Ala. State Univ. v. Danley
| Citation | 212 So.3d 112 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | 1140907,1141241. |
| Parties | ALABAMA STATE UNIVERSITY et al. v. Stacy DANLEY. Stacy Danley v. Alabama State University et al. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Alabama |
Kenneth L. Thomas and Ramadanah Maryum Salaam-Jones, Office of the General Counsel, Alabama State University, Montgomery, for appellants/cross-appellees Alabama State University et al.
Frederick L. Fohrell, Drew Dill, and Laura P. Hiller of Wilmer & Lee, P.A., Huntsville; Joseph L. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Montgomery; Nancy E. Perry, Alabama Education Association, Montgomery; and Sam Heldman of The Gardner Firm, Washington, D.C., for appellee/cross-appellant Stacy Danley.
Alabama State University ("ASU"), along with individual members of the ASU Board of Trustees; John F. Knight, former executive vice president and former chief operating officer of ASU; William H. Harris, former interim president of ASU; and Gwendolyn Boyd, president of ASU (all individual defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as "the ASU officials"), appeal from a judgment entered against them by the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court"). In that judgment, the trial court awarded Stacy Danley, former athletic director of ASU, separate awards of $118,096.87 and $22,120 and also ruled in Danley's favor on ASU's counterclaim against Danley for recoupment. Danley cross-appeals from the judgment, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to order ASU to reinstate him to his former position as athletic director and by failing to award him attorney fees.
In 2010, ASU and Danley entered into a contract pursuant to which Danley would serve as athletic director of ASU from July 26, 2010, through September 30, 2013, at an annual salary of $125,000. In conjunction with his employment, Danley received a university-issued purchasing card to be used for expenses incurred while performing his responsibilities as athletic director. Upon receipt of the purchasing card, Danley signed a "purchasing-card-acknowledgment form," which includes the following statement: "I understand that any unallowable charges will be refunded through payroll deduction."
On August 28, 2012, on the recommendation of Knight, then the executive vice president and chief operating officer of ASU, Danley was placed on administrative leave with pay. On October 15, 2012, Knight informed Danley in writing that Danley was being recommended for termination of his employment and listed 10 allegations in support of that recommendation. The notice of allegations also indicated that a pre-termination hearing would be held in front of a hearing officer on October 20, 2012. On Danley's motion, the pre-termination hearing was continued to November 15, 2012.
The pre-termination hearing occurred over three days between November 15, 2012, and November 18, 2012. On December 6, 2012, the hearing officer issued his findings and recommendations. The hearing officer found Danley "not guilty" on six of the allegations listed in the notice of allegations but found that ASU had met its burden of proof on the remaining four allegations and that those four charges were sufficient in and of themselves to support the termination of Danley's employment. Thus, the hearing officer recommended that Danley's employment be terminated effective December 31, 2012. On December 31, 2012, Carmen Douglas, vice president of ASU's Office of Human Resources, informed Danley in writing that then President Harris concurred with the hearing officer's findings and that Danley's employment was being terminated effective immediately.
On January 30, 2013, Danley filed in the trial court a lengthy "petition for writ of certiorari, declaratory judgment, petition for writ of mandamus and injunctive relief" against ASU; the members of the Board of Trustees, individually and in their official capacities; Harris, individually and in his official capacity as interim president of ASU; and Knight, individually and in his official capacity as executive vice president and chief operating officer of ASU.1 Danley's complaint is lengthy and, at times, unduly repetitive. For purposes of resolving these appeals, it is sufficient to note that Danley asserted, in addition to other claims, a claim pursuant to both the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in which he alleged that the manner in which the pre-termination hearing was conducted violated his due-process rights. Among other relief, Danley sought to be restored to his position as athletic director; compensatory damages, including backpay; and attorney fees.
On March 6, 2013, ASU and the ASU officials filed an answer and a motion to dismiss some of Danley's claims. In their answer, ASU and the ASU officials denied those counts in Danley's complaint that generally sought injunctive relief and, as to those claims that sought monetary relief, raised defenses of sovereign immunity, State-agent immunity, and qualified immunity. ASU and the ASU officials' answer also included a counterclaim against Danley for the recoupment of $67,242.61 in allegedly unauthorized and/or undocumented charges made to Danley's purchasing card. Danley filed a reply to the counterclaim.
