House v. JEFFERSON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE

• Decision Date: 11 February 2005
• Docket Number: No. 1031179.,1031179.
• Citation: 907 So.2d 424
• Parties: Christopher Layne HOUSE v. JEFFERSON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

907 So.2d 424

Christopher Layne HOUSE v. JEFFERSON STATE COMMUNITY COLLEGE et al.

No. 1031179.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 11, 2005.

Talitha Powers Bailey, Birmingham, for appellant.

William D. Jones III and Shayana Boyd Davis of Johnston Barton Proctor & Powell, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellees.

WOODALL, Justice.

Christopher Layne House sued Jefferson State Community College and its president, Dr. Judy Merritt; he also named as defendants Dr. Fred Gainous, chancellor of the Alabama Department of Postsecondary Education, and six members of the State Board of Education (hereinafter the defendants will be referred to collectively as "Jeff State"). The crux of House's complaint was that Jefferson State Community College had improperly terminated his employment by terminating him without a due-process hearing. On January 21, 2004, the trial court, in response to a motion filed by Jeff State, entered a summary judgment for Jeff State. House filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court denied, and House appealed.

The relevant facts appear to be undisputed. On March 2, 2001, House was employed by Jefferson State Community College as a computer-science instructor. He was employed pursuant to a written contract of employment that he had accepted on October 19, 2000. The contract clearly provided that House was employed in a probationary status, stating, in pertinent part:

"Probationary appointment is made pursuant to The Alabama College System Policy Manual, effective December 8, 1994, policy number 619.01, section 3.1 and the subsequent Memorandum # 95-LGL-119 which states `... the employing authority may remove an employee by furnishing said employee written notification at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the effective date of termination.'"

Policy number 619.01 is the Revised Hearing Procedure adopted by the State Board of Education. Section 3.1 of policy number 619.01 provides, in pertinent part:

"3.1 Probationary Period.

"3.11 All [persons employed on a full-time basis by the president of an institution and whose salary is derived from Salary Schedules B, C, D, or E as established and adopted by the State Board of Education] shall be deemed employed on a probationary status for a period of three years from the date of his or her initial employment.

". . . .

"3.13 With respect to any full-time employee under contract, at any time during such employee's probationary period, the employing authority may remove an employee by furnishing said employee written notification at least fifteen (15) calendar days prior to the effective date of termination.

"3.14 If a probationary employee under contract is terminated within the period of a contract, the employee is entitled to be given cause and the opportunity for a hearing under these hearing procedures adopted by the State Board of Education. Employment agreements shall be offered for either 3, 9, or 12 months...."

Memorandum number 95-LGL-119 is Chancellor Gainous's official interpretation of policy number 619.01. That memorandum states, in pertinent part:

"[Section 3.13 of policy number 619.01] clearly states that an employee covered by this policy may be terminated at any time during the probationary period upon written notification. It further clearly states that the employee must be given at least fifteen (15) days notice prior to the effective date of termination. So long as the non-renewal or termination notice is rendered within the probationary period, the termination can be without cause. Termination without cause means that the employee is not entitled to be given a reason for the termination or a due process hearing.

"Thus, without cause, any college employee covered by this policy and who is under a contract for a third year can be notified at any time at least fifteen (15) days prior to the end of the employee's third year's contract that the contract will not be renewed and that employment will cease as of the end of the business day on the final date of the contract. Further, without cause, any college employee covered by this policy and who is under an open-ended letter of appointment can be notified at any time within the three-year probationary period (even the next-to-last day of the three-year probationary period) that employment will be discontinued fifteen (15) days (or more, if desired by the president) from the date of the notice of termination. Even if the fifteen-day notice period causes the employment to go beyond the three-year probationary period, the employment can still be terminated without cause, so long as the written notice is served within the probationary period."

On March 2, 2001, Jefferson State Community College furnished House written notification that his employment would terminate on March 17, 2001. House was given no reason for the termination of his employment and was not afforded the opportunity for a hearing under the Revised Hearing Procedure set forth in policy number 619.01.

Jeff State's summary-judgment motion was based on its contention that House, as a probationary employee, had no right to a hearing on his termination and that his employment could be terminated for any reason, without cause. House was, according to Jeff State, properly terminated when he was given the 15-day written notice of termination. In response to Jeff State's summary-judgment motion, House argued, in pertinent part, that his termination had violated the rights given him under section 3.14 of policy number 619.01. Specifically, he argued that, according to section 3.14, he was "entitled to be given cause and the opportunity for a hearing," because he was "a probationary employee under contract [who was] terminated within the period of [the] contract."

Section 3.14 unambiguously provides that "[i]f a probationary employee under contract is terminated within the period of a contract, the employee is entitled to be given cause and the opportunity for a hearing" (emphasis added). However, the trial court concluded that House was employed, not under a contract for a specific period, but, instead, under "an open-ended letter of appointment." Thus, citing Chancellor Gainous's interpretation of section 3.13 in memorandum number 95-LGL-119, the trial court concluded "that any college employee who is under an open-ended letter of appointment [can] be notified that employment would be...