Sullivan v. Ala. Dep't of Human Res.
| Docket Number | 2210229 |
| Decision Date | 30 September 2022 |
| Parties | Letonya Sullivan v. Alabama Department of Human Resources |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Appeal from Montgomery Circuit Court (CV-21-900591)
Letonya Sullivan appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court ("the trial court") dismissing her appeal from an administrative order entered by an administrative law judge ("ALJ") for the Alabama Department of Human Resources ("the Alabama DHR") which affirmed a decision of the Autauga County Department of Human Resources ("the Autauga County DHR") to record an "indicated" finding for child abuse or neglect against Sullivan and to share that information with her employer and prospective future employers. See Ala Code 1975, § 26-14-8(d); Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-34-.09(5)(e).
Sullivan is a teacher employed by the Autauga County Board of Education. The Autauga County DHR investigated allegations that Sullivan had failed to supervise the children in her classroom such that some students were able to perform oral sex acts on each other. See Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-34-.05(4)(k) (discussing the process for a county department of human resources to investigate abuse or neglect reports involving schools but not involving corporal punishment or discipline). After the investigation, the Autauga County DHR concluded that the allegations against Sullivan were "indicated" for child abuse or neglect, and Sullivan was notified of that determination. See Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-34-.05(4)(k)5. Sullivan thereafter requested and received a hearing before the ALJ. See Ala. Code 1975, § 26-14-7.1; Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-5-34-.08(6)(b) ("The State Department of Human Resources shall conduct a hearing to determine by a preponderance of credible evidence that the child has been abused or neglected.").[1] On April 1, 2021, the ALJ issued a final order affirming the Autauga County DHR's determination. Sullivan received that order on April 7, 2021.
On June 3, 2021, Sullivan filed in the trial court a petition for judicial review of the April 2021 order, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20. See also Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-1-5-.15. According to the allegations in Sullivan's petition, she had filed her notice of appeal with the Alabama DHR on May 4, 2021. Attached to the petition as exhibits were a copy of the April 2021 order entered by the ALJ and a copy of a May 4, 2021, e-mail from one of Sullivan's attorneys to Serena Cronier, who was a member of the Montgomery Regional Legal Office of the Alabama DHR and was acting counsel for the Autauga County DHR in the underlying administrative proceedings against Sullivan. The e-mail to Cronier stated: "Please see the attached Notice of Appeal on behalf of ... Sullivan." Attached to that e-mail was a copy of a May 4, 2021, notice of appeal from Sullivan's attorney to the Alabama DHR, "c/o Hon. Serena Cronier," addressed to "P.O. Box 34000, Montgomery, AL 36130." The notice of appeal indicated that it was sent by both e-mail and United States Postal Service ("USPS") overnight delivery. Also attached to the petition as exhibits were a copy of a USPS priority-mail label addressed to "Serena Cronier, Esq., Alabama Department of Human Resources, P.O. Box 34000, Montgomery, AL 36130-0001," and copies of USPS receipt information indicating that the notice of appeal had been sent by priority mail and that delivery of the notice of appeal had occurred on May 6, 2021, at 6:43 a.m. but that "no delivery signature [was] on file for this item." We note that Sullivan's attorney had requested "signature service," and the mail label stated that a signature was required.
On July 7, 2021, the Alabama DHR filed in the trial court a motion to dismiss Sullivan's petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.[2] Specifically, the Alabama DHR alleged that Sullivan had failed to timely file her notice of appeal with the Alabama DHR as required by Ala. Code 1975, § 41-22-20(d), and, thus, it asserted, she had failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. See also Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Hum. Res.), r. 660-1-5-.15. The Alabama DHR alleged that the post-office box used for purportedly filing the notice of appeal was "not associated with" the Alabama DHR, that the zip code used was incorrect for mail to be delivered to the Alabama DHR, and that sending the e-mail to Cronier could not serve as the filing of a notice of appeal under pertinent precedent.[3] See L.C. v. Shelby Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 293 So.3d 912, 915 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019).
Accordingly, the Alabama DHR argued, it had not timely received the notice of appeal and the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider the petition.
Attached to the Alabama DHR's motion to dismiss was a supporting affidavit from Kelly Lever, the director of personnel for the Alabama DHR. Lever averred that she had reviewed the documents attached to Sullivan's petition, that "Post Office Box 34000, Montgomery, Alabama is not an address associated with the [Alabama DHR]," and that Attached to Lever's affidavit were most of the documents that Sullivan had attached to her petition. The Alabama DHR subsequently supplemented its supporting documents with an affidavit from Cronier. Cronier averred that she was an assistant attorney general for "the Montgomery Legal Office of the Department of Human Resources"; that she had "never received by certified mail a copy of any notice of appeal or petition for judicial review"; and that she was "not in any way associated with Post Office Box 34000, Montgomery, Alabama, nor have I ever received mail at that address."
Sullivan filed a response to the Alabama DHR's motion to dismiss. Sullivan argued that her e-mail to Cronier had satisfied the filing requirement for a notice of appeal and that, unlike the appellant in L.C., she had served Cronier with the notice of appeal by mail, although she admitted that a typographical error had occurred as to the proper post-office box. Specifically, Sullivan admitted that the proper post-office box for the Alabama DHR was P.O. Box 304000 instead of P.O. Box 34000. We note that the former post-office box was used by the Alabama DHR's legal office in various filings in the trial court in this case.
The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion to dismiss on July 29, 2021, after which it ordered the parties to file briefs regarding the issues raised in the Alabama DHR's motion to dismiss and certain issues discussed during the hearing. On July 30, 2021, in response to an order from the trial court, the Alabama DHR filed a revised affidavit from Cronier. Cronier averred that she was "[a]n Assistant Attorney General for the Montgomery Legal Office of the Department of Human Resources"; that she had "never received any notice of appeal in the mail in this matter"; and that she was "not in any way associated with Post Office Box 34000, Montgomery, Alabama, nor ha[d she] ever received mail at that address."
On August 23, 2021, Sullivan filed an amended petition for judicial review and her posthearing brief. In her amended petition, Sullivan reasserted the allegations in her original petition and further alleged that the Alabama DHR had received her notice of appeal on May 7, 2021, based on a delivery receipt executed by Fredreke Riley, who she alleged was an agent working for the State Department of Finance. The State Department of Finance includes within its divisions the Central Mail Office for the departments and agencies of the State ("the central mail office"). See Ala. Code 1975, § 41-4-180. Section 41-4-180 states:
See also Ala. Admin. Code (Dep't of Fin.), r. 355-1-1-.01(7). Sullivan attached to her amended petition the same exhibits that she had included with her original petition, but Sullivan also added documents purporting to support her allegations as to Riley, including a USPS tracking report for her notice of appeal. Those documents reflected that Riley was employed by the State Department of Finance and that, on May 7, 2021, he had executed a delivery receipt in the for the package containing the notice of appeal.
In Sullivan's posthearing brief, she argued that, despite the erroneous address that she had used on the notice of appeal, she had nevertheless demonstrated that the Alabama DHR had timely received the notice of appeal based on the mail receipt executed by Riley as part of the operations of the central mail office. Sullivan attached to her posthearing brief a copy of each of the Riley-related documents that she had attached to her amended petition. Sullivan contended that she had satisfied the filing requirements of § 41-22-20 and that, in addition, to the extent that the service-of-process provisions of Rule 4(i)(2)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., might be deemed pertinent to filings under § 41-22-20, Riley was an agent with authority to receive mail addressed to the Alabama DHR. Sullivan conceded that electronic filing of a notice of appeal had not been available to her.
On September 7, 2021, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial