Ala. Lockers, LLC v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parte Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.)
Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
Docket Number | 1200230 |
Citation | 348 So.3d 397 |
Parties | EX PARTE JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION (In re: Alabama Lockers, LLC v. Jefferson County Board of Education ) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Andrew E. Rudloff of Bishop, Colvin, Johnson & Kent, LLC, Birmingham, for petitioner.
John D. Saxon and Karli B. Guyther of John D. Saxon, P.C., Birmingham, for respondent.
The Jefferson County Board of Education ("the Board") petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the Jefferson Circuit Court to dismiss the action brought against the Board by Alabama Lockers, LLC. Because the Board is entitled to State immunity, we grant the petition and issue the writ.
Alabama Lockers provides services regarding school lockers. In July 2020, Alabama Lockers sued the Board, alleging breach of contract. Alabama Lockers also alleged that the Board had failed to follow both "state bid laws" and its own policies and procedures regarding bidding on locker-services contracts. In September 2020, the Board filed a motion to dismiss, asserting, in relevant part, that Alabama Lockers’ action is barred by State immunity. The circuit court denied the Board's motion to dismiss, and the Board then filed a petition for the writ of mandamus with this Court.
" ‘A petition for a writ of mandamus is the proper vehicle by which to seek review of the denial of a motion to dismiss based on the ground of State immunity.’ " Ex parte Jefferson Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 63 So. 3d 621, 625 (Ala. 2010) (quoting Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 937 So. 2d 56, 57 (Ala. 2006) ). Typically, the denial of a motion to dismiss or a summary-judgment motion is not reviewable by a mandamus petition; however, the denial of such a motion grounded on a claim of immunity is one exception to that general standard. Ex parte Haralson, 853 So. 2d 928, 931 n.2 (Ala. 2003).
Ex parte Davis, 930 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala. 2005).
The Board argues that Alabama Lockers’ action against the Board is barred by State immunity, which is sometimes referred to as sovereign immunity in our caselaw. The Board is clearly correct.
Ex parte Board of Trs. of Univ. of Alabama, 264 So. 3d 850, 853 (Ala. 2018) (quoting Alabama Dep't of Corr. v. Montgomery Cnty. Comm'n, 11 So. 3d 189, 191-92 (Ala. 2008) ).
In Ex parte Hale County Board of Education, 14 So. 3d 844 (Ala. 2009), this Court explained that county boards of education are entitled to State immunity under Article I, § 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 (Off. Recomp.). This Court stated: " " Ex parte Hale Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 14 So. 3d at 848 (quoting Ex parte Jackson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 4 So. 3d 1099, 1102 (Ala. 2008) ). "Because county boards of education are local agencies of the State, they are clothed in constitutional immunity from suit." 14 So. 3d at 848. Thus, the Board, as a county board of education, is entitled to State immunity in this case. Accordingly, the Board has established a clear legal right to have the action against it dismissed.
Alabama Lockers does not argue that it has a viable action under the controlling precedent cited above. Rather, Alabama Lockers "disagrees ... with the current precedent" and "strongly urges [this Court] to reassess that precedent." Alabama Lockers’ answer at 20. Specifically, Alabama Lockers asks this Court to overrule Ex parte Hale County Board of Education, supra, which, as noted above, held that county boards of education are agencies of the State and, thus, are immune from suit under § 14. Hale, which this Court decided in 2009, explicitly overruled Kimmons v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 204 Ala. 384, 85 So. 774 (1920), and Sims v. Etowah County Board of Education, 337 So. 2d 1310 (Ala. 1976), "to the extent that they and their progeny impose an implied ‘right to be sued’ on county boards of education." 14 So. 3d at 848-49.
Before addressing the challenge to Hale, we will review the history of State immunity as it relates to county boards of education.
Ex parte Town of Lowndesboro, 950 So. 2d 1203, 1205-06 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Hutchinson v. Board of Trs. of Univ. of Alabama, 288 Ala. 20, 23, 256 So. 2d 281, 282-83 (1971) ).
Although constitutional provisions have clearly provided immunity for the State since 1875, the issue whether county boards of education enjoy such immunity has not always been as clear. In Kimmons, supra, a 1920 decision, a plaintiff sued a county board of education, challenging the board's authority to issue warrants for the construction of a school building. This Court briefly touched on issues concerning possible immunity for the board. The Court stated that the board was an independent agency of the State for purposes of the act under which the board had issued the warrants. However, the Court also noted that, under that act, the board was "given the right to sue" and, thus, that the board was subject to "an implied right to be sued." 204 Ala. at 387, 85 So. at 777. Accordingly, the Court in Kimmons addressed the merits of the plaintiff's claims against the board. However, the Court did not address the immunity provided by § 14 or attempt to reconcile that provision with its observation that the board was an agency of the State.
In Sims, supra, a plurality decision released by this Court in 1976, plaintiffs alleged claims of negligence and breach of contract against a county board of education. This Court again noted that a county board of education is considered an agency of the State. However, the Court, citing Kimmons, also stated that a board's statutory right to sue "carries with it the implied right to be sued." 337 So. 2d at 1313. The Court in Sims further noted that a board "can be sued ‘within the scope of its corporate power,’ ... but our cases appear to have held that tort liability is not one of those matters within the scope of its corporate power." 337 So. 2d at 1316 (quoting Morgan v. Cherokee Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 Ala. 201, 203, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial