Mobile County Personnel Board v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Systems

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 07/12/2013 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 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 , A l a b a m a 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, 2013 2120254 Mobile County Personnel Board v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Systems Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-336) PER CURIAM. I n 2011, t h e M o b i l e A r e a W a t e r & Sewer S y s t e m s ("MAWSS"), an entity Personnel subject to the j u r i s d i c t i o n Board ("the M o b i l e of the Mobile Board"), County terminated employment o f J e v o n M i l n e r b a s e d on (1) h i s a l l e g e d l y the having 2120254 left the wastewater-treatment assigned without plant t h e knowledge t o which he h a d b e e n and p e r m i s s i o n of h i s s u p e r v i s o r on a p p r o x i m a t e l y 38 o c c a s i o n s a n d (2) h i s a l l e g e d l y h a v i n g u s e d h i s e m p l o y e e badge t o o b t a i n g a s o l i n e f r o m a MAWSS warehouse Milner without appealed employment authorization from on a number MAWSS's t o the Mobile decision Board. of occasions. t o terminate h i s Following a hearing, the M o b i l e Board r e i n s t a t e d M i l n e r s u b j e c t t o a 74-day without p a y . MAWSS then appealed d e c i s i o n t o theMobile C i r c u i t Court Mobile Board appeared from the Mobile ("the i n the appeal, suspension trial Board's c o u r t " ) . The a n d MAWSS moved t o d i s m i s s t h e M o b i l e B o a r d a s a p a r t y on t h e g r o u n d t h a t , this court's holding i n City o f Dothan Personnel DeVane, 860 So. 2d 881 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) , lacked standing to participate under Board the Mobile as a p a r t y i n an a p p e a l v. Board from one o f i t s own d e c i s i o n s . The t r i a l c o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e M o b i l e Board and entered decision a judgment and r e i n s t a t i n g vacating MAWSS's the Mobile decision to Board's terminate M i l n e r ' s employment. The M o b i l e B o a r d t i m e l y a p p e a l e d , a n d t h e supreme c o u r t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t . We d i s m i s s the appeal. 2 2120254 "'The and the i s s u e of s t a n d i n g p r e s e n t s trial court's r u l i n g on deference on appeal.'" Inc., So. 2d 981 413, Ex Howell ( A l a . 2006) B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v. H o d u r s k i , 2004)). I n DeVane, s u p r a , 899 D o t h a n B o a r d " ) . The the C i t y to Circuit the decision of The the appealed from the court. lacked standing to Circuit Court court and appeal C i t y of Dothan (Ala. the and Dothan Board's d e c i s i o n t o Houston Dothan court from dismissed Personnel affirmed Circuit Board, d e c i s i o n of the This ("the 953 & DeVane's employment, terminate Court. this this 2d 949, D o t h a n B o a r d had then appealed from the B o a r d had to Blue Cross had Houston Court So. Surveying, had of reversed (quoting & no City") ("the DeVane had the Eng'g the C i t y of Dothan appealed from t h a t d e c i s i o n to the decision law, t h e employment o f S t a n l e y E. DeVane, and DeVane terminated Board of that issue i s e n t i t l e d to parte 418 a pure q u e s t i o n held the that and the Houston the d e c i s i o n of i t s appeal. Court Dothan Circuit Dothan the had Board Houston In p e r t i n e n t part, stated: "DeVane and t h e C i t y were c l e a r l y t h e only p r o p e r p a r t i e s t o DeVane's a p p e a l t o t h e [Dothan] B o a r d o f t h e C i t y ' s t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment; t h e [Dothan] B o a r d c o u l d n o t be a p a r t y t o DeVane's appeal to the [Dothan] Board of the City's t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s employment. To a l l o w t h e [Dothan] 3 2120254 B o a r d t o become a p a r t y i n an a p p e a l o f i t s d e c i s i o n t o t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t w o u l d a l l o w t h e [Dothan] B o a r d to abdicate its function as an impartial q u a s i - j u d i c i a l f a c t - f i n d e r i n a d i s p u t e s u c h as t h e one a t i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l . I f t h e [Dothan] B o a r d were deemed t o be a p a r t y i n t h i s m a t t e r , the [Dothan] B o a r d w o u l d f u n c t i o n as a l i t i g a n t , t a k i n g an a d v e r s a r i a l p o s i t i o n t o a p a r t y t h a t had a p p e a r e d before i t i n a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l proceeding. In t h a t s i t u a t i o n , t h e [Dothan] B o a r d w o u l d be advocating the p o s i t i o n of the other party to that same q u a s i - j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g . T h e r e a r e no p r o v i s i o n s i n the [ l o c a l a c t c r e a t i n g the Dothan Board] t h a t a l l o w t h e [Dothan] B o a r d t o t a k e an a d v e r s a r i a l r o l e a g a i n s t a member o f t h e c l a s s i f i e d - s e r v i c e s y s t e m o r t o a d v a n c e t h e p o s i t i o n o f one o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t has a p p e a r e d b e f o r e i t . "After r e c e i v i n g evidence and hearing the arguments of the counsel f o r the p a r t i e s that appeared before i t , the [Dothan] B o a r d i s s u e d a decision regarding