Barnett v. Allison

• Decision Date: 27 August 2004
• Citation: 898 So.2d 777
• Parties: Elizabeth BARNETT v. Rick ALLISON, Probate Judge.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

898 So.2d 777

Elizabeth BARNETT v. Rick ALLISON, Probate Judge.

2030769.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 27, 2004.

Rehearing Denied October 15, 2004.

Jerry W. Jackson of Jackson, Mays & McNutt, LLC, Haleyville, for appellant.

Henry C. Wiley, Jr., of King, Bryan & Wiley, Jasper, for appellee.

THOMPSON, Judge.

After conducting due-process proceedings, Rick Allison, the probate judge for Walker County ("Judge Allison"), discharged permanent county employee Elizabeth Barnett as an employee of the Walker Probate Court in April 2002. Barnett's employment was terminated because of her handling of two transactions. Barnett appealed the termination to the Civil Service Board of Walker County ("the Board"), pursuant to § 14(a) of Act No. 200, Ala. Acts 1969, p. 263 ("the Act"), a local act applicable only to Walker County. On May 14, 2002, the Board held a hearing at which it received ore tenus evidence. On June 5, 2002, the Board entered a detailed decision determining that Judge Allison's termination of Barnett's employment was too harsh and that a reprimand would have been more appropriate. The Board's decision, in pertinent part, states:

". . . Elizabeth Barnett is an employee of the Probate Office, serving as a C-3 Clerk since July of 1999. The termination of Ms. Barnett by the Probate Judge was based upon errors in handling two transactions, one involving a 1999 Kawasaki ZX900 [motorcycle] and the other involving a 2002 Ford F250 pickup [truck].

"The transaction involving the Kawasaki motorcycle centered around a customer making application for title. Ms. Barnett, in seeking information from the customer asked, in reference to information regarding [the] lienholder[,] if the customer had paid `cash.' The customer's response was `Yes.' Upon that response, Ms. Barnett placed `None' in the space showing whether there was a lienholder. Upon further discussion, . . . Barnett obtained information that the customer had made a `cash down payment' but that there was a lienholder and [the customer] identified the lienholder. Ms. Barnett then told the customer that there was a mistake [on the title form] and that there would have to be a correction made in order to complete the transaction. The customer refused to allow the correction to be made and left the Courthouse with the title information showing there was no lienholder. Ms. Barnett reported this to her supervisor. Ms. Barnett's supervisor testified that had she been in that situation and the customer told her he paid cash that she would have assumed, as did Ms. Barnett, that there was no lien.

"The transaction involving the 2002 Ford F250 pickup [truck] deals with application for title of a vehicle that was purchased out of State. The documents [were] provided by the out-of-State dealer to the Probate Judge and [came] into the Probate Judge's Office by certified mail or Federal Express. Jill Farris, the customer, had called the Probate Judge's Office to see if the information had been received by the Probate Judge. She was first told that it was not there. The employee later called Jill Farris back at her place of employment and told her the information was in fact in the Probate Judge's Office. Jill Farris then went to the Probate Judge's Office to handle the transaction. Upon the customer coming into the Probate Judge's Office, Ms. Barnett gained access to the documents provided by the out-of-State dealer. The information received from the dealer showed the owner to be David Farris with a lienholder. In the discussion between the customer and Ms. Barnett, it was learned that the customer was actually the wife of David Farris and Ms. Farris instructed Ms. Barnett that the title should be in the name of David Farris or Jill Farris. Jill Farris reviewed the document received from the dealer and Ms. Farris later testified that she, herself, added her name to the title without the knowledge and/or permission of Ms. Barnett. Ms. Barnett completed the application for title, showing title to be in David Farris or Jill Farris.

"There is also a requirement that the vehicle must be actually inspected by the Probate Judge Clerk in order to assure that it is in fact the same vehicle being dealt with. This inspection is usually done by the title clerk issuing the application for title or is sometimes done by someone at the Clerk's request. In this particular situation, there was an inspection form faxed from the Probate Judge's Office to an employee in the County Commission Office by the name of Susan Russell, who had previously worked in the Probate Judge's Office. Ms. Russell actually inspected the vehicle. She made a statement to Jill Farris, who was the ultimate customer, that `Camilla faxed an inspection form to me to inspect your vehicle.' Susan Russell testified that she inspected the vehicle and gave the completed form to Jill Farris with her initials on the inspection form. Jill Farris took the completed inspection form along with her to the Probate Judge's Office to make application for title. This inspection form was presented to Ms. Barnett and she accepted it based on the information that Jill Farris gave her regarding the inspection. It is not unusual for someone other than the Clerk to make the inspection. The title was subsequently issued to David Farris or Jill Farris.

"Jill Farris picked up the document from Ms. Barnett's desk and noticed that her name was not on the Bill of Sale and informed Ms. Barnett that her name was supposed to be on the title. Ms. Barnett responded `I cannot add your name' and it was at that time that Jill Farris added her name to the document. Following the transaction in the Probate Judge's Office, title was issued in the name of David Farris or Jill Harris. The documentation at the dealership showed a Bill of Sale to David Farris only and all the documents regarding the financing and lien [were] in [the name of] David Farris only and Jill Farris was not on the papers financing the vehicle. This error, when detected by the Probate Judge's Office, caused considerable concern and considerable time and effort to cure the problem. At the time of the hearing, the problem regarding the 2002 Ford F250 vehicle was still not corrected and the effort was still being made by the Probate Judge's Office to correct said error.

"The Probate Judge had a meeting with Ms. Barnett to informally discuss these two problems. Following the discussion, Ms. Barnett was later given a pre-termination hearing and this was followed by a letter of termination by the Probate Judge. Judge Allison testified that he considered this to have been done intentionally and that it was not a mistake.

"The Board finds and takes judicial notice that this is the third attempt by the Probate Judge's Office to reprimand, suspend and now terminate this employee. There has been considerable testimony before this Board regarding mistakes by other Clerks handling similar transactions without reprimand, suspension or termination.

"The Board further finds that the training procedures in the Probate Judge's Office are somewhat deficient and one of the supervisors testified that, while they have made no changes in procedures, that they were requiring more strict adherence.

"The Board further finds that the action by the Probate Judge to terminate the employee in this particular situation was too harsh and that a reprimand would have been more appropriate.

"IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE WALKER COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE BOARD THAT Elizabeth Barnett was in fact aggrieved by her termination and that she is to be reinstated in her position as Clerk 3 in the Probate Judge's Office and that she is to be paid for any cut in pay she has received as a result of the action of the hiring authority."

Judge Allison appealed the decision of the Board to the Walker Circuit Court, pursuant to § 14(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the parties filed briefs with the circuit court in support of their respective positions. In his brief, Judge Allison argued that the Board, "[i]n reaching a legal conclusion that Judge Allison could not terminate Mrs. Barnett, ... exceeded it's authority, substituted its judgment for that of Judge Allison, who, by Statute, is the hiring/terminating authority, and [that its conduct] was a misapplication of law." The Board, on the other hand, argued that it had properly exercised its statutory authority when it set aside Barnett's discharge and instead reprimanded Barnett for her misconduct.

After conducting a review of the parties' briefs and the transcript of the proceedings conducted by the Board, the circuit court entered a judgment on April 15, 2004, reversing the decision of the Board and reinstating Judge Allison's termination of Barnett's employment. Although the circuit court did not find fault with the Board's findings of fact, it nevertheless set forth its own statement of facts and emphasized some facts with more intensity than did the Board. The circuit court's judgment stated, in pertinent part:

"While this Court does not fault the Board's overall finding of fact, this Court does find fault with the opinion or conclusion the Board draws therefrom; namely, that conclusion that `the action by the Probate Judge to terminate the employee in this particular situation was too harsh and that a reprimand would have been more appropriate'; and the conclusion that `Elizabeth Barnett was "in fact" aggrieved by her termination.'

". . . .

"While the sanctity of the

...