Ex parte Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind
Decision Date | 11 January 1991 |
Parties | Ex parte ALABAMA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND BLIND, et al. (Re Melvin HUTCHINSON v. ALABAMA INSTITUTE FOR DEAF AND BLIND, et al.) 89-1557. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
William F. Gardner, William K. Thomas and William H. Pryor, Jr. of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, for petitioner.
Kenneth L. Thomas of Thomas, Means & Gillis and Theron Stokes, Gen. Counsel, Alabama Educ. Ass'n., Montgomery, for respondents.
We issued the writ of certiorari in this case to review the Court of Civil Appeals' construction and application of the Fair Dismissal Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-100 et seq.
Melvin Hutchinson, an employee of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind (hereinafter "AIDB"), was notified by letter dated May 4, 1988, of the proposed termination of his employment. A hearing was conducted on June 1, 1988; on that date, and after the hearing, Hutchinson was informed that his employment was terminated as of that date. Pursuant to the Fair Dismissal Act, §§ 36-26-103 through -106, Ala.Code 1975, Hutchinson's attorney then timely notified AIDB of Hutchinson's intent to appeal the termination and his request for a review hearing on this matter.
On June 16, 1988, Hutchinson contacted AIDB regarding the selection of a review panel. On June 24, 1988, AIDB notified Hutchinson of the selection of an AIDB representative to serve on the panel. It further suggested that in order to expedite the selection of a third, neutral panel member, the parties request that the probate judge submit the names of three qualified candidates. At this stage, 37 days remained of the 60 days in which the review hearing was required to be commenced (measuring from June 1). § 36-26-106, Ala.Code 1975. In a letter to the probate judge dated July 6, 1988, the employee requested that the probate judge take such action. At the time of this request, 25 of the 60 days remained. The probate judge did not respond until July 27, 1988, and the response was not actually received by the employee until August 1, 1988, one day after the expiration of the period.
On September 27, 1988, Hutchinson filed in the Talladega Circuit Court a petition for a writ of mandamus, or, in the alternative, a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against AIDB, the Board of Trustees of AIDB, and Dr. Jack Hawkins, as president of AIDB, challenging AIDB's alleged failure to comply with the 60-day requirement of the Fair Dismissal Act and requesting an order reinstating him to his job with AIDB. On September 13, 1989, the trial court entered a final order denying Hutchinson's motion for summary judgment and granting AIDB's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court of Civil Appeals reversed the summary judgment for AIDB and ordered Hutchinson reinstated and awarded him back pay. Hutchinson v. Alabama Institute for Deaf & Blind, 578 So.2d 1305 (Ala.Civ.App.1990).
The issue for review in this case is whether AIDB, under the Fair Dismissal Act, must reinstate Hutchinson because a review hearing was not held within the allotted time period as a result of the probate judge's failure to timely submit a list of prospective panel members. The purpose of the Act is "to provide non-teacher employees [of the public school system] with a fair and swift resolution of proposed employment terminations." Bolton v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 514 So.2d 820, 824 (Ala.1987). The Act is not clear as to who bears the responsibility for each step required in the procedure established, and is silent with regard to some of the consequences of noncompliance. This Court has held that the Act should be construed, insofar as possible, to promote the purpose of the Act. Bolton, 514 So.2d at 824. When the time limitations of the Act have not been met, courts have assessed fault for any resulting delay on a case-by-case basis. See Bolton, supra; Birmingham Board of Education v. Holifield, [Ms.Civ. 7249, February 14, 1990] (Ala.Civ.App.1990); Washington v. Bessemer Board of Education, 547 So.2d 888 (Ala.Civ.App.1989).
Section 36-26-106 provides that, once a review panel has been selected to hear a case, the panel has 10 days in which to set a date for the hearing, and that "such [a] hearing shall in no case be later than 60 days following the decision of the employing board." Once the board votes to dismiss an employee, the 60-day time period begins to run. Washington at 892. Section 36-26-105 outlines the actual process of appeal of an employing board's decision, specifically providing:
Section 36-26-105 does not specify which party is responsible for requesting from the probate judge a list of potential panel members, Bolton, 514 So.2d at 824. See also Hutchinson, supra.
We cannot...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Young v. McLeod
... ... 2990440 ... Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama ... January 5, 2001 ... 841 So.2d ... , 718 So.2d 673 (Ala.Civ.App.1996), reversed, Ex parte McLeod, 718 So.2d 682 (Ala. 1997), McLeod argued that he ... for Deaf & Blind, 578 So.2d 1308, 1310 (Ala.1991) ... ...
-
McLeod v. Beaty
... ... 2950284, 2950286 ... Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama ... Dec. 13, 1996 ... Rehearing Denied Jan. 17, 1997 ... 627 So.2d at 364 ... Citing Ex parte Graddick, 495 So.2d 1367 (Ala.1986); Mobile & Gulf R.R. v ... , 604 So.2d 420, 422 (Ala.1991); Ex parte Alabama Institute" for Deaf & Blind, 578 So.2d 1308, 1310 (Ala.1991) ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ.
... ... States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ... Before FAY and BIRCH, Circuit ... See, e.g., Ex parte Holifield, No. 89-984, 1991 WL 32273, at * 1 (Ala. Feb. 15, ... Alabama Inst. for Deaf & Blind, 578 So.2d 1305, 1306 (Ala.Civ.App.1990) ... ...
-
Tatum v. Freeman
... ... 2021133 ... Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama ... June 11, 2004 ... 893 So.2d 1215 ... (4) properly invoked jurisdiction of the court.['] Ex parte Glover, [801 So.2d 1, 2 (Ala.2001) ], citing Ex parte ... See Ex parte Alabama Inst. for Deaf & Blind, 578 So.2d 1308 (Ala.1991) ... Although the hearing ... , Ex parte Holifield, and Ex parte Alabama Institute for Deaf & Blind — guides this Court in determining ... ...