Sanders v. Broadwater

• Decision Date: 12 August 1981
• Citation: 402 So.2d 1035
• Parties: Clarence H. SANDERS v. Joe B. BROADWATER, Administrator of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage ControlBoard. Civ. 2724.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

Page 1035

402 So.2d 1035

Clarence H. SANDERS v. Joe B. BROADWATER, Administrator of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage ControlBoard.

Civ. 2724.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 12, 1981.

Jack W. Smith of Smith & Smith, Dothan, for appellant.

Byrd R. Latham of Patton, Latham, Legge & Cole, Athens, for appellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Clarence Sanders was dismissed from his employment as store clerk with the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC). He appealed to the State Personnel Board (Board), which affirmed the dismissal. He then filed petition for writ of certiorari in the Montgomery County Circuit Court. He appeals from the circuit court's order affirming dismissal.

Section 36-26-27, Code 1975, authorizes an appointing authority here the Administrator of the ABC to dismiss an employee whenever he considers the good of the service will be served thereby, for reasons stated in writing and served on the employee. Sanders was notified of his dismissal by letter from the Administrator citing unsatisfactory attendance, unsatisfactory performance of duties and a bad attitude toward his supervisor as reasons for dismissal. An incident, wherein Sanders allegedly swore at his supervisor and called him a "dog," was related in the letter. The dismissal was upheld by the Board and the circuit court. On appeal Sanders claims dismissal was not supported by the evidence and that the letter was insufficient to apprise him of the reasons for his dismissal.

On petition for writ of certiorari the circuit court was, as is this court, limited in its review of quasi judicial acts of administrative officers and boards, such as the State Personnel Board. Baker v. Denniston-Boykin Co., 245 Ala. 407, 17 So.2d 148 (1944); Phelps v. Public Service Commission, 46 Ala.App. 13, 237 So.2d 499 (1970). The limited function of that review is to determine whether the act in question (dismissal) was supported by any substantial evidence, or whether the findings and conclusions are contrary to the uncontradicted evidence, or whether there was an improper application of the findings viewed in a legal sense. Banker, supra ; Phelps, supra. Stated differently for purposes of the instant case, if we find the actions of the ABC and the Board, in dismissing Sanders, supported by any evidence, we must affirm. The evidence reveals the following:

Sanders was hired in March 1978. Problems with absences began almost immediately. He was absent a total of some thirty days in his first three months of employment and on May 30, 1978, was notified of dismissal by letter. For some reason, he was later told to disregard the first notice of dismissal, was retained with probation extended and subsequently given a "satisfactory" rating by the Board. Upon transfer to another store, he failed to report for work unexplainedly for one week. The unusual number of absences continued and, as the testimony of Sanders' own witness indicates, problems with efficiency at the store resulted. The evidence was that Sanders' many absences placed an increased burden of work upon the store's other employees, some of whom had to assume his duties though not...