Shirley Taylor v. Huntsville City Board of Education

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/16/2013 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 2120255 Shirley Taylor v. H u n t s v i l l e C i t y Board o f Education Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-12-901117) PITTMAN, J u d g e . S h i r l e y T a y l o r , a t e n u r e d t e a c h e r who h a d b e e n e m p l o y e d by t h e 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 ("the B o a r d " ) f o r 18 y e a r s b e f o r e t h e B o a r d d i s m i s s e d h e r f r o m employment on M a r c h 2, 2 0 1 2 , a p p e a l s from a judgment o f t h e Madison C i r c u i t Court 2120255 granting the certiorari reviewed Board's to for the administrative Board's the requiring petition d e c i s i o n and the Board to provide a common-law law judge quashing a ALJ's 1975 ("the Act"). We reverse F a c t u a l and the had been in a part of judgment. Background t h i r d - g r a d e t e a c h e r who e m p l o y e d by t h e B o a r d s i n c e 1994. Taylor order § 16-24C-1 e t s e q . , A l a . Code Procedural Taylor i s a 56-year-old who pretermination h e a r i n g , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( b ) , A l a . Code 1975, t h e S t u d e n t s F i r s t A c t o f 2011, of ("ALJ") the Taylor with writ Before military active-duty becoming a service had been teacher, with the U n i t e d S t a t e s Army f o r 12 y e a r s , i n c l u d i n g a d e p l o y m e n t t o t h e Persian Gulf for Operation Desert Storm. She remained i n the Army R e s e r v e w h i l e she was a t e a c h e r and r e t i r e d f r o m t h e Army i n 2008 w i t h t h e r a n k o f l i e u t e n a n t c o l o n e l . On Taylor; February one requested, letters her l e t t e r was and the informed employment, advised her 10, that 2012, the Board mailed two to s e n t by c e r t i f i e d m a i l , r e t u r n r e c e i p t other by regular, f i r s t - c l a s s T a y l o r t h a t the Board proposed to stated she letters had the 15 grounds for days request 2 to mail. The terminate termination, a hearing and and 2120255 contest the proposed termination, failing which, the letter s t a t e d , t h e B o a r d w o u l d v o t e on h e r d i s m i s s a l a t a m e e t i n g on M a r c h 1, March 1, t h a t day to 2012, 2012. a request terminate her delivered a 1 The Board, from T a y l o r employment. letter not having r e c e i v e d by for a hearing, voted On M a r c h 2, the Taylor employed, i n f o r m i n g her of the Board's d e c i s i o n to her had her escorted school the Board hand- to employment, and at 2012, from the T a y l o r d e n i e d t h a t she had r e c e i v e d a termination 1 Section letter and requested that 16-24C-6(b) p r o v i d e s , the where she terminate campus. notice-of-proposedBoard r e s c i n d i t s in pertinent part: "The termination of a tenured teacher or n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y c l a s s i f i e d e m p l o y e e ... shall be initiated by the recommendation of the chief e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r i n the form of a w r i t t e n n o t i c e of p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e e m p l o y e e . ... [T]he n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e the reasons f o r the proposed termination, shall contain a short and plain statement of the f a c t s showing t h a t the t e r m i n a t i o n i s t a k e n f o r one o r more o f t h e r e a s o n s l i s t e d i n subsection ( a ) , and s h a l l be i s s u e d i n c o n f o r m i t y with subsection ( k ) . The n o t i c e s h a l l i n f o r m the e m p l o y e e ... t h a t , i n o r d e r t o r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g w i t h t h e g o v e r n i n g b o a r d , t h e e m p l o y e e must f i l e a w r i t t e n request f o r such a h e a r i n g w i t h the c h i e f executive o f f i c e r w i t h i n 15 c a l e n d a r days a f t e r i s s u a n c e of the n o t i c e . S h o u l d the employee f a i l t o t i m e l y f i l e the request f o r h e a r i n g , the governing b o a r d s h a l l v o t e on t h e recommended t e r m i n a t i o n . " 3 was 2120255 v o t e t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment and g r a n t h e r a h e a r i n g . Board denied t h a t request. directly of On M a r c h 15, 2012, t o t h e C h i e f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Hearings, Division The Taylor appealed Judge o f t h e Office o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law J u d g e s , O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , p u r s u a n t t o § 16-24C12, A l a . Code 2 1975, 2 alleging t h a t the Board had failed S e c t i o n 16-24C-12 p r o v i d e s : "An employee who has attained tenure or n o n p r o b a t i o n a r y s t a t u s and has b e e n d e n i e d a h e a r i n g b e f o r e an e m p l o y e r s u b j e c t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h i s c h a p t e r may a p p e a l f o r r e l i e f d i r e c t l y t o t h e C h i e f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judge o f t h e O f f i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Hearings, D i v i s i o n of A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Law Judges, O f f i c e of the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l . The c h i e f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e s h a l l a p p o i n t an administrative law judge to address the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e a p p e a l . The a p p e a l s h a l l s t a t e f a c