On April 21, 2013, Danley filed a response to the motion to dismiss in which he argued that the ASU officials, both in their individual and official capacities, were not entitled to immunity from either Danley's state-law or federal-law claims for damages. Following a hearing, the trial court, then under the direction of Judge Truman M. Hobbs, entered an order on May 14, 2013, that stated, in pertinent part: "[T]he Court is convinced that sovereign immunity prohibits an award of back pay or money damages against the State or any official thereof."2
On July 28, 2013, Danley filed an amended complaint in which he added, among others, claims alleging that ASU and the ASU officials had further violated his due-process rights by failing to provide a post-termination hearing; that, pursuant to § 16–50–23, Ala.Code 1975, only the Board of Trustees had the power to terminate his employment and thus that his employment had not been properly terminated; that ASU and the ASU officials had violated his due-process rights by withdrawing his pay for December 2012 from his bank account; and that ASU and the ASU officials had converted his December 2012 pay. It is undisputed that, shortly before the termination of Danley's employment on December 31, 2012, Danley's December 2012 pay, which had been deposited into his bank account via direct deposit, was withdrawn from his bank account at the initiation of the comptroller's office of ASU so that ASU could deduct money Danley allegedly owed ASU from that payroll deposit. It is also undisputed that Danley's December 2012 pay was redeposited in full into his bank account in February 2013, approximately two months after it had been withdrawn. Danley requested, in addition to the relief requested in his original complaint, damages for the withdrawal of his December 2012 pay.
On October 21, 2013, ASU and the ASU officials filed a motion for a summary judgment. On May 2, 2014, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore appointed Judge James H. Reid, Jr., to the case after Judge Hobbs and other subsequently appointed judges recused themselves. On October 24, 2014, after numerous filings and continuances, Judge Reid entered an order denying ASU and the ASU officials' motion for a summary judgment. Judge Reid also entered an order dismissing Danley's claims against the members of the Board of Trustees in their individual capacities. The trial court held a trial between February 23 and February 27, 2015. Following the trial and the submission of the parties' posttrial briefs, the trial court on May 16, 2015, entered a judgment stating, in pertinent part:
On May 19, 2015, ASU filed a notice of appeal. On June 2, 2015, Danley timely filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the May 16, 2015, judgment. In that motion, Danley moved the trial court to amend the May 16, 2015, judgment to reflect, among other things, that the judgment was entered against not only ASU but also against the ASU officials in either, or both, their individual and official capacities and that the judgment was based on Danley's state-law and federal-law claims. Danley also moved the trial court to amend the judgment to order that he be reinstated to his former position as athletic director and to award him attorney fees.
On July 21, 2015, the trial court entered an amended judgment that stated, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Perryman v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.)
...more than a defense; when applicable, it divests the trial courts of this State of subject-matter jurisdiction.’ Alabama State Univ. v. Danley, 212 So.3d 112, 127 (Ala. 2016)."Concerning § 14 immunity, this Court has stated:" ‘ "The wall of immunity erected by § 14 is nearly impregnable. Sa......
-
Farmer v. Troy Univ.
...Ala. Const. art I, § 14 ). "This immunity extends to [the State of Alabama's] institutions of higher learning. Ala. State Univ. v. Danley , 212 So.3d 112, 122 (Ala. 2016) (quoting Taylor v. Troy State University , 437 So.2d 472, 474 (Ala. 1983) ). Moreover, Alabama "State officers and emplo......
-
Ingle v. Adkins, 1160671
...(Ala. 2013) (quoting Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So.2d 831, 839–40 (Ala. 2008) )." Alabama State Univ. v. Danley, 212 So.3d 112, 122–24 (Ala. 2016).In the present case, Ingle's claim against the Board members and Adkins in their official capacities to declare Adkins......
-
South Carolina v. Huntsville City Sch., Case No. 5:19-cv-00962-HNJ
...a plaintiff may sue to compel a State official to perform her legal duties or to perform ministerial acts. Alabama State Univ. v. Danley , 212 So. 3d 112, 123-24 (Ala. 2016) (citations omitted). However, those exceptions "apply only to actions brought against State officials; they do not ap......