the validity of the City's t e r m i n a t i o n d e c i s i o n . I t c a n n o t be s a i d t h a t t h e [Dothan] B o a r d had any l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d i n t e r e s t i n the outcome o f the dispute before i t in the q u a s i - j u d i c i a l proceeding, t h a t i s , i n the d i s p u t e b e t w e e n t h e C i t y and DeVane o v e r t h e p r o p r i e t y o f t h e C i t y ' s t e r m i n a t i o n o f DeVane's employment. A f t e r considering DeVane's and the [Dothan] Board's arguments and the law from this and other j u r i s d i c t i o n s , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e [Dothan] B o a r d , after acting in i t s quasi-judicial capacity in h e a r i n g and d e c i d i n g DeVane's a p p e a l , could not i n t e r j e c t i t s e l f as a p a r t y t o l a t e r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s same m a t t e r ; we a l s o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e [Dothan B o a r d d i d n o t have a l e g a l i n t e r e s t i n d e f e n d i n g o r o maintaining its decision upholding DeVane's t e r m i n a t i o n . The [Dothan] B o a r d d i d n o t have a ' c o g n i z a b l e i n t e r e s t i n t h e outcome o f [DeVane's t e r m i n a t i o n ] p r o c e e d i n g . ' B o a r d o f C o u n t y Comm'rs o f W a s h i n g t o n C o u n t y , M a r y l a n d v. H. Manny H o l t z , I n c . , 60 Md. App. [133] a t 141, 481 A.2d [513] a t 517 4 2120254 [(1984)]. I t follows, then, that the t r i a l court's r e v e r s a l o f t h e [Dothan] B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n d i d n o t harm a l e g a l l y p r o t e c t e d r i g h t o f t h e [Dothan] B o a r d , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e [Dothan] B o a r d h a s no s t a n d i n g i n t h i s m a t t e r . See S t a t e v . P r o p e r t y a t 2018 R a i n b o w D r i v e , [740 So. 2 d 1025, 1027-28 ( A l a . 1999)]." 860 So. 2 d a t 891-92. In the present case, the Mobile Board, like t h e Dothan B o a r d i n DeVane, was a c t i n g i n a q u a s i - j u d i c i a l c a p a c i t y when i t h e a r d a n d d e c i d e d M i l n e r ' s a p p e a l f r o m MAWSS's d e c i s i o n t o terminate Milner's employment. Thus, under the holding i n DeVane, t h e M o b i l e B o a r d d i d n o t have s t a n d i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e as a party i n MAWSS's a p p e a l M o b i l e Board's The to the t r i a l court from t h e DeVane from t h e decision. Mobile Board tries to distinguish p r e s e n t c a s e b a s e d on t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f S e c t i o n 32 a n d t h e first sentence o f Section 34 o f t h e l o c a l a c t ("the M o b i l e l o c a l a c t " ) c r e a t i n g t h e M o b i l e B o a r d . The f i r s t Section 32 a u t h o r i z e s represent sentence of t h e M o b i l e B o a r d t o employ c o u n s e l t o i t " i f any p e r s o n shall fail or refuse t o comply w i t h the l a w f u l orders o r d i r e c t i o n s o f the [Mobile] Board." The first the ... sentence of Section [Mobile] Board 34 p r o v i d e s t h a t may 5 be enforced "[o]rders of by mandamus, 2120254 i n j u n c t i o n , quo w a r r a n t o , o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e p r o c e e d i n g s i n a court sentence o f competent jurisdiction." o f S e c t i o n 34 p r o v i d e s t h a t However, the "[a]ny person second directly i n t e r e s t e d , w i t h i n 14 d a y s , may a p p e a l t o t h e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f M o b i l e County from any o r d e r o f t h e [Mobile] [ B ] o a r d " It c a n n o t be p l a u s i b l y a r g u e d t h a t MAWSS's e x e r c i s i n g i t s r i g h t t o a p p e a l f r o m a d e c i s i o n o f t h e M o b i l e B o a r d u n d e r S e c t i o n 34 constituted a "refusal" the Mobile Board. t o comply w i t h t h e a l a w f u l o r d e r o f Moreover, S e c t i o n 34 does n o t c o n t a i n a n y language e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z i n g the M o b i l e Board t o p a r t i c i p a t e as a p a r t y i n an a p p e a l f r o m one o f i t s own d e c i s i o n s . the Mobile Board local act has n o t c i t e d expressly participate as a p a r t y d e c i s i o n s . Consequently, any p r o v i s i o n authorizing the i n an a p p e a l of the Mobile Mobile from Indeed, Board to one o f i t s own we c o n c l u d e t h a t DeVane constitutes c o n t r o l l i n g a u t h o r i t y i n the present case. Based Mobile on o u r h o l d i n g i n DeVane, Board we c o n c l u d e lacked standing to participate MAWSS's a p p e a l f r o m t h e M o b i l e B o a r d ' s 6 that the as a p a r t y i n own d e c i s i o n a n d t h a t 2120254 the Mobile appeal. Board lacks A c c o r d i n g l y , we standing dismiss to prosecute the Mobile the present Board's appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas, Moore, a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Pittman, J . , concurs i n the r e s u l t , with 7 writing. 2120254 PITTMAN, J u d g e , c o n c u r r i n g I continue Personnel 2002) to adhere i n the to B o a r d v. DeVane, 860 (Pittman, result. my dissent So. 2d 881, J., dissenting); in City 892 however, of (Ala. Civ. because the o p i n i o n i n DeVane i s b i n d i n g p r e c e d e n t , I c o n c u r i n t h e i n the present case. 8 Dothan App. main 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.