Birmingham Bd. of Educ. v. Holifield
| Decision Date | 05 July 1991 |
| Citation | 604 So.2d 422 |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
| Parties | 77 Ed. Law Rep. 1037 BIRMINGHAM BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al. v. Julius HOLIFIELD. Civ. 7249. |
This court's opinion of May 31, 1991, is withdrawn and the following is substituted therefor.
The prior judgment of this court has been reversed and the cause remanded by the Supreme Court of Alabama. On remand to this court, and in compliance with the Supreme Court's opinion of February 15, 1991, 604 So.2d 420 (Ala.1991), the judgment of this court is set aside.
The facts in this case are sufficiently presented in our original opinion of February 14, 1990, 604 So.2d 418, and we decline to repeat them here.
In accordance with the instructions of the Supreme Court, we affirm the trial court as to the issue of jurisdiction. There are three issues raised by the Birmingham Board of Education (Board) remaining for our review: (1) Whether the employee review panel exceeded the scope of its jurisdiction by rendering a different decision than that of the Board regarding Holifield's punishment; (2) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to enter a writ of certiorari setting aside the employee review panel's decision; and (3) Whether the trial court erred by holding that the employee review panel could substitute its judgment for that of the Board, the Board contending that the panel usurped the Board's constitutionally authorized duty to make such decisions.
Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-106, a part of the Fair Dismissal Act, provides for a hearing process which includes a de novo hearing before an employee review panel. Specifically, § 36-26-106 states:
"In making its decision, the panel shall consider whether the action of the board or its administrative staff was arbitrary or unjust ... and whether the board's action was warranted based upon the facts of the case and the employment record of the employee."
The Board argues that the scope of the panel's de novo review is limited, given that it must consider the Board's decision in accordance with § 36-26-106. Further, the Board argues that the terms directing the scope and extent of the panel's review preclude it from substituting its wisdom for that of the Board. We disagree.
While the Fair Dismissal Act may not be a model of legislative clarity, § 36-26-106 makes at least four things perfectly clear: (1) the panel's review is de novo, (2) the panel considers whether the Board's actions were arbitrary, (3) the panel considers whether the Board's actions were warranted based on the facts of the case and the employment record of the employee, and (4) the panel's decision is binding.
When this court construes a statute, it has a duty to ascertain the legislative intent expressed in the statute. This intent may be gleaned from the language used, the reason and necessity for the act, and the purpose sought to be obtained. Tin Man Roofing Co. v. Birmingham Board of Education, 536 So.2d 1383 (Ala.1988).
In the instant case, while the panel made no specific findings, presumably it determined that the decision by the Board to terminate the employee was simply not warranted, given the specific facts of the case, but that some punishment was in order. We do not find that the employee review panel's decision to reverse the Board's termination of Holifield and to modify his punishment defeats the purpose of the statute or that it defeats the legislative intent. Even if the panel's jurisdiction were limited to a consideration of the propriety of the decision to terminate, as the Board would have us hold, the panel could have still determined that termination was inappropriate. We hold that it is well within the discretion of the panel, given the language of the statute, to modify the punishment handed down by the Board when the facts do not support the Board's decision.
The next issue for our review is whether the trial court erred by refusing to set aside the employee review panel's decision pursuant to certiorari review. Since we have held that the panel's judgment complied with § 36-26-106, the trial court properly refused to set aside the panel's decision.
Finally, the Board maintains that the trial court erred by holding that the employee review panel could substitute its judgment for that of the Board, because, the Board argues, the panel usurped the Board's constitutionally authorized duty to make such decisions. We do not agree. The overall purpose of the Fair Dismissal Act is to provide nonteacher employees a fair and swift resolution of proposed employment terminations. Bolton v. Mobile City Board of School Commissioners, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tatum v. Freeman
... ... [Ala.Code 1975], § 41-22-2(a). See Colbert County Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 652 So.2d 274, 275 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) ... See also Ex parte Smith, 683 So.2d 431, ... Jones, 534 So.2d 615 (Ala.Civ.App.1987) ." ... Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 634 So.2d 574, 576 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (emphasis added). Thus, Tatum's complaint and ... whether the parties would be bound by the 60-day requirement of § 36-26-106.' Ex parte Holifield, 604 So.2d 420, 421 (Ala.1991) ; Washington, 547 So.2d at 892 ... A closer look at the factual ... ...
-
Jones v. Kennedy
... ... Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So.2d 888, 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1989)(overruled on other grounds, Ex parte Birmingham Bd. of ... whether the parties would be bound by the 60-day requirement of § 36-26-106." Ex parte Holifield, 604 So.2d 420, 421 (Ala.1991); Washington, 547 So.2d at 892. A closer look at the factual ... ...
-
Jefferson County Bd. of Educ. v. Moore
... ... Supreme Court of Alabama ... Nov. 14, 1997 ... Burgin H. Kent and Carl Johnson of Bishop, Colvin, Johnson & Kent, Birmingham, for appellant ... Charles F. Norton, Homewood, for appellees Roderick Moore and Dwayne Pouncey ... David R. Boyd ... It is fully within the panel's discretion to substitute its judgment for that of the board. Birmingham Bd. of Educ. v. Holifield, 604 So.2d 422 ... (Ala.Civ.App.1991). However, the panel's review is not without limits: ... "[T]he panel shall consider whether the action of ... ...
-
Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.
...facts of the case and the employment record of the employee, and (4) the panel's decision is binding." Birmingham Board of Education v. Holifield, 604 So.2d 422, 424 (Ala.Civ.App.1991); and Johnson v. Lawson State Jr. College, 581 So.2d 865 The record reveals that there was no dispute that:......