Alvin Reed, director of the Perry County Department of Human Resources v.Christine White

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/09/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e Reporter o f Decisions, Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100444 A l v i n Reed, d i r e c t o r o f the Perry County Department o f Human Resources v. C h r i s t i n e White Appeal from Perry C i r c u i t (CV-05-35) Court MOORE, J u d g e . A l v i n Reed, a s d i r e c t o r o f t h e P e r r y C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f Human R e s o u r c e s ("DHR"), a p p e a l s from a judgment o f t h e P e r r y C i r c u i t C o u r t ( " t h e t r i a l c o u r t " ) i s s u i n g a common-law w r i t o f 2100444 certiorari requiring C h r i s t i n e White appeal with Reed to reinstate the ("White") w i t h f u l l b a c k p a y . employment We of d i s m i s s the instructions. Background As of March 2005, DHR f i n a n c i a l - s u p p o r t worker. employed On M a r c h Christine 16, 2005, Reed a l e t t e r t o W h i t e n o t i f y i n g h e r t h a t she was mandatory White as a delivered b e i n g p l a c e d on l e a v e p e n d i n g an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g and t h a t she w o u l d be p a i d f r o m h e r a n n u a l l e a v e b a l a n c e . See A l a . A d m i n . Code ( P e r s o n n e l B o a r d ) , R u l e 6 7 0 - X - 1 5 - . 0 6 ( 1 ) ( a u t h o r i z i n g s u c h p e r s o n n e l a c t i o n s by state agencies). Although that letter d i d n o t n o t i f y W h i t e o f t h e r e a s o n s f o r DHR's a c t i o n , two later, on M a r c h stating, 18, 2005, Reed s e n t a s e c o n d l e t t e r i n pertinent t o White part: "The p u r p o s e o f t h e h e a r i n g i s t o h e a r c h a r g e s c o n c e r n i n g your f r a u d u l e n t c l a i m i n g of a c l i e n t ' s child on y o u r f e d e r a l income t a x r e t u r n while employed with [DHR] as a Financial Support Caseworker. T h i s a c t i o n i s taken i n accordance w i t h the R u l e s of the S t a t e P e r s o n n e l Board, Employee Work R u l e s ; R u l e 6 7 0 - X - 1 9 - . 0 1 ( 1 ) ( J ) P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n unauthorized activity; 670-X-19-.01(3) Other S u f f i c i e n t Reasons. You e n t e r e d i n t o an u n e t h i c a l , i m p r o p e r r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a c l i e n t who receives services from our agency that resulted in a fraudulent act. 2 days 2100444 "On M a r c h 3, 2 0 0 [ 5 ] , i t was r e p o r t e d t o me t h a t you had c l a i m e d a c l i e n t ' s c h i l d on y o u r f e d e r a l income tax return. The c l i e n t had s h a r e d t h e i n f o r m a t i o n w i t h the r e p o r t e r . On M a r c h 7, 2 0 0 [ 5 ] , I met w i t h t h e c l i e n t a t h e r home and she s u b s t a n t i a t e d t h e r e p o r t t h a t I had r e c e i v e d , a d m i t t i n g t o me t h a t she had e n t e r e d i n t o an a g r e e m e n t w i t h you i n w h i c h you w o u l d c l a i m h e r c h i l d on y o u r F e d e r a l Income Tax r e t u r n f o r payment." On April hearing 12, 2005, along w i t h her questions regarding child a as White attended counsel. whether dependent on the White r e f u s e d she had her claimed federal t o answer someone income-tax a s s e r t i n g h e r F i f t h Amendment r i g h t a g a i n s t to those administrative any else's return, self-incrimination questions. The day a f t e r the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g , White received a t h i r d l e t t e r f r o m Reed. I n t h a t t h i r d l e t t e r , Reed i n f o r m e d White officer that the hearing evidence presented at White's employment; employment was a hearing Rather Board, on petitioning the hearing Reed also terminated before the than 21, the and State seek April had trial a warranted notified t h a t she had Personnel hearing 2005, determined court for 3 White that a right to the State initiated a the termination B o a r d w i t h i n 10 before White that this common-law of her request days. Personnel action, writ of 2100444 