Screws v. Ballard
| Decision Date | 12 September 1990 |
| Citation | 574 So.2d 827 |
| Parties | John SCREWS v. Halycon Vance BALLARD, et al. Civ. 7497. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
James Allen Main of Haskell, Slaughter & Young, and Frank Caskey, Montgomery, for appellant.
William F. Gardner, William K. Thomas and David B. Walston of Cabaniss, Johnston, Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal, Birmingham, for appellees Halycon Vance Ballard, State Personnel Director and the Alabama State Personnel Bd.
Charles M. Crook and W. Joseph McCorkle, Jr., of Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, for appellees Dr. Earl Fox, Dr. Robert Henderson, the Board of Public Health for the State of Ala., and the Calhoun County Bd. of Health.
This action is an appeal pursuant to the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22-21 (act). The position of administrator of the Calhoun County Health Department, held by John Screws, was abolished in June 1987, allegedly due to a shortage of funds. Screws appealed his layoff in accordance with the procedures of the State Personnel Board (board). See Waggoner v. Whatley, 282 Ala. 84, 209 So.2d 370 (1968). After a hearing was held to determine if Screws's layoff was in "good faith," the hearing officer submitted his findings and recommendations to the state personnel director (director). The hearing officer found that there was a preponderance of evidence that budget deficits existed and that the abolition of Screws's position was done in good faith.
After the administrative hearing, the director adopted the findings and conclusions of the hearing officer and sustained the actions of the Calhoun County health officer. Screws then appealed to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, which upheld the decision of the director. Screws now appeals to this court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 41-22-21.
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the decision of the board is arbitrary or capricious.
The board's and/or director's standard of review in cases involving layoffs is set out in Waggoner v. Whatley, supra. There, our supreme court held that the State Personnel Board and/or the state director of personnel should review the acts of the appointing authorities when such authorities remove someone from their position with the state. This is to ensure that bad faith is not present. However, the supreme court found that a presumption of good faith attaches to the layoffs and that such presumption continues pending a review by the board.
Further, we point out that this court's, as well as the circuit court's, review of the agency's action is very limited. The act requires that an agency's decision be taken as prima facie just and reasonable. In other words, the reviewing court must give the agency's decision a presumption of correctness. It may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. The agency's decision is to be upheld unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Benton v. Alabama Board of Medical Examiners, 467 So.2d 234 (Ala.1985).
Here, the director determined that Screws's layoff was not the result of any bad faith. Rather, the director found that the layoff was because of financial reasons in that there was a budget deficit. Therefore, the question before this court is whether such decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.
The facts, in pertinent part, reveal the following: John Screws, a Calhoun County department employee, was the administrator of the Calhoun County Health Department. By letter dated June 12, 1987, Screws was notified that his position as administrator would be abolished as of June 26, 1987. The letter stated that the layoff was required because of a fiscal shortfall only and that the action in no way reflected upon him personally. Screws then appealed this decision to the board, contending that the layoff was not done in good faith and that the position should be reinstated.
At the administrative hearing, extensive testimony and numerous exhibits were presented. We have reviewed the record of the proceeding, as well as the excellent briefs of the parties, and find ample...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ex parte Williamson
...the rules of evidence, it does not relax the rules to the point of allowing `DOUBLE HEARSAY' TO BE CONSIDERED. See Screws v. Ballard, 574 So.2d 827, 829 (Ala.Civ.App. 1990). The Act provides that in contested cases: `the rules of evidence [as] applied in nonjury civil cases in the circuit c......
-
Ex Parte Williamson, No. 1030406 (AL 1/14/2005)
...the rules of evidence, it does not relax the rules to the point of allowing `DOUBLE HEARSAY' TO BE CONSIDERED. See Screws v. Ballard, 574 So. 2d 827, 829 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). The Act provides that in contested cases: `the rules of evidence [as] applied in nonjury civil cases in the circui......
-
Perry v. State Personnel Bd.
...Appellant's assertion that SPB and the DOC's actions in this matter were `unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious[,]' Screws v. Ballard, 574 So.2d 827 (Ala.Civ.App.1990). Under this standard of review, Appellant believes the Circuit Court order upholding SPB's action should be overturned for ......
-
Colbert Cnty. Nw. Ala. Health Care Auth. v. Regionalcare Hosp. Partners, Inc.
...proceedings, “the [AAPA] does relax the rules of evidence in some degree in administrative proceedings....” Screws v. Ballard, 574 So.2d 827, 829 (Ala.Civ.App.1990).Effective November 28, 2011, our supreme court amended Rule 702. That amendment was made following the enactment by the Alabam......