t s sufficient to allow the judge to determine t e n t a t i v e l y w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e e m p l o y e r has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h i s c h a p t e r i n f a i l i n g t o a c c o r d the employee a h e a r i n g . The e m p l o y e r may a n s w e r o r deny i n w r i t i n g the f a c t s s e t out i n the employee a p p e a l and, i f t h e e m p l o y e r f a i l s t o do s o , t h e f a c t s s e t o u t i n t h e a p p e a l s h a l l be t a k e n as t r u e . The j u d g e s h a l l r e v i e w t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e e m p l o y e e and t h e answer or denial of the employer and shall determine, w i t h or w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g , whether or not t h e e m p l o y e r has c o m p l i e d w i t h t h i s chapter i n d e n y i n g t h e e m p l o y e e a h e a r i n g as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r . B a s e d upon h i s o r h e r f i n d i n g s , t h e j u d g e s h a l l e i t h e r order a h e a r i n g b e f o r e the employer or s u s t a i n t h e a c t i o n t a k e n by t h e e m p l o y e r . Any p e t i t i o n or a p p l i c a t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e l i e f from the d e c i s i o n o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l a w j u d g e s h a l l be 4 to 2120255 p r o v i d e h e r w i t h n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g b e f o r e i t t e r m i n a t e d h e r employment. The B o a r d r e s p o n d e d , a s s e r t i n g t h a t i t h a d c o m p l i e d with t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n o f t h e A c t , s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h § 16-24C6 ( k ) , A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h provides: "Unless otherwise provided, n o t i c e f o r a l l purposes u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be g i v e n b y U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l , c e r t i f i e d d e l i v e r y , by p r i v a t e m a i l c a r r i e r f o r next business day d e l i v e r y , o r by p h y s i c a l d e l i v e r y t o t h e e m p l o y e e o r t h e l a s t known a d d r e s s of t h e employee. N o t i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l o r p r i v a t e m a i l c a r r i e r s h a l l be deemed r e c e i v e d b y t h e employee and complete f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c h a p t e r two b u s i n e s s d a y s a f t e r t h e n o t i c e i s d e p o s i t e d f o r c e r t i f i e d d e l i v e r y i n the United States mail or p l a c e d w i t h a p r i v a t e m a i l c a r r i e r f o r next business day d e l i v e r y . The e m p l o y e r h a s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o d u c i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t s e r v i c e was [ e ] f f e c t e d i n t h e manner p e r m i t t e d by t h i s chapter, but the e m p l o y e e has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t s u c h s e r v i c e was n o t p r o p e r l y made." (Emphasis added.) The B o a r d m a i n t a i n e d t h a t i t had s a t i s f i e d the r e q u i r e m e n t s o f § 16-24C-6(k) by d e p o s i t i n g t h e n o t i c e o f p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n i n t h e m a i l f o r c e r t i f i e d d e l i v e r y , and, it contended, Taylor was i t had a l s o taken notified of the extra proposed steps t o ensure termination of f i l e d i n the c i r c u i t court of the county i n which the p r i n c i p a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s of the employer are l o c a t e d . " 5 that her 2120255 employment b y s e n d i n g an a d d i t i o n a l l e t t e r b y r e g u l a r , f i r s t class mail. The A L J c o n d u c t e d received a h e a r i n g on June 18, 2012, a t w h i c h i t documentary and testimonial p r e s e n t e d h e r own t e s t i m o n y neighbors, Quirante as w e l l Hereford evidence. Taylor as t h e t e s t i m o n y a n d Andrew Coe. of her The Board presented the testimony of B e l i n d a Williams, the d i r e c t o r of human resources ("HCSS"), and assistant. Taylor with Lisa On comprehensive, f o r the Teague, August 29-page a hearing. Huntsville 6, order City Williams's 2012, requiring the School administrative ALJ the Board In i t s findings System rendered to provide of fact, the ALJ stated: "Taylor denied r e c e i v i n g both the c e r t i f i e d m a i l l e t t e r and t h e l e t t e r sent by f i r s t c l a s s m a i l . Taylor t e s t i f i e d t h a t given her m i l i t a r y background, she i s c o n s c i e n t i o u s o f d e a d l i n e s . Had she r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r , she w o u l d have i m m e d i a t e l y s o u g h t h e l p from her l o c a l Alabama Education Association. U n d e r s c o r i n g h e r t e s t i m o n y was t h e f a c t [that,] immediately f o l l o w i n g the n o t i c e of her d i s m i s s a l , she s o u g h t a s s i s t a n c e d i r e c t l y a f t e r b e i n g e s c o r t e d from t h e s c h o o l . "Prior t o v o t i n g upon Taylor's dismissal, n e i t h e r t h e B o a r d , n o r anyone a t HCSS c h e c k e d on t h e t r a c k i n g of the c e r t i f i e d m a i l l e t t e r t o determine w h e t h e r o r n o t d e l i v e r y h a d been accomplished, d e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e B o a r d [ h a d ] p a i d an 6 a 2120255 a d d i t i o n a l fee for a return r e c e i p t of the February 10, 2012, l e t t e r a n d h a d a c c e s s t