious" decision. although its The the l e g i s l a t u r e , i n Board to case a p p l i e d the his that agrees review that of that standard. agrees that the standard I n her hearing Board's brief officer applies, reversal on the Board's decision. Accordingly, appeal, t h i s court w i l l determine properly a p p l i e d the "arbitrary in correctly review resolving whether the h e a r i n g and capricious" of appeal, a p p l i e d t h e " a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s " s t a n d a r d t o h i s of the "arbitrary the i t d i s a g r e e s w i t h the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s also affording reviewed. in this standard d e c i s i o n under Cahalane to s e t f o r t h no e x p l i c i t s t a n d a r d by w h i c h a c t i o n s o f t h e B o a r d a r e t o be The reference hearing this officer standard in h i s review of the Board's d e c i s i o n . In from the this case, position r e g a r d t o such the this review, hearing court this officer occupied c o u r t has reviewed under the the matter FDA. With held: "In employing the a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s s t a n d a r d of review, the l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t h i s c o u r t t o be ' e x t r e m e l y d e f e r e n t i a l ' t o t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n i n an FDA c a s e . See Ex p a r t e 14 2110532 Dunn, 962 So. 2d 814, 816 ( A l a . 2007) ( c o n s t r u i n g a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w mandated by T e a c h e r T e n u r e A c t ) . As o u r supreme c o u r t h a s stated: " ' [ T ] h e r e v i e w i n g c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e its judgment f o r that of the hearing officer. ... [ w ] h e r e " r e a s o n a b l e p e o p l e c o u l d d i f f e r as t o t h e wisdom o f a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n [ , ] ... t h e d e c i s i o n i s not a r b i t r a r y . " " ' " I f t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r has '"examined t h e r e l e v a n t d a t a a n d articulated a satisfactory explanation f o r i t s action, including a 'rational connection between t h e f a c t s found and t h e c h o i c e made,'"' i t s d e c i s i o n i s not a r b i t r a r y . See A l a b a m a Dep't o f Human R e s . v. Dye, 921 So. 2d [421, 426 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 5 ) ] ( q u o t i n g Prometheus R a d i o P r o j e c t v. FCC, 373 F.3d [372, 389 (3d Cir. 2004)] (quoting i n turn B u r l i n g t o n T r u c k L i n e s , I n c . v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962)))."' "Ex p a r t e Dunn, 962 So. 2d a t 816-17 (quoting with a p p r o v a l , b u t r e v e r s i n g on o t h e r g r o u n d s , B o a r d o f Sch. Comm'rs o f M o b i l e C o u n t y v . Dunn, 962 So. 2d 805, 809, 810 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 6 ) ) . Pursuant t o the a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s standard of review, t h i s c o u r t may ' d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e w i s d o m o f t h e d e c i s i o n , [but] we may n o t s u b s t i t u t e o u r j u d g m e n t for that of the hearing o f f i c e r . ' Ex p a r t e Dunn, 962 So. 2d a t 823-24." Bishop State Civ. Cmty. C o l l . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . As v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978, 986 ( A l a . noted above, 15 o u r supreme court has 2110532 s t a t e d t h a t , "[w]here 'reasonable people c o u l d d i f f e r as t o t h e w i s d o m o f a h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n [ , ] ... t h e d e c i s i o n i s not a r b i t r a r y . ' " Ex p a r t e Dunn, 962 So. 2d a t 816 ( q u o t i n g w i t h a p p r o v a l B o a r d o f S c h . Comm'rs o f M o b i l e 962 So. 2d a t 809, r e v ' d on o t h e r g r o u n d s ) ; Coll. Ex parte evidence the v. Dunn, B i s h o p S t a t e Cmty. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d a t 986. In b o t h B i s h o p and Cnty. S t a t e Community C o l l e g e v. Thomas, Dunn, supra, a n d was t h e t r i e r hearing officer's the hearing of f a c t , decision officer received and t h e c o u r t s based on that reviewed receipt evidence under the a r b i t r a r y - a n d - c a p r i c i o u s s t a n d a r d . case, the Board r e c e i v e d evidence The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r was a s k e d b a s e d on t h a t e v i d e n c e . officer i n this decision different of a n d was t h e t r i e r of fact. t o review the Board's d e c i s i o n Thus, as i n d i c a t e d a b o v e , t h e h e a r i n g the Board, than of In t h i s c a s e was r e q u i r e d t o a f f o r d d e f e r e n c e result supra, even i f he d i d the Board. would have to the reached § 16-24C-6(e); a Bishop S t a t e Cmty. C o l l . v. Thomas, s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e Dunn, s u p r a . In o t h e r words, t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r i n t h i s case d i d n o t r e c e i v e evidence, before and, i n reviewing the Board, the record of the he was i n no b e t t e r p o s i t i o n 16 proceeding than i s this 2110532 court t o review presentation t h e d e c i s i o n reached by t h e Board a f t e r t h e of evidence. The B o a r d c o n t e n d s , among o t h e r o f f i c e r erred i n determining Board's a n t i - d r u g p o l i c y . must be a f f o r d e d things, that the hearing t h a t i n t e n t was an e l e m e n t o f t h e As t h e B o a r d p o i n t s o u t , d e f e r e n c e t o the Board's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t s own p o l i c y , i f that i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s reasonable. of S c h . Commr's 2001). of Mobile (Ala. a copy o f i t s However, t h e f a c t t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s p o l i c y is a "zero-tolerance" p o l i c y , i . e . , one t h a t p r o h i b i t s d r u g s c o n t r o l l e d substances reason, Board 824 So. 2d 759, 761 The B o a r d d i d n o t s u b m i t as e v i d e n c e anti-drug policy. or Cnty., Ex p a r t e was n o t i n d i s p u t e . on the Board's The t e s t i m o n y premises f o r any of the witnesses, i n c l u d i n g C a h a l a n e , a l l o f whom were e m p l o y e e s o f t h e B o a r d , i n d i c a t e s that those witnesses understood that i l l e g a l drugs were n o t a l l o w e d t o be b r o u g h t o n t o t h e B o a r d ' s p r o p e r t y . findings i n the hearing hearing officer effectively hearing o f f i c e r ' s decision i n d i c a t e that the acknowledged that h a d no p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g interpretation of The i t spolicy was the Board's policy i n t e n t and t h a t i t s not unreasonable: the o f f i c e r s t a t e d i n h i s F e b r u a r y 6, 2012, d e c i s i o n t h a t 17 2110532 "[f]or the superintendent zero-tolerance alone, [anti-drug] erroneous." We and t h e B o a r d t o s t r i c t l y policy agree and r u l e with that apply a i s not, standing finding, a n d we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f i t s own a n t i - d r u g p o l i c y as a " z e r o - t o l e r a n c e " p o l i c y was n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e . p a r t e B o a r d o f S c h . Commr's o f M o b i l e However, determination policy regardless that forbidding erroneous, the illegal hearing officer's o f i t s own drugs officer supra. interpretation the Board's the hearing used by S t i l w e l l of Cnty., Ex on then i n h i s testimony, i t sproperty was n o t stated, c i t i n g a phrase that t h e B o a r d must u s e "common s e n s e " i n a p p l y i n g i t s a n t i - d r u g p o l i c y . The h e a r i n g o f f i c e r concluded extenuating circumstances t h a t because of t h e p u r p o r t e d l y of t h i s case, the Board erred z e r o - t o l e r a n c e p o l i c y t o d i s c i p l i n e Cahalane. however, i n applying By i t s t e r m s , a "common-sense" a p p r o a c h a l l o w i n g e x c e p t i o n s disciplinary rule the interpretation, Board's reasonable, under c e r t a i n facts which drugs. because i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to a may n o t be a p p l i e d t o we have determined i s of i t s zero-tolerance p o l i c y concerning substances and i l l e g a l a controlled We a g r e e w i t h t h e B o a r d t h a t , o f i t s own a n t i - d r u g p o l i c y 18 as a 2110532 zero-tolerance p o l i c y i s reasonable, in concluding must be that considered the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r fact-dependent exceptions and to that erred policy t h a t the Board e r r e d i n f a i l i n g to do so. Furthermore, even assuming that the hearing c o r r e c t l y determined t h a t the Board's z e r o - t o l e r a n c e policy required a showing of intent and was officer anti-drug subject "common-sense" e x c e p t i o n , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e h e a r i n g erred was i n determining that the i n reaching "without i n t e n t i o n t o p o s s e s s a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e " and making on those school grounds." determinations, appropriate deference evidence i t received. The evidence before Cahalane d i d not that that Cahalane " a c c i d e n t a l l y found h e r s e l f w i t h custody of a substance give found case hearing officer, she decision, The the daughter. As The the to Board hearing i t s decision in failed to on the agree. t h e B o a r d does t e n d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t i n t e n d t o have m a r i j u a n a i n h e r v e h i c l e m a r i j u a n a was that that, based i s e x p l a i n e d b e l o w , we was suspicious argues officer a officer Board's d e c i s i o n i n t h i s a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s , g i v e n t h e e v i d e n c e . his to placed i n Cahalane's v e h i c l e by However, as t h e B o a r d d e t e r m i n e d , t h e 19 and her i n c i d e n t of 2110532 J u l y 21, 2 0 1 1 , was c a u s e d b y C a h a l a n e ' s It i s not clear the substance from a c t i o n s and c h o i c e s . the r e c o r d whether Cahalane i n her vehicle before or after discovered she a r r i v e d on the Board's p r o p e r t y , b u t Varden's t e s t i m o n y i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t might have property. o c c u r r e d b e f o r e Cahalane Varden testified: arrived "[Cahalane] on t h e B o a r d ' s told me g o i n g t o [ t a k e t h e s u b s t a n c e t o have i t t e s t e d ] t h a t she was morning b e f o r e she came i n b u t t h a t she was r u n n i n g l a t e a n d d i d n o t do i t . " she Cahalane's t e s t i m o n y does n o t c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e when d i s c o v e r e d the substance i n her v e h i c l e . Regardless, r a t h e r t h a n l e a v i n g t h e B o a r d ' s p r o p e r t y upon t h e d i s c o v e r y o f the substance i n her vehicle, Cahalane elected t o take the s u b s t a n c e , w h i c h she s u s p e c t e d was m a r i j u a n a , i n t o t h e B o a r d ' s offices. On a p p e a l C a h a l a n e insists that on t h e m o r n i n g of July 21, 2 0 1 1 , she d i d n o t know w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t t h e s u b s t a n c e was, i n fact, marijuana. Cahalane t e s t i f i e d before the Board t h a t i f she h a d t h o u g h t t h e s u b s t a n c e was m a r i j u a n a , she w o u l d have immediately testimony taken i t for testing. However, i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h much o f t h e e v i d e n c e . evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t Cahalane 20 that The b e l i e v e d that the substance 2110532 likely was an illegal substance. For example, Cahalane t e s t i f i e d t h a t , because of her daughter's h i s t o r y of drug use, she p l a n n e d t o t a k e t h e s u b s t a n c e t o t h e p o l i c e s t a t i o n f o r testing, and she had asked Varden i f Varden thought the s u b s t a n c e was m a r i j u a n a . S t i l w e l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t Cahalane had informed daughter for him that her had tested positive m a r i j u a n a on a "home t e s t " t h e weekend b e f o r e J u l y 21, The s u p e r i n t e n d e n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t on t h e m o r n i n g 2011. of J u l y 22, 2011, when he met w i t h C a h a l a n e , she h a d a n s w e r e d h i s i n q u i r y about whether asking she h a d any i m p r o p e r m a t e r i a l s i f he was i n her o f f i c e r e f e r r i n g t o "the m a r i j u a n a " i n her by office. She a l s o t o l d t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t d u r i n g h e r t e s t i m o n y t h a t i f she h a d t o l d h i m a b o u t t h e " m a r i j u a n a " on t h e m o r n i n g o f J u l y 21, 2011, evidence, correct he we would cannot have called conclude the that i n determining that the the police. Given that hearing officer decision of the Board was was a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i c i o u s . We n o t e t h a t , b e f o r e t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r and i n h e r b r i e f submitted to this court, Cahalane "perfectly l o g i c a l explanation with argues she had f o r her f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w removing the substance from the Board's 21 that a up" o f f i c e s t o have 2110532 it tested. Cahalane argues that she made a "rational and r e a s o n a b l e " c h o i c e t o l e a v e t h e B o a r d ' s o f f i c e s on t h e m o r n i n g of July 21, request. to 2011, to attend an She c o n t e n d s , t h e r e f o r e , s u s p e n d h e r employment was It does not reasonableness doctor's issue appointment at her appear or before the Board, party of Cahalane's the morning however, marijuana i n Cahalane's o f f i c e . indicates that, has q u e s t i o n e d the of J u l y was the decision capricious. any necessity a p p o i n t m e n t on t h a t the Board's a r b i t r a r y and that doctor's attending 21, 2011. presence of the The the The e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e B o a r d although Cahalane acknowledged the s u p e r i n t e n d e n t w o u l d have a l l o w e d h e r t o l e a v e work i f she h a d a s k e d , C a h a l a n e e l e c t e d n o t t o do s o . not R a t h e r , b e c a u s e she d i d want t o m i s s any more t i m e f r o m work, C a h a l a n e e l e c t e d t o w a i t t o have t h e s u b s t a n c e t e s t e d . She later left work f o r the d o c t o r ' s a p p o i n t m e n t and l e f t t h e s u b s t a n c e i n h e r d e s k a t the Board's o f f i c e s . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s no e x p l a n a t i o n as t o why C a h a l a n e d i d n o t remove t h e s u b s t a n c e when she went t o t h e doctor's office. Regardless, i t i s u n d i s p u t e d the Cahalane b r o u g h t t h e m a r i j u a n a o n t o t h e B o a r d ' s p r o p e r t y , and she it there overnight. 22 left 2110532 We recognize Cahalane stated, appear found herself on July she made a m i s t a k e . that the Board circumstances to the d i f f i c u l t y of t h i s her s i t u a t i o n . 21, We failed of the s i t u a t i o n 2011, a l s o note and t h a t , as she t h a t i t does n o t to recognize the s i t u a t i o n o r t h a t i t was Cahalane t e s t i f i e d i n which extenuating unsympathetic t h a t she was relieved t h a t h e r employment h a d n o t been t e r m i n a t e d o v e r t h e i n c i d e n t , an o p t i o n t h a t was a v a i l a b l e t o t h e B o a r d . (a "nonprobationary [or suspended] insubordination, perform just classified at any neglect e m p l o y e e " may time of ...."). 4 The ... duty, duties i n a satisfactory cause See § 16-24C-6(a) record for be "terminated incompetency, immorality, failure manner, o r o t h e r indicates that good to and Cahalane's I n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l , C a h a l a n e a r g u e s , as s u p p o r t f o r t h e h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s d e c i s i o n , t h a t t h e 90-day s u s p e n s i o n o f h e r employment was t o o h a r s h a s a n c t i o n , g i v e n t h e f a c t s . However, C a h a l a n e d i d n o t f i l e a c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l t o r a i s e t h a t i s s u e i n the event t h i s c o u r t r e v e r s e d the d e c i s i o n of the h e a r i n g o f f i c e r . B e s s v. W a f f l e House, I n c . , 824 So. 2d 783, 787 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2001) (an a p p e l l e e may f i l e a c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l i n o r d e r t o p r e s e r v e an argument f o r a p p e a l i n t h e event t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t r e v e r s e s t h e judgment b a s e d on an argument o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ) ; see a l s o F i r s t P r o p s ., L.L.C. v. B e n n e t t , 959 So. 2d 653, 657 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ("Because we have c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t i s due t o be r e v e r s e d as a r e s u l t o f t h e a p p e a l , t h e c o n d i t i o n s p e c i f i e d i n t h e owner's c o n d i t i o n a l c r o s s - a p p e a l has o c c u r r e d , and t h a t c r o s s - a p p e a l i s r i p e f o r r e v i e w . " ) . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e r e i s no 4 23 2110532 c o w o r k e r s and t h e s u p e r i n t e n d e n t d i d n o t b e l i e v e t h a t C a h a l a n e had used o r was using illegal drugs. However, the Board determined t h a t Cahalane's b r i n g i n g the substance t h a t , given the facts, she knew m i g h t be an i l l e g a l drug onto the Board's p r o p e r t y a n d l e a v i n g i t t h e r e was a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e B o a r d ' s anti-drug policy. Given the evidence p r e s e n t e d t o the Board, we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n t o s u s p e n d C a h a l a n e f o r 90 days w i t h o u t p a y was n o t a r b i t r a r y therefore, we substituting standard. conclude that h i s judgment Accordingly, the hearing o f f i c e r f o r that we and c a p r i c i o u s , of the Board and, erred i n under reverse the February that 6, 2012, decision of the hearing o f f i c e r . REVERSED AND REMANDED. P i t t m a n a n d Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Bryan and Moore, J J . , concur i n the r e s u l t , without writings. p r o p e r argument f o r t h i s c o u r t t o r e v i e w as t o t h a t 24 issue.

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.