Rigby v. Auburn University

Decision Date23 March 1984
Citation448 So.2d 345
Parties17 Ed. Law Rep. 301 Donald R. RIGBY v. AUBURN UNIVERSITY, et al. 83-26.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Jim L. DeBardelaben, Montgomery, for appellant.

Thomas D. Samford, III and Robert C. Black, Opelika, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court was correct in dismissing plaintiff's complaint against all the named defendants based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

The plaintiff filed his complaint against Auburn University; Hanley Funderburk, as President of Auburn University; James O. Williams, as Chancellor of Auburn University at Montgomery; Fob James, as ex officio President of the Board of Trustees of Auburn University; Dr. Wayne Teague, as ex officio member of the Board of Trustees of Auburn University; R.C. Bamberg, as Vice-president of the Board of Trustees of Auburn University; and Robert H. Harris, Charles M. Smith, III, John Pace, III, Henry Steagall, John Denson, Frank P. Samford, Jr., William Nichols, Michael McCartney, and Morris Savage, as members of the Board of Trustees of Auburn University.

Plaintiff alleged that he was hired on December 7, 1981, by Auburn University as a police officer at the Auburn University at Montgomery (AUM) campus for an annual salary of $10,500. The authority for Auburn to hire security personnel is found in Code 1975, § 16-48-12. Plaintiff further alleged that the 1974 University Personnel Manual stated that the university policy was to maintain salary schedules for all classifications that would assure uniform treatment of comparable positions, and that under this manual by these schedules plaintiff should have been hired for $11,200. Finally, plaintiff alleged that because he was paid less than authorized by the university compensation plan for his job classification, this constituted fraud, a breach of a confidential relationship, and willful breach of an employment contract.

As a consequence, the plaintiff sought money damages, and an order compelling Auburn to pay him a salary in conformity with the compensation plan. Plaintiff, in his first amendment to the complaint, alleged that the salary for his job classification, as established by the compensation plan, was approximately $11,200, and that the university's agents were guilty of fraud and bad faith and acted beyond their authority when they established his annual salary below the salary set by the university compensation plan. Plaintiff, in his second amendment, added Hanley Funderburk, individually and as President of Auburn University, and James O. Williams, individually and as chancellor of AUM, and substituted Robert T. Phillips and Linda Shonesy, both individually and as agents, servants, or employees of Auburn University, for the fictitious parties named in the original complaint.

Plaintiff originally sought an injunction to compel Auburn University to pay him a salary that conformed with the university compensation plan for his job classification and to compel the university to conform with an overtime plan contained in a 1973 personnel manual, as well as compensatory damages of $100,000. In his amended complaint, he requested a writ of mandamus to compel defendants to pay him a salary as specified in the university compensation plan for his job classification.

The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and this appeal ensued.

The trial court ruled that the state's constitutional immunity, as set forth in Ala. Const., art. 1, § 14, shielded the defendants from suit in this instance. See Carter v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, 431 So.2d 529 (Ala.1983); Bell v. Chisom, 421 So.2d 1239 (Ala.1982); First State Bank of Altoona v. Bass, 406 So.2d 896 (Ala.1981); Moody v. University of Alabama, 405 So.2d 714 (Ala.1981); Carter v. Forester, 395 So.2d 65 (Ala.1981), as cited by the trial court in its order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.

Appellant argues that the doctrine of sovereign immunity should not be applicable in this instance because Auburn University is a public corporation which, as an entity separate and distinct from the state, can issue bonds to which the state's credit is not pledged. See Code 1975, §§ 16-48-1 through 16-48-12; see also Opinion of the Justices, 294 Ala. 571, 319 So.2d 699 (1975). Appellant further contends that because Auburn University receives funds from sources other than the State of Alabama, a contract or property right of the state is not affected.

In the early case of Cox v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, 161 Ala. 639, 49 So. 814 (1909), the Court stated:

"... It therefore clearly appears that the University of Alabama, by whatever corporate name or under the control of whatever agents it may be, is a part of the state; that it was founded by the state; that it is under the state control, and that the University is therefore a public municipal corporation....

" * * * *

"The cases above referred to settle the law in this state that public institutions created by the state purely for charitable or educational purposes are a part of the state, or a mere agency of the state; that the property of such corporations is really and in fact the property of the state, and that they are not subject to suit under section 14 of the Constitution of 1901, which prohibits the state from being made a party defendant in any court of law or equity, although the charters and acts of the Legislature incorporating such institutions expressly provide that they may sue and be sued as an individual...."

161 Ala. at 648-649, 49 So. at 817.

In a more recent case, the Court, quoting from an earlier case, emphasized:

"The power of the State to create a body corporate as its agent to carry on certain special kinds of work for its benefit or for the public interest cannot be doubted. And where this power is exercised, the institution thus established is in every sense a State...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Cranman v Maxwell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 24 Noviembre 1999
    ...interpretation of the law. See Wright v. Wynn, 682 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1996); Barnes v. Dale, 530 So.2d 770 (Ala. 1988); Rigby v. Auburn Univ., 448 So. 2d 345 (Ala. 1984); DeStafney, 413 So. 2d at 395; Unzicker v. State, 346 So. 2d 931 (Ala. 13. In Taylor v. Shoemaker, 605 So. 2d 828 (Ala. 1992)......
  • El-Bey v. Menefee
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 27 Octubre 2014
    ...v. Wallace Cmty. Coll., 49 F.3d 1517, 1524 (11th Cir.1995); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163-64 (11th Cir. 1985); Rigby v. Auburn Univ., 448 So. 2d 345, 347 (Ala. 1984). Further, in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 117 (1997), the United States Supreme Court invalidated RFRA as a......
  • Price v. University of Alabama
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 23 Octubre 2003
    ...of occasions. See Massler v. Troy State Univ., 343 So.2d 1 (Ala.1977); Ellison v. Abbott, 337 So.2d 756 (Ala.1976); Rigby v. Auburn Univ., 448 So.2d 345 (Ala.1984); Harden v. Adams, 760 F.2d 1158, 1163 (11th Cir.1985). In addition, "... a suit against a state official in his or her official......
  • In re: Cranman v. Maxwell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 22 Noviembre 2000
    ...interpretation of the law. See Wright v. Wynn, 682 So. 2d 1 (Ala. 1996); Barnes v. Dale, 530 So. 2d 770 (Ala. 1988); Rigby v. Auburn Univ., 448 So. 2d 345 (Ala. 1984); DeStafney, 413 So. 2d at 395; Unzicker v. State, 346 So. 2d 931 (Ala. 14 0DeStafney refers to § 14 as a source of qualified......
  • 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