o t r a c k i n g o f t h e certified mail letter. Belinda Williams, the D i r e c t o r o f Human R e s o u r c e s f o r HCSS, i n q u i r e d o n l y w h e t h e r T a y l o r [ h a d ] f i l e d a n o t i c e o f c o n t e s t on o r b e f o r e F e b r u a r y 29, 2012, b u t d i d n o t c o n f i r m t h a t a r e t u r n r e c e i p t had been i s s u e d f o r t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l ; she d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o t r a c k t h e c e r t i f i e d mail through the United States Postal Service [ ( ' U S P S ' ) ] w e b s i t e ; and she d i d n o t c o n f i r m t h a t T a y l o r [ h a d ] r e c e i v e d t h e l e t t e r t h r o u g h any o t h e r s o u r c e . No a t t e m p t was made t o h a n d d e l i v e r t h e l e t t e r t o T a y l o r a t t h e s c h o o l , even though T a y l o r t a u g h t on campus d a i l y a n d t h e s c h o o l p r o v i d e d a m a i l box f o r each teacher, which T a y l o r checked a t l e a s t t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s a d a y . No one v e r b a l l y confirmed T a y l o r ' s awareness o f t h e pending a c t i o n . " "The [ U S P S ] p r o v i d e s u s e r - f r i e n d l y methods f o r t r a c k i n g c e r t i f i e d mail through every routed p o s t a l l o c a t i o n , d e l i v e r y attempts, and a c t u a l d e l i v e r y . The USPS a s s i g n s e v e r y i t e m o f c e r t i f i e d m a i l an i n t e r n a l t r a c k i n g number. The e n t i t y m a i l i n g t h e certified mail item may review the tracking i n f o r m a t i o n v i a t h e i n t e r n e t by s i m p l y going t o t h e USPS w e b s i t e and e n t e r i n g the c e r t i f i e d mail t r a c k i n g number. D e s p i t e t h e f a c t t h a t t h e B o a r d e l e c t e d t o a c c o m p l i s h s e r v i c e b y c e r t i f i e d m a i l , no one attempted t o t r a c k the d e l i v e r y information p r i o r t o t h e B o a r d ' s v o t e on M a r c h 1, 2012. L i s a Teague t e s t i f i e d t h a t as a m a t t e r o r c o u r s e , t h e school system never u t i l i z e d the t r a c k i n g system t o see i f a c e r t i f i e d l e t t e r h a d b e e n r e c e i v e d . The HCSS a d d r e s s e d the l e t t e r to Taylor's correct a d d r e s s on S a n i b e l C i r c l e i n M a d i s o n , A l a b a m a . "The Board introduced t h e USPS tracking i n f o r m a t i o n and a copy o f t h e e n v e l o p e as e x h i b i t s i n t h i s c a s e . The i n t e r n a l t r a c k i n g s h e e t b e g i n s on F e b r u a r y 10, 2012, a n d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e i t e m was 7 2120255 m a i l e d a t 4:04 p.m. from a H u n t s v i l l e Post O f f i c e . The USPS p r o c e s s e d t h e l e t t e r on F e b r u a r y 11, 2012, a t 4:35 a.m. and i t a r r i v e d a t t h e ' U n i t ' ( w h i c h i s assumed t o be t h e M a d i s o n [ C i t y ] P o s t O f f i c e ) on F e b r u a r y 11, 2012, a t 8:35 a.m. a t t h e 35758 z i p code (one d i g i t d i f f e r e n t [ f r o m ] T a y l o r ' s [ 3 5 7 5 7 ] z i p c o d e ) . T h a t same day, someone a p p a r e n t l y w r o t e what a p p e a r s t o be an 'NC, 2-11-12, KAP' on t h e o u t s i d e o f t h e e n v e l o p e . The n e x t e n t r y made on t h e USPS t r a c k i n g summary r e f l e c t s t h a t a n o t i c e was l e f t on F e b r u a r y 11, 2012, a t 11:14 a.m. i n M a d i s o n , A l a b a m a a t a l o c a t i o n i n t h e 35757 z i p code a r e a . No a d d i t i o n a l evidence demonstrates t h a t the p o s t a l c a r r i e r l e f t t h e n o t i c e a t T a y l o r ' s home. T a y l o r has d e n i e d r e c e i v i n g any n o t i c e . " S u b s e q u e n t e v e n t s c a s t s i g n i f i c a n t d o u b t on t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e USPS i n f o r m a t i o n and i f d e l i v e r y was made t o T a y l o r ' s home. On the outside of the e n v e l o p e , two s e t s o f numbers e x i s t , as i f t o r e f l e c t d a t e s . These numbers a r e 2-17 and 2-28. These d a t e s do n o t d i r e c t l y m a t c h t h e USPS.com t r a c k i n g i n f o r m a t i o n d a t a . No d a t a e n t r y e x i s t s f o r e i t h e r F e b r u a r y 17 o r F e b r u a r y 27. On F e b r u a r y 28, 2012, t h e USPS T r a c k i n g d a t a s t a t e s ' U n c l a i m e d . ' No z i p code i s r e c o r d e d on t h e t r a c k i n g s h e e t as i t [ w a s ] on t h e p r e v i o u s d e l i v e r i e s . On t h e o u t s i d e o f the envelope, a p o s t a l c a r r i e r checked 'Unclaimed.' A t some p o i n t , h o w e v e r , someone o t h e r t h a n T a y l o r attempted to s i g n the green r e t u r n - r e c e i p t card. At t h e h e a r i n g , t h e p a r t i e s c o u l d n o t a g r e e on t h e name r e f l e c t e d r e g a r d i n g the green card's handwritten s i g n a t u r e . The u n c l e a r c u r s i v e h a n d w r i t i n g c o u l d be r e a d t o r e f l e c t t h e name 'Doug' o r 'Mary' o r 'Marg.' However, no one e v e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e s i g n a t u r e even r e m o t e l y l o o k e d l i k e T a y l o r ' s h a n d w r i t i n g . No conclusive evidence demonstrated where this a t t e m p t e d d e l i v e r y had b e e n made o r t h e i n d i v i d u a l upon whom t h e USPS a t t e m p t e d s e r v i c e . However, g i v e n the h a n d w r i t i n g , which d i d not appear t o belong t o Taylor, the greater weight of the evidence d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l was, in a l