Southall v. Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parteWilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.), 1170621
Decision Date | 21 December 2018 |
Docket Number | 1170621 |
Citation | 279 So.3d 1135 |
Parties | EX PARTE WILCOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Tyrone Yarbrough, individually and in his official capacity as superintendent of the Wilcox County Board of Education, and Bernard Martin and Lester Turk, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Wilcox County Board of Education (In re: Reginald Southall v. Wilcox County Board of Education, Tyrone Yarbrough, individually and in his official capacity as superintendent of the Wilcox County Board of Education, and Bernard Martin and Lester Turk, individually and in their official capacities as members of the Wilcox County Board of Education |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Dana B. Hill of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, P.C., Birmingham, for petitioners.
Monica Leonette Arrington, Montgomery; and William Maurice Pompey, Camden, for respondent.
The Wilcox County Board of Education ("the Board"); Tyrone Yarbrough, individually and in his official capacity as the superintendent of the Board;1 and members of the Board Bernard Martin and Lester Turk, individually and in their official capacities, petition for a writ of mandamus directed to the Wilcox Circuit Court. The petitioners seek an order compelling the circuit court to vacate its order denying their motion to dismiss and to enter an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against them. We grant the petition and issue the writ.
Reginald Southall was a teacher at Wilcox Central High School. During a meeting of the Board in April 2013, then Superintendent Yarbrough recommended the nonrenewal of Southall's probationary contract. Five Board members were present during the vote. Upon a motion to accept Yarbrough's recommendation, three Board members voted in favor of not renewing the contract, one member opposed the recommendation, and one member abstained. Board members Joseph Pettway, Jr., Martin, and Turk voted in favor of Yarbrough's recommendation for the nonrenewal of the probationary contract. Clifford Twilley voted against the recommendation, and Donald McLeod abstained.
Normally, the Board consists of six members. One seat on the Board, however, was vacant at the time of the April 2013 meeting, due to an order of the circuit court enjoining the Board from filling the vacant seat.2 Thus, the Board conducted business with only five members during the April 2013 meeting.
On December 3, 2014, Southall filed a petition in the circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus, in which he asserted that, because of the vacancy on the Board, the termination of his employment was the result of an illegal vote of the Board in violation of § 16-8-4, Ala. Code 1975. On January 12, 2015, the Board, Yarbrough, Martin, and Turk (hereinafter referred to collectively as "the petitioners") filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., asserting that Southall failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because, they argued, the Board's vote to accept the recommendation not to renew Southall's probationary contract complied with the law. The petitioners also moved to dismiss on the basis of Rule 12(b)(1), Ala. R. Civ. P., asserting that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because, they asserted, they are immune from liability. Three years passed before the circuit court considered the motion. After conducting a status conference on February 22, 2018, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss without explanation, either of the delay in ruling or of the reasoning for the ruling. On April 5, 2018, the petitioners filed this petition for a writ of mandamus.
Ex parte Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., 78 So.3d 959, 965-66 (Ala. 2011). Among those exceptions is when the petitioner challenges the subject-matter jurisdiction of the trial court, Ex parte HealthSouth Corp., 974 So.2d 288, 292 (Ala. 2007), or when the petitioner asserts immunity. Ex parte Alabama Peace Officers' Standards & Training Comm'n, 34 So.3d 1248 (Ala. 2009).
The Board contends that the circuit court should have granted the motion to dismiss as to Southall's claims against it seeking monetary damages, on the ground of sovereign immunity. Yarbrough, Martin, and Turk contend that dismissal is also warranted on those claims seeking monetary damages against them in their official capacities, on the ground of sovereign immunity. We agree.
It is well settled law that the State is generally immune from liability under § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901. It is also well settled that the State cannot be sued indirectly by suing an officer in his or her official capacity.
Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 937 So.2d 1018, 1022-23 (Ala. 2006).
County boards of education, along with the members of the those boards and superintendents sued in their official or representative capacity, enjoy the protection of immunity provided by § 14 when the action against them is effectively an action against the State. See Ex parte Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Educ., 88 So.3d 837 (Ala. 2012) ( ); Ex parte Monroe Cty. Bd. of Educ., 48 So.3d 621 (Ala. 2010) ( ); and Board of Sch. Comm'rs of Mobile Cty. v. Weaver, 99 So.3d 1210 (Ala. 2012) ( ). Therefore, the Board is absolutely immune from suit, as it is considered an agency of the State. In addition, to the extent Southall seeks monetary damages against the individual petitioners in their official capacities, they are also immune from suit.
Section 14 immunity, however, is not always absolute; there are actions against State officials that are not barred by the general rule of sovereign immunity.
Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Fin., 991 So.2d 1254, 1256–57 (Ala. 2008). In Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.3d 1119 (Ala. 2013), this Court clarified and restated the sixth exception to § 14 immunity set forth in Drummond Co. v. Alabama Department of Transportation, 937 So.2d 56, 58 (Ala. 2006), by holding that the exception applies only to the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ohio Valley Conference v. Jones
...see Wilcox II; today's main opinion, or (b) conflating the motion-to-dismiss procedure with the summary-judgment procedure, see Gilland; Wilcox I. For reasons I have explained, each of those decisions is incorrect and should be overruled. Here, the defendants failed to show that the complai......
-
Foy v. Pettway
...County Bd. of Education, 279 So.3d 1135, 1140 (Ala. 2018). This doctrine is broad, but it serves to protect the State, not the individual. Id. Therefore, although the doctrine applies to sheriffs their deputies, Ex parte Haralson, 853 So.2d 928, 932 (Ala. 2003), it only protects them as ind......
-
Stevens v. Wilson (Ex parte Wilson)
...be, in effect, one against the State. Phillips v. Thomas, 555 So.2d 81, 83 (Ala. 1989).’" 116 So.3d at 1141." Ex parte Wilcox Cty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So.3d 1135, 1140-42 (Ala. 2018)." ‘ "It is settled beyond cavil that State officials cannot be sued for damages in their official capacities. ......
-
Ala. Lockers, LLC v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. (Ex parte Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.)
...decision was released. See, e.g., Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 285 So. 3d 765, 774-75 (Ala. 2019) ; Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d 1135, 1140-41 (Ala. 2018) ; Ex parte Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 270 So. 3d 1171, 1173 (Ala. 2018) ; Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ......