Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 2110392.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2013
• Docket Number: 2110392.
• Citation: 140 So.3d 469
• Parties: HUNTSVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION v. Margaret JOHNSON. Margaret Johnson v. Huntsville City Board of Education.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

140 So.3d 469

HUNTSVILLE CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION

v.Margaret JOHNSON.

Margaret Johnson

v.Huntsville City Board of Education.

2110392.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 2013.

Edward E. Wilson, Jr., of Lanier Ford Shaver & Payne P.C., Hunstville, for appellant/cross-appellee Huntsville City Board of Education.

Robert C. Lockwood and Christopher S. Lockwood of Wilmer & Lee, P.A., Huntsville; and Sabrina L. Comer of Comer & Gundlach, PLLC, Montgomery, for appellee/cross-appellant Margaret Johnson.

PITTMAN, Judge.

The Huntsville City Board of Education (“the Board”) appeals from a hearing officer's decision reversing the Board's approval of the termination of the employment of Margaret Johnson; Johnson cross-appealed, asserting that the hearing officer erred in determining that the Board's notice of termination was sufficient.

Procedural History

On April 25, 2011, Dr. Ann Roy Moore, who was at that time the superintendent of the Board, sent a notice to Johnson and the Board of her intent to recommend the termination of Johnson's employment; that notice stated the following reason for the proposed termination of Johnson's employment:

“1. Due to financial circumstances, the Board must reduce the number of its employees. To accomplish this, the Board has adopted a Reduction in Force Plan. The selection of the employees to be terminated is based upon the job classifications affected by the Reduction in Force Plan and years of service within the Huntsville School System (those with fewer years of service in each specifically identified area to be terminated before those with greater seniority).”

The Board upheld Dr. Moore's recommendation to terminate Johnson's employment at a special session on May 17, 2011, and Dr. Moore sent a letter notifying Johnson of the Board's decision and of her right to contest the Board's decision within 15 days. Johnson timely initiated a contest of the termination in a letter to the Board and Dr. Moore, and a hearing was subsequently held on the matter before a hearing officer.

On January 4, 2012, the hearing officer rendered a decision containing findings of fact and conclusions of law; the decision stated, in pertinent part:

“To support the proposed adverse action, the Board must[ ] show its actions were rational, reasonable, relevant to its task, and logical. In less ephemeral and more concrete terms, the Board must provide sufficient proof that it was suffering a severe financial hardship, that the actions taken were in response to that hardship, and that it is reasonably likely that the actions will improve the financial condition of the Board.

“The Hearing Officer will assume—without deciding—that the Board is suffering a substantial financial hardship. The Board has presented sufficient evidence, including its budgetary shortfall and a comparison of rates of support to certified staff in similar school systems to at least presume a financial hardship for purposes of this award. This, however, is merely a necessary precondition and not, in and of itself, sufficient to provide just cause or establish a justifiable decrease in positions. The Board also has the burden of proving by sufficient evidence that the action taken in response to this hardship is a necessary and reasonable step designed to directly improve the fiscal position of the institutions. Here, the Board failed to carry its burden.

“... Merely eliminating [Johnson's] position, without reducing or eliminating the duties or the cost of performing those duties may reduce the amount of salary in one line item of the Board's budget, but it does not provide any real savings to the Board. The proposed termination may not be supported by shifting amounts in line items in a budget; instead, it must meaningfully address the financial troubles and provide direct and measurable relief from those troubles.”

The hearing officer concluded that the Board had failed to present evidence indicating that terminating Johnson's employment would “have significant fiscal benefit to the Board,” found that no action should be taken against Johnson, and sustained Johnson's objection to the Board's proposed termination of her employment.

The Board timely appealed to this court, and Johnson timely cross-appealed. This court entered orders requiring the parties to file letter briefs setting forth “special and important reasons” for accepting the appeal and the cross-appeal, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, former § 36–26–104(b), a part of the former Fair Dismissal Act (“the former FDA”), Ala.Code 1975, § 36–26–100 et seq.¹ The parties complied, and this court accepted both the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Facts

Dr. Craig Pouncey, the Deputy Superintendent for Finance and Administration for the State Board of Education, testified that one of his duties was to make sure that the Board complied with the State's financial requirements for school districts in Alabama.² Among other things, the School Fiscal Accountability Act (“the SFAA”), Ala.Code 1975, § 16–13A–1 et seq., requires the Board to “maintain a minimum reserve fund equal to one month's operating expenses.” Ala.Code 1975, § 16–13A–9(a). According to Dr. Pouncey, during the 2009 fiscal year, the Board had a negative balance of $20 million; thus, because the Board was also required to achieve a $16 million fund balance for one month's operating expenses, the Board had a deficit of approximately $36 million. Dr. Pouncey testified that, to address that deficit, he had suggested, among other things, changing some bus routes, decreasing the number of vehicles maintained by the Board, tying salaries to the minimum amount received from the State, adopting a salary freeze for classified or support employees, and reducing staff. He testified that, if the Board had not adopted those recommendations to address the deficit, the State Board of Education would have intervened and taken over control of the school system.

Belinda Williams, the director of the Board's human-resources department, testified that, at a February 10, 2011, meeting, the Board approved an initial reduction-in-force (“RIF”) plan that listed 29 job classifications to be terminated, which classifications included 137 employees.

Dr. Ed Richardson, who was hired by the Board in February 2011, after the approval of the initial RIF plan, to serve as a consultant to the superintendent, testified that the Board had had no choice but to reduce personnel.³ He stated that he, like Pouncey, first looked at reducing expenses in areas that would not affect employees, including selling vehicles, outsourcing the Board's fleet management, changing bus routes, and changing salaries so that new employees would be employed according to the State's minimum-salary schedule. He testified, however, that, at the time he made his presentation to the Board regarding personnel cuts, he did not know to what extent the Board had followed through on the recommendations as to transportation and that he also had been unable to estimate the amount of revenue that would be generated from the sale of vehicles. Dr. Richardson stated that he presented the Board with a two-year plan pursuant to which it would make half of the budget cuts in the 2012 fiscal year and half in the 2013 fiscal year for a financial target of $40 million in savings. He testified that he had increased the targeted savings to $40 million based on concerns that the legislature would make changes effectively decreasing the amount the school system would receive for teachers and because he was not confident that the amount of the savings would turn out as predicted because the figures were constantly evolving.

According to Dr. Richardson, in making cuts, he attempted to maintain the integrity of the classroom. He stated that, in determining which positions to terminate, he spoke with supervisors or staff in various departments within the school system to determine the absolute minimum the departments could operate with and that, in some instances, he had had to cut more than the supervisors were willing to give up. Dr. Richardson and Williams both testified that, once Dr. Richardson had identified positions to be terminated, he had consulted with Williams to determine, based on seniority and a supplemental RIF plan, which employees within a specific job classification would be terminated.

Dr. Richardson testified that the initial RIF plan, which he had not participated in developing, had terminated probationary support employees, or those who had been employed by the school system for less than three years. According to Dr. Richardson, in the supplemental RIF plan, which was passed by the Board at a meeting on April 21, 2011, the Board terminated 4.5 nontenured certified administrators, or assistant principals, 154 nontenured certified teachers, and 45 additional probationary support employees. He testified that adopting his proposed recommendations would save the Board $23 million each year of the two-year plan.

Williams testified that Johnson was the only printer employed by the Board; her position was listed in the supplemental RIF. Wendy Salandy, the print-shop foreperson, testified that she supervised Johnson, who printed books, cards, and forms for the school system, and that it would be difficult to continue operating the print shop without Johnson. Salandy stated that, in busy months, she needed three people, including herself and Johnson, working in the print shop and that, if Johnson's employment was terminated, she would be the only worker remaining in the print shop. She stated that she did not agree with the recommendation to terminate Johnson's employment. Marc Seldon, the materials coordinator for the Board, testified that he supervised the print shop, among other areas. Seldon testified that he had communicated with Dr. Richardson before the supplemental RIF had been implemented and that he and Dr. Richardson had discussed that, if...