l 8 2120255 p r o b a b i l i t y , not d e l i v e r e d t o the c o r r e c t address or d e l i v e r y was a t t e m p t e d upon t h e wrong i n d i v i d u a l . No e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t h a t anyone o t h e r t h a n T a y l o r r e s i d e s i n h e r home. "The n e x t e n t r y on t h e USPS t r a c k i n g s h e e t , dated March 4, 2012, s t a t e s 'moved, left no a d d r e s s . ' A g a i n , no z i p code i s p r o v i d e d f o r t h e a r e a i n M a d i s o n , w h i c h c o n f i r m s what a r e a o f M a d i s o n i n w h i c h d e l i v e r y may have b e e n a t t e m p t e d . The c l e a r , undisputed evidence demonstrated that Taylor had n o t m o v e d ; r a t h e r , she h a s r e s i d e d a t h e r c u r r e n t a d d r e s s a t 124 S a n i b e l C i r c l e i n M a d i s o n , A l a b a m a f o r t h e l a s t f o u r y e a r s and c o n t i n u e s t o reside at that address today. On the a c t u a l c e r t i f i e d mail envelope, the envelope r e f l e c t s that i t was ' u n c l a i m e d , ' b u t no d a t e i s p r o v i d e d when this determination was made o r b y whom. I t i s unknown w h e t h e r t h e 'moved, l e f t no forwarding a d d r e s s ' e n t r y was m e r e l y a d a t a e n t r y e r r o r , o r i f the p o s t a l c a r r i e r left the attempted d e l i v e r y n o t i c e a t t h e wrong h o u s e where t h i s inaccurate i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d b y t h e r e s i d e n t . A l l t h a t can be c e r t a i n i s t h a t T a y l o r h a s n o t moved i n r e c e n t y e a r s a n d t h i s e n t r y c a s t s d o u b t on w h e t h e r d e l i v e r y was a t t e m p t e d a t t h e c o r r e c t l o c a t i o n . " F i n a l l y , t h e F e b r u a r y c e r t i f i e d m a i l n o t i c e was r e t u r n e d on M a r c h 7, 2012 t o H u n t s v i l l e , AL a t t h e 35801 z i p c o d e . T h e r e a f t e r , USPS r e t u r n e d t h e l e t t e r b a c k t o HCSS, D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s on o r a b o u t M a r c h 10, 2012. "Andrew Coe and Quirante Hereford, both n e i g h b o r s i n S a n i b e l C i r c l e where T a y l o r r e s i d e s , t e s t i f i e d that t h e i r assigned postal c a r r i e r often m i s t a k e n l y d e l i v e r e d m a i l t o t h e wrong h o u s e h o l d . I n most cases, neighbors would either walk the i n c o r r e c t l y d e l i v e r e d m a i l t o t h e n e i g h b o r ' s house or p l a c e i t back i n t h e m a i l b o x f o r the p o s t a l c a r r i e r to re-route to the c o r r e c t address. Taylor's counsel o f f e r e d two i n d i c t m e n t s i n the Northern 9 2120255 D i s t r i c t o f A l a b a m a o f p o s t a l c a r r i e r s who h a d b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h t h e f t o f m a i l i t e m s , one o f w h i c h was employed a t t h e Madison, Alabama Post Office. However, t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h that e i t h e r of these mail c a r r i e r s a c t u a l l y handled the proposed t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r which i s a t i s s u e . "... [ A ] l t h o u g h t h e B o a r d d i d n o t have a c t u a l notice that the c e r t i f i e d mail h a d n o t been d e l i v e r e d t o T a y l o r p r i o r t o v o t i n g on t h e p r o p o s e d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e Human R e s o u r c e s Department d i d have access to notice of the non-delivery v i a access to internal tracking i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m t h e USPS i n f o r m i n g them t h a t t h e l e t t e r h a d n o t b e e n d e l i v e r e d . The Human R e s o u r c e s D e p a r t m e n t c o u l d have m e r e l y e n t e r e d t h e a s s i g n e d t r a c k i n g number on t h e USPS w e b s i t e t o r e v e a l t h e delivery attempts associated with the l e t t e r . M o r e o v e r , a l t h o u g h n o t r e q u i r e d t o do s o , t h e Human Resources Department p a i d f o r and requested a ' r e t u r n r e c e i p t . ' That r e t u r n r e c e i p t had n o t been r e t u r n e d , a n d no e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e Human Resources Department checked t o see i f t h e r e c e i p t had b e e n r e t u r n e d . "With regard t o t h e copy o f t h e proposed t e r m i n a t i o n l e t t e r t h a t t h e HCSS m a i l e d b y f i r s t c l a s s m a i l , t h e testimony demonstrated t h a t i t had b e e n m a i l e d on F e b r u a r y 10, 2 0 1 2 , a l t h o u g h no c o p y was p r o v i d e d o f t h e o u t s i d e o f t h i s e n v e l o p e o r t h e postal information associated with the l e t t e r . In a d d i t i o n t o not r e c e i v i n g the l e t t e r mailed by c e r t i f i e d m a i l , Taylor also denied r e c e i v i n g the l e t t e r m a i l e d b y f i r s t c l a s s m a i l . The t e s t i m o n y demonstrated that t h i s first class mail letter c o n t a i n e d t h e r e t u r n address o f t h e Department o f Human R e s o u r c e s , HCSS; y e t t h e USPS d i d n o t r e t u r n t h e f i r s t c l a s s l e t t e r t o t h e HCSS Human R e s o u r c e s D e p a r t m e n t . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e f a c t t h a t i t was n o t r e t u r n e d s u g g e s t s r e c e i p t o f t h e l e t t e r b y someone, no c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e d e m o n s t r a t e s d e l i v e r y [ t o ] o r r e c e i p t by T a y l o r . " 10 2120255 The ALJ u l t i m a t e l y concluded that hearing Taylor on e i t h e r o f two i n d e p e n d e n t was e n t i t l e d grounds, namely: t h a t t h e B o a r d had f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e n o t i c e of the A c t because, despite to a (1) provisions h a v i n g had c o n s t r u c t i v e notice (via the p o s t a l s e r v i c e ' s c e r t i f i e d - m a i l t r a c k i n g system) that the certified letter had n o t been d e l i v e r e d to Taylor, the B o a r d h a d done n o t h i n g more t o a t t e m p t t o n o t i f y T a y l o r o f t h e proposed termination assuming that provisions rebuttable similar o f h e r e m p l o y m e n t ; and the Board of the A c t , such presumption had complied t o the presumption that 11 with compliance of Taylor's (2) that, receipt a r i s e s under the created of the even notice only a letter, t h e common-law 2120255 principle referred to e v i d e n c e had rebutted On 16, August as that 2012, C i r c u i t Court a p e t i t i o n or, in the the "mailbox rule," 3 and presumption. the Board filed in the f o r a common-law w r i t o f alternative, a Taylor's notice of appeal of Madison certiorari the ALJ's decision. F o l l o w i n g a r e v i e w of the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d a hearing on 2012, order, d e c i s i o n was the Board's motion to quash the ALJ's August the not circuit determined that s u p p o r t e d by l e g a l e v i d e n c e and had i n c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d the the circuit court court law to the facts. the and 6, ALJ's t h a t the ALJ Specifically, held: "The n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n o f [ t h e A c t ] p l a i n l y s t a t e s t h a t ' [ n ] o t i c e by c e r t i f i e d m a i l ... s h a l l be deemed r e c e i v e d by t h e e m p l o y e e and c o m p l e t e f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h i s c h a p t e r two b u s i n e s s d a y s a f t e r t h e n o t i c e 3 The m a i l b o x r u l e stands f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n that " ' [ a ] l e t t e r p r o p e r l y a d d r e s s e d , stamped, and mailed i s presumed to have been r e c e i v e d i n due c o u r s e . E v i d e n c e d e n y i n g t h e r e c e i p t o f t h e l e t t e r does n o t r e n d e r the e v i d e n c e of the m a i l i n g i n a d m i s s i b l e . N e i t h e r i s i t c o n c l u s i v e . W h e t h e r i t was so mailed and received becomes a jury question.'" S u l l i v a n v. E a s t e r n H e a l t h S y s . , I n c . , 953 So. 2d 355, ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g C o r i n t h Bank & T r u s t Co. v. C o c h r a n , A l a . 81, 83, 121 So. 66, 67 (1929)). 12 360 219 2120255 is deposited f o r c e r t i f i e d d e l i v e r y i n the United S t a t e s m a i l . ' A l a b a m a Code [1975,] § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( k ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The s t a t u t e means e x a c t l y what i t says. The B o a r d ' s d u t y t o p r o v i d e n o t i c e t o T a y l o r was c o m p l e t e u n d e r t h i s s t a t u t e two d a y s a f t e r t h e n o t i c e was d e p o s i t e d i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s m a i l f o r c e r t i f i e d d e l i v e r y to Taylor. "The A L J ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s s t a t u t e i s fundamentally i n c o n s i s t e n t with the s t a t u t e ' s p l a i n language." The c i r c u i t court granted the Board's motion, i s s u e d a w r i t of certiorari, and quashed t i m e l y n o t i c e of appeal the ALJ's to this order. Taylor filed court. Standard of Review "The c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i s w e l l settled. On common-law certiorari review, the c i r c u i t court's 'scope o f r e v i e w was l i m i t e d t o d e t e r m i n i n g i f t h e [ALJ's] d e c i s i o n t o [grant t h e e m p l o y e e a p r e t e r m i n a t i o n h e a r i n g ] was s u p p o r t e d b y l e g a l e v i d e n c e and i f t h e l a w had been c o r r e c t l y a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s . ' Evans v. C i t y o f H u n t s v i l l e , 580 So. 2d 1323, 1325 ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) . ' I n a d d i t i o n , t h e c o u r t was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d t o ensure that the fundamental r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e r i g h t t o due p r o c e s s , h a d n o t b e e n violated.' I d . 'Questions of f a c t or weight or s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e w i l l n o t be r e v i e w e d on c e r t i o r a r i . ' P e r s o n n e l Bd. o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y v . B a i l e y , 475 So. 2d 863, 868 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . "'"'[A] common-law w r i t of certiorari extends only t o questions touching the j u r i s d i c t i o n of the subordinate tribunal and t h e l e g a l i t y o f i t s p r o c e e d i n g s . The appropriate office of the w r i t i s t o 13 a 2120255 c o r r e c t e r r o r s o f l a w a p p a r e n t on t h e f a c e of the r e c o r d . C o n c l u s i o n s of f a c t cannot be r e v i e w e d , u n l e s s s p e c i a l l y a u t h o r i z e d b y s t a t u t e . The t r i a l i s n o t de novo b u t on the r e c o r d ; and t h e o n l y m a t t e r t o be determined is the quashing or the a f f i r m a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s b r o u g h t up for review "G.W. v. D a l e C o u n t y Dep't o f Human R e s . , 939 So. 2d 931, 934 n.4 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2006) ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. S o u t h e r n B e l l T e l . & T e l . Co., 2 03 A l a . 