Green v. Fairfield City Bd. of Educ.

CourtAlabama Court of Civil Appeals
Citation365 So.2d 1217
PartiesBrenda M. GREEN v. FAIRFIELD CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. Civ. 1564.
Decision Date01 November 1978

Joseph E. Carr, IV, Montgomery, for appellant.

Maurice F. Bishop, Birmingham, for appellees.

BRADLEY, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Birmingham Division, holding that appellee (Fairfield City Board of Education) was entitled to withhold one day's salary from appellant (Brenda M. Green) as a result of her unexcused absence from her duties as a teacher at Fairfield High School.

The record reveals that in early November of 1977 Mrs. Green filed a request for a one day "professional" leave of absence in order to attend an educational seminar. Initially her request was granted by the principal of Fairfield High School. However, this gentleman was subsequently instructed by the superintendent of the city schools to ask Mrs. Green what educational seminar she would be attending. Mrs. Green responded that she planned to attend a "parent-student and teacher affair" at a local parochial school. The principal of the parochial school was contacted to determine the nature of the "educational seminar," and as a result of the conversation with the principal it was learned that Mrs. Green had volunteered to chaperone her daughter's second grade class on a tour of a local hamburger establishment. Upon learning of the purpose of Mrs. Green's planned absence, the city superintendent denied her request for "professional leave." Mrs. Green then requested a personal leave so that she could participate in the field trip by her daughter's class. This request was also denied by the superintendent. Despite the denial of her request, Mrs. Green informed the superintendent that she would not report to work on the date of the scheduled field trip. Upon being so informed, the city superintendent told her that if she failed to report to work on that date she would not be paid. When she subsequently did not appear to perform her duties as a teacher, the superintendent ordered that a day's pay be deducted from her salary. Thereafter, Mrs. Green filed a suit seeking to recover one day's pay ($74.40). Her suit was premised on the ground that the city superintendent had no authority to deny her request for personal leave since the right to two days of personal leave was guaranteed to state teachers by virtue of Act 384, § 4-N(d), Acts of Alabama 1973. Following a hearing Ore tenus the trial court found that the laws of Alabama permitted the exercise of discretion by school superintendents with respect to a grant or denial of a request for personal leave by a school teacher. The court thus concluded that the superintendent had not abused his discretion in denying Mrs. Green's request for leave, and that, accordingly, she was not entitled to recover the money withheld from her salary as a result of her failure to report to work. We feel that the trial court acted properly and therefore affirmed its decision.

Act 384 appropriated money for the support, maintenance and development of public education in Alabama for the 1974-75 fiscal year. Section 4-N(d) of Act 384 provides:

In addition to the appropriations hereinabove made to the Minimum Program there is hereby appropriated funds for two (2) days personal leave for each teacher earned under the Minimum Program formula to be granted upon request of the teacher and administered by the State Board of Education and by local school boards under procedures governing sick leave. 1

Mrs. Green maintains that subsection (d) has been construed to prevent the establishment by local school boards of rules and regulations which would allow a superintendent of schools discretionary authority to deny a teacher's request for personal leave. In an informal opinion the Attorney General concluded that when personal leave is requested by a teacher, no rule or regulation "differing from those regulating the granting of sick leave . . . may be employed to determine whether or not the teacher is allowed personal leave." 153 Quarterly Rep.Att'y.Gen. 30 (Dec. 6, 1973). Mrs. Green thus argues that the sick leave plan established by the State Department of Education does not allow local boards of education to exercise discretion in denying a teacher's request for sick leave and that, as a consequence, local boards cannot exercise discretion in denying a teacher's request for personal leave. We disagree.

The language of subsection (d) (and the identical language found in subsequent minimum program fund appropriations) must be construed in Pari materia with other statutes relating to the same subject matter. 18 Ala.Dig., Statutes 206 and 223.2. Accordingly, section 16-8-26 of the 1975 Alabama Code must be construed in Pari materia with subsection (d) since both deal with the subject of personal leave for teachers. Section 16-8-26 provides that:

Any county or city board of education may, at its discretion, grant to any teacher within its school system personal leave of up to five days annually noncumulative, during the time schools are in session. The board shall determine whether the leave is to be with part pay, full pay or without pay.

Although subsection (d) contains no reference to discretionary power by local...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Pool v. State
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals
    • January 19, 1990
    ...and embrace the same matter, a specific or particular provision is controlling over a general provision. Green v. Fairfield City Board of Education, 365 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1220 (Ala.1979). Special statutory provisions on specific subjects control general ......
  • Malone v. Steelcase, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • September 20, 2013
    ...specific provision of a statute is controlling over a more general provision in the same statute.”); and Green v. Fairfield City Bd. of Educ., 365 So.2d 1217, 1220 (Ala.Civ.App.1978) (“[A] specific or particular provision is controlling over a general provision.”). Malone also points out th......
  • Horton v. Horton
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • December 7, 2001
  • Baldwin County v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • March 31, 1986
    ...and embrace the same matter, a specific or particular provision is controlling over a general provision. Green v. Fairfield City Board of Education, 365 So.2d 1217 (Ala.Civ.App.1978), cert. denied, 365 So.2d 1220 (Ala.1979). Special statutory provisions on specific subjects control general ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT