Delbridge v. Civil Service Bd. of City of Tuscaloosa
| Decision Date | 18 December 1985 |
| Citation | 481 So.2d 911 |
| Parties | Robert DELBRIDGE III v. The CIVIL SERVICE BOARD OF the CITY OF TUSCALOOSA. Civ. 5178. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Louise I. Turner of Turner, Turner & Turner, Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Robert W. Ennis IV, City Atty., and H. Burton Flanagan, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit affirming the action of the Civil Service Board of the City of Tuscaloosa in terminating the employment of Robert Delbridge III with the city of Tuscaloosa.
On July 9, 1984 Robert Delbridge, a grade IV water treatment operator for the city of Tuscaloosa, and Thomas R. Wear, his supervisor, were involved in a confrontation in Wear's office about Delbridge's activities that morning. The testimony concerning what prompted the incident and what occurred during it is in direct conflict. The evidence tending to support the Personnel Board's finding reveals that Wear called Delbridge into his office to discuss Delbridge's tardiness in beginning his morning activities. During the course of the conversation about the tardiness, Delbridge became insubordinate by telling Wear, who was Delbridge's supervisor, that Wear could not tell him what to do. After reprimanding Delbridge, Wear told Delbridge to leave the plant. Delbridge refused to leave. After several more demands by Wear for Delbridge to leave the plant, which demands were refused, Wear telephoned the police to come and arrest Delbridge for trespass after warning. Wear stated that when he telephoned the police Delbridge picked up a Coca-Cola bottle and drew back as if he were going to throw it at Wear. Wear said that at that moment he feared that he was about to be struck with the bottle. Delbridge, however, did not throw the bottle at Wear.
The police eventually arrived and Delbridge left the plant. Before Delbridge left, however, another grade IV operator replaced him so as not to violate regulations. After Delbridge got to his home, Wear called him and told him that he had talked with the City Personnel Director and that he was now to be informed that he was suspended with pay. After a hearing, Delbridge's employment with the City was terminated by the Personnel Board. The Board's decision was upheld by the circuit court. Delbridge appealed to this court.
On appeal here, Delbridge argues that the decision of the Board should be reversed because it was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. Delbridge contends that Wear's version of their confrontation is erroneous and that as a result he was unjustifiably terminated. He says that prior to any disrespect towards Wear, Wear cursed him and told him to leave, that he was fired. Delbridge states that he never threatened Wear as Wear alleged. Moreover, he says that his prior employment record up until this incident was excellent and that he had not had any difficulty with other supervisors. Delbridge also says that the reason he would not leave the plant when ordered was (1) because Wear did not have the authority under the Civil Service Act to fire him, and (2) because he was assigned as operator of the water filtration plant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bracewell v. State
...of the trier of fact.’ " ’ (quoting Ex parte R.E.C., 899 So. 2d 272, 279 (Ala. 2004), quoting in turn Delbridge v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa, 481 So. 2d 911, 913 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) ))." Boyd v. State, 306 So. 3d 907, 917–18 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019). "A trial court abuses its discretion......
-
Friedman v. Friedman
...court to reweigh the testimony and substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact.' Delbridge v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa, 481 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). `[A]n appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. To do so would be to reweigh t......
-
Boyd v. State
...of the trier of fact." ’ " (quoting Ex parte R.E.C., 899 So. 2d 272, 279 (Ala. 2004), quoting in turn Delbridge v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa, 481 So. 2d 911, 913 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985) )).A.Boyd argues that "the trial court failed to appropriately consider, as a mitigating factor, Nathan......
-
Adams v. Adams
...court to reweigh the testimony and substitute its own judgment for that of the trier of fact.' Delbridge v. Civil Serv. Bd. of Tuscaloosa, 481 So.2d 911, 913 (Ala.Civ.App.1985). `[A]n appellate court may not substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. To do so would be to reweigh t......