251, 252, 82 So. 519, 520 ( 1 9 1 9 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n P o s t a l T e l . Co. v. M i n d e r h o u t , 195 A l a . 420, 71 So. 91 ( 1 9 1 6 ) ) . ' T h i s c o u r t ' s s c o p e o f a p p e l l a t e r e v i e w i s t h e same as t h a t o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . ' C o l b e r t C o u n t y Bd. o f E d u c . v . J o h n s o n , 652 So. 2d 274, 276 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 4 ) . " South Alabama S k i l l s T r a i n i n g C o n s o r t i u m v. F o r d , 309, 324 footnote ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) (bracketed 997 So. 2d language altered; omitted). Discussion Taylor that argues the circuit Specifically, that the ALJ's court Taylor erred maintains d e c i s i o n was in concluding that e r r o n e o u s l y construed § 16-24C-6(k), the c o r r e c t and otherwise. circuit court providing that "[n]otice by c e r t i f i e d m a i l ... s h a l l be deemed r e c e i v e d b y t h e e m p l o y e e and complete f o r the purposes of t h i s days a f t e r t h e n o t i c e i s d e p o s i t e d the United States mail" two business for certified delivery i n (emphasis 14 chapter added), as having 2120255 established a presumption that conclusive, rather she h a d r e c e i v e d the Board had m a i l e d than the notice a rebuttable, two days after the notice. "[A] p r e s u m p t i o n i s a c r e a t u r e o f l a w t h a t a s s i s t s i n t h e m a t t e r o f p r o o f by p r o v i d i n g t h a t i n c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s p r o v e n f a c t s may be s t r o n g enough t h a t f r o m them t h e t r i e r o f f a c t may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e presumed fact exists. Presumptions may be conclusive or rebuttable. Conclusive presumptions ... a r e t h o s e a p p l i e d when b e c a u s e o f c e r t a i n p r o v e n f a c t s the law r e q u i r e s the f i n d e r of f a c t t o f i n d another presumed fact. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e b u t t a b l e presumptions, found throughout the l e g a l s y s t e m , a r e t h o s e u n d e r w h i c h a c e r t a i n quantum o f e v i d e n c e g i v e s r i s e t o an i n f e r e n c e o f some o t h e r f a c t , b u t as t o w h i c h f a c t t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y may o f f e r evidence i n r e b u t t a l . Rebuttable presumptions are g e n e r a l l y c r e a t e d by law under s t a t u t e s , case law, o r r u l e s o f c o u r t f o r s u c h r e a s o n s as t h e promotion of p u b l i c p o l i c y (as i n p r e s u m p t i o n s f a v o r i n g the l e g i t i m a c y of c h i l d r e n ) , [or] because t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s b a s e d upon human e x p e r i e n c e ( i l l u s t r a t e d by t h e p r e s u m p t i o n a g a i n s t suicide) " R u l e 3 0 1 , A l a . R. E v i d . (Advisory Committee's Notes). "'[T]he Tenure A c t [the p r e d e c e s s o r t o t h e A c t ] g r a n t s t o teachers a property interest which, when perfected, e n t i t l e d t o c o n s t i t u t i o n a l due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n . ' " Sch. Comm'rs of M o b i l e Cnty. v. G l e n n , ( A l a . C i v . App. 2010) ( q u o t i n g is Board of 70 So. 3d 340, 343 Smith v. Alabama S t a t e Tenure Comm'n, 430 So. 2d 877, 879 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) , a f f ' d , 430 15 2120255 So. 2d 880 (Ala. 1983)). S e c t i o n § 16-24C-2, A l a . Code a p r o v i s i o n of the Act e n t i t l e d " l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , " 1975, states: "The p u r p o s e o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o i m p r o v e t h e q u a l i t y of p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n i n the S t a t e of Alabama by [,among o t h e r t h i n g s ] : "(1) P r o v i d i n g f o r f u n d a m e n t a l f a i r n e s s and p r o c e s s t o e m p l o y e e s c o v e r e d by t h i s c h a p t e r . " Due-process protections " d e p r i v a t i o n of l i f e , require, at a due minimum, that l i b e r t y , o r p r o p e r t y by a d j u d i c a t i o n be p r e c e d e d by n o t i c e and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r h e a r i n g a p p r o p r i a t e t o the nature of the case." T r u s t Co., has little 339 U.S. reality 306, Mullane 313 or worth (1950). v. C e n t r a l H a n o v e r Bank & "[The] r i g h t t o be u n l e s s one heard i s informed t h a t the m a t t e r i s p e n d i n g and can c h o o s e f o r h i m s e l f w h e t h e r t o a p p e a r or default, acquiesce or c o n t e s t . " I d . at 314. "An e l e m e n t a r y and f u n d a m e n t a l r e q u i r e m e n t o f due process i n any proceeding which i s to be accorded f i n a l i t y i s n o t i c e reasonably c a l c u l a t e d , under a l l the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t o a p p r i s e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s o f t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n and a f f o r d them an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t t h e i r o b j e c t i o n s . The n o t i c e must be o f s u c h n a t u r e as r e a s o n a b l y t o c o n v e y t h e r e q u i r e d i n f o r m a t i o n , and i t must a f f o r d a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d t o make t h e i r appearance. ... "But when n o t i c e i s a p e r s o n ' s due, process w h i c h i s a mere g e s t u r e i s n o t due p r o c e s s . The means e m p l o y e d must be s u c h as one d e s i r o u s o f 16 2120255 actually informing the absentee adopt to a c c o m p l i s h i t . " Id. at 314-15 (emphasis construe subsection added; might reasonably citations omitted). To (k) o f § 16-24C-6 as h a v i n g e s t a b l i s h e d a c o n c l u s i v e p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t T a y l o r had r e c e i v e d the n o t i c e of p r o p o s e d t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r employment two b u s i n e s s d a y s a f t e r i t had b e e n m a i l e d w o u l d , we t h i n k , be t a n t a m o u n t t o a p p r o v i n g a p r o c e s s t h a t i s "a mere g e s t u r e " o f a c t i o n t h a t i s n o t what "one the absentee Mullane, supra A p a r t m e n t s v. In similar by might Plummer, 775 Plummer, the N.W.2d 714 statute that permitted be obtained. 562A.29A, Iowa Code, no At of a c t u a l l y adopt added). Supreme c e r t i f i e d mail, with receipt desirous reasonably (emphasis and t o c o u n t e n a n c e a c o u r s e Court to Cf. informing accomplish i t . " War Eagle Village (Iowa 2 0 0 9 ) . of Iowa considered a s e r v i c e o f an eviction notice requirement that a signed return the time Plummer was decided, provided: "Notwithstanding sections 631.4 and 648.5, the w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 562A.27, s u b s e c t i o n 1, a n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n and n o t i c e t o q u i t u n d e r s e c t i o n 562A.27A, a n o t i c e t o q u i t as r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 648.3, o r a p e t i t i o n f o r f o r c i b l e e n t r y and d e t a i n e r p u r s u a n t t o c h a p t e r 648, may be served upon t h e t e n a n t i n any of the f o l l o w i n g ways: 17 § 2120255 "1. By p e r s o n a l service. "2. By s e n d i n g n o t i c e b y c e r t i f i e d o r r e s t r i c t e d c e r t i f i e d m a i l , whether or not the tenant signs a receipt f o r the notice." The Iowa court process clause "the is held that the statute t h e due o f t h e Iowa C o n s t i t u t i o n on i t s f a c e " b e c a u s e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e scheme reasonably "violate[d] [did] not require s e r v i c e which c a l c u l a t e d t o reach the intended recipient." 775 N.W.2d a t 723. In our judgment, s u b s e c t i o n (k) e s t a b l i s h e s a r e b u t t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n , b a s e d on human e x p e r i e n c e , received notice t h a t an e m p l o y e e h a s of a proposed termination of h i s or her employment two b u s i n e s s d a y s a f t e r t h e e m p l o y e r d e p o s i t s t h e notice with the the postal a u t h o r i t i e s f o r c e r t i f i e d employee. Despite t h e a b s e n c e o f t h e words "presume" o r "presumption" from t h e t e x t of s u b s e c t i o n the statute disregard to create the p l a i n construction delivery to a rebuttable meaning i s consistent ( k ) , our construing presumption of the statute; with that portion does not indeed, our of the statute i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e "has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g that ... s e r v i c e was n o t p r o p e r l y made." We a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t t h e words are "deemed" and "presumed" 18 denotatively and 2120255 connotatively parlance, distinct, those equivalent. (synopsis), (reviewing believe was words we also recognize are sometimes Cooper v. Slaughter, 57 See 222, but 477, a court's So. 479 that, in legal considered 175 Ala. (synopsis), o r a l charge to the be 211, 481 jury that from the e v i d e n c e t h a t the boundary l i n e to 215 (1912) " ' i f they in question i n d i s p u t e , and t h a t t h e a d j o i n i n g owners c a u s e d s a i d l i n e t o be e s t a b l i s h e d , and t h a t t h e y a c q u i e s c e d i n s a i d l i n e , t h e n the p l a i n t i f f w o u l d be north of the line deemed t o be so the owner o f established,'" and stating " ' [ d ] e e m e d , ' as u s e d i n t h i s c h a r g e , i s c l e a r l y t h e of 'presumed'"). court See, e.g., (Ala. of have frequently caselaw, used Lemond C o n s t r . 1995) age] Alabama the Co. statutes, two words i s deemed i n c a p a b l e s i t u a t i o n i n w h i c h he may his Carnley, (quoting action" 35 (emphasis A l a . App. former 46, t i t . 26, added)); 49, § 44 213(C), 19 So. the rules 2d 622, Ala. of 2d 855, 860 years danger of Mills, Inc. 624-25 Code a logically of assuming the Alabama So. and i t follows t h a t the c h i l d i s a l s o presumed i n c a p a b l e of equivalent [ l e s s t h a n 14 of a p p r e c i a t i n g place himself, that interchangeably. v. W h e e l e r , 669 ( s t a t i n g t h a t "because a c h i l d a l l lands risk v. (1949) 1940, an 2120255 amendment t o t h e Unemployment C o m p e n s a t i o n A c t p r o v i d i n g t h a t " ' [ a ] woman s h a l l be p r e s u m e d n o t t o be a b l e t o work a n d n o t available f o r work i f s h e q u i t s o r i s r e q u i r e d t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment b e c a u s e o f p r e g n a n c y , p r o v i d e d , i n any event, t h a t no woman s h a l l be deemed t o be a b l e t o work a n d a v a i l a b l e for work f o r any immediately any before week the expected R. C i v . P. ( s t a t i n g birth three month of her child, and c o r r e c t purports period and f o r following (emphasis a l t e r e d ) ) ; Rule 4 4 ( h ) , A l a . t h a t a photocopy of a w r i t i n g deemed t o be an o r i g i n a l " s h a l l be r e c o r d a n d s h a l l be p r e s u m e d t o be a reproduction of the o r i g i n a l record i t to represent"). In t h e p r e s e n t the the week d u r i n g t h e t h r e e month p e r i o d i m m e d i a t e l y the b i r t h o f h e r c h i l d ' " true during case, postal authorities pursuant to subsection received the notice February 14, 2 0 1 2 . the Board deposited the n o t i c e w i t h on F r i d a y , February (k),Taylor two b u s i n e s s Thus, was days when T a y l o r hearing to contest the termination February 29, 2012 (15 d a y s a f t e r F e b r u a r y 20 10, 2 0 1 2 , a n d , presumed later on t o have Tuesday, had not requested o f h e r employment a by 14, 2 0 1 2 ) , t h e B o a r d 2120255 concluded (and t h e c i r c u i t "fail[ed] to timely f i l e court agreed) [a] r e q u e s t that Taylor f o r [a] h e a r i n g , " had see § 1 6 - 2 4 C - 6 ( b ) , a n d i t v o t e d t h e f o l l o w i n g d a y , M a r c h 1, 2012, t o recommend t h a t T a y l o r be d i s m i s s e d Like t h e common-law " m a i l b o x presumption, Eastern and however, Health had not the subsection see S u l l i v a n S y s . , I n c . , 953 So. 2d 355, 360 to request hearing on the Taylor proposed o f h e r employment, b u t t h a t she h a d s i m p l y unaware of the proposed request v. as t h e have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t a (k) ( A l a . 2006), w i t h evidence from which i t , could reasonably "failed" termination rule," i s not conclusive, t h e A L J was p r e s e n t e d finder of fact, f r o m employment. been a hearing. Based on evidence termination and, t h u s , t h e need t o indicating that delivery i n mail T a y l o r ' s n e i g h b o r h o o d had been u n r e l i a b l e and t h a t T a y l o r had not r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e , t h e A L J was a u t h o r i z e d t o d e t e r m i n e that Taylor had Specifically, he had been certified address. rebutted the subsection (k) p r e s u m p t i o n . Andrew Coe, T a y l o r ' s n e i g h b o r , asked mail before that was Coe, a r e a l t o r , by t h e m a i l not testified carrier f o r anyone that to sign f o r residing at h i s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t , p r e v i o u s l y , when 21 2120255 he had been expecting earnest-money d e p o s i t had checked containing an f o r one o f h i s r e a l - e s t a t e c l i e n t s , he the online a certified letter postal-service tracking determine the status of the c e r t i f i e d m a i l . system to Coe s a i d t h a t t h e t r a c k i n g system had i n d i c a t e d t h a t the m a i l c a r r i e r had l e f t a n o t e a d v i s i n g Coe t h a t he h a d c e r t i f i e d m a i l b e i n g h e l d f o r him left at the post office a t h i s address. found, from the n o t a t i o n but that no n o t e h a d , i n f a c t , The A L J c o u l d also reasonably "moved; l e f t no f o r w a r d i n g on t h e c e r t i f i e d - m a i l t r a c k i n g s y s t e m when i t was been have address" undisputed t h a t T a y l o r h a d n o t moved, a n d f r o m t h e e x i s t e n c e on t h e g r e e n return-receipt card of a p a r t i a l , scratched-out signature b o r e no r e s e m b l a n c e t o T a y l o r ' s name o r h a n d w r i t i n g , certified letter intended f o r Taylor had, that that the i n fact, been d e l i v e r e d t o t h e wrong a d d r e s s . Because " ' [ q ] u e s t i o n s o f f a c t or the evidence weight reviewed or on s u f f i c i e n c y of certiorari,'" C o n s o r t i u m v. F o r d , South Alabama [are] not Skills 997 So. 2d a t 324 ( q u o t i n g ... Training Personnel Bd. o f J e f f e r s o n C n t y . v . B a i l e y , 475 So. 2d 863, 868 (Ala. Civ. App. to reject the 1985)), ALJ's the c i r c u i t court factual findings. was n o t a u t h o r i z e d In l i g h t 22 of our h o l d i n g that 2120255 subsection (k) c r e a t e s only a rebuttable presumption of receipt after mailing, the c i r c u i t court's conclusion that the A L J ' s d e c i s i o n was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y l e g a l the A L J had i n c o r r e c t l y applied e v i d e n c e and t h a t the law t o the f a c t s was erroneous. Conclusion We hearing hold that Taylor on t h e s e c o n d which the A L J r e l i e d was e n t i t l e d to a pretermination o f t h e two i n d e p e n d e n t grounds upon t h a t , assuming t h e Board had c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e n o t i c e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e A c t , such compliance c r e a t e d only a notice, rebuttable presumption of Taylor's receipt of the and T a y l o r ' s e v i d e n c e had r e b u t t e d t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n . Accordingly, we p r e t e r m i t consideration of the f i r s t upon w h i c h t h e A L J r e l i e d i n g r a n t i n g r e l i e f The circuit court erred i n quashing Taylor with ground to Taylor. the ALJ's requiring the Board t o provide hearing. The j u d g m e n t i s , t h e r e f o r e , r e v e r s e d , order a pretermination and t h e cause i s remanded w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r a j u d g m e n t d e n y i n g t h e Board's certiorari petition. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , a n d Thomas a n d D o n a l d s o n , J J . , concur. Moore, J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 23

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.