certiorari her compelling petition, Reed t o White alleged r e q u e s t e d w r i t b e c a u s e , she 28, had been process, applied in said, such a she was entitled (1) A l a . Code 1975, manner o f f i c e r and t h e h e a r i n g contrary to terminate her abuse discretion, of the DHR had undisputed employment employment was On that as to the § 36-26¬ deny h e r (4) (3) clearly was arbitrary, failed facts, erroneous the the decision capricious, due to a p p e a l the Board exhaust her 1975, § that she and that, administrative 41-22-20(a). had of been a as a t o c o r r e c t i o n by her result, without to timely pay by A l a . and alleged a common-law w r i t o f State failed motion, unconstitutional 4 had required opposed t h a t She failed she and petition. employment t o t h e r e m e d i e s as hearing. was an faith, White's t h a t W h i t e had suspended s u s p e n s i o n w i t h o u t pay was proof. White prior to terminate i n bad d e c i s i o n to t e r m i n a t e her Personnel and i t s burden of to carry act decision and I n h i s m o t i o n , Reed a s s e r t e d subject to In o f f i c e r ' s f i n d i n g s were June 1, 2005, Reed moved t o d i s m i s s benefit employment. (2) no e v i d e n c e had b e e n p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e of the h e a r i n g (5) r e i n s t a t e her to Code asserting without that and was such an certiorari. the a act 2100444 On July 28, 2006, Reed moved summary j u d g m e n t i n h i s f a v o r . the t r i a l court for a Reed a s s e r t e d t h a t W h i t e h a d n o t b e e n s u s p e n d e d f r o m h e r p o s i t i o n w i t h DHR b u t , r a t h e r , h a d b e e n p l a c e d on m a n d a t o r y a n n u a l l e a v e w i t h p a y u n t i l A p r i l 12, 2005, when h e r employment h a d b e e n t e r m i n a t e d . On S e p t e m b e r 5, 2006, W h i t e o p p o s e d Reed's summary-judgment m o t i o n , again s t a t i n g t h a t h e r s u s p e n s i o n w i t h o u t pay and w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g supported the issuance of the requested w r i t . On May 9, 2007, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d Reed's m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s a n d h i s m o t i o n for a summary j u d g m e n t a n d s e t t h e m a t t e r After received, stated, a bench the t r i a l trial, at which court for trial. ore tenus entered a evidence judgment i n which i t i n pertinent part: "1. [White] w i t h o u t pay. was suspended on March 16, 2005, II "5. the The c o u r t c o n d u c t e d evidence. a trial and has c o n s i d e r e d "6. The C o u r t h a s h a d an o p p o r t u n i t y t o o b s e r v e l i s t e n to the witnesses. "7. The C o u r t does n o t a c c e p t t h e t e s t i m o n y [Reed's w i t n e s s ] as c r e d i b l e o r r e l i a b l e . "8. The C o u r t does n o t a c c e p t s u p p o r t i v e o f [Reed's] d e c i s i o n . 5 was the evidence and from as 2100444 "9. The e v i d e n c e i s n o t o f t h e c h a r a c t e r t o v a l i d a t e [Reed's] d e c i s i o n . and degree "THEREFORE, IT I S ORDERED t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n b y [Reed] i s s e t a s i d e and v o i d e d and [White] i s r e i n s t a t e d w i t h pay." Reed, i n h i s c a p a c i t y as d i r e c t o r o f DHR, timely appealed. Analysis Reed argues that the t r i a l the p e t i t i o n court for a erred i n asserting jurisdiction over common-law writ of certiorari. Reed a r g u e s t h a t a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i may i s s u e o n l y when a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o c e r t i o r a r i r e v i e w o r t o an a p p e a l i s n o t a v a i l a b l e . 916 (Ala. 2010). 26-27, p r o v i d e s been that a state may terminated Personnel Board. Rule Reed p o i n t s appeal o u t t h a t A l a . Code 1975, § 36¬ e m p l o y e e whose employment has that decision to the See a l s o A l a . A d m i n . Code ( P e r s o n n e l 670-X-18-.01. appeal, See Ex p a r t e W o r l e y , 46 So. 3d Because White had a right Board), t o such a r i g h t w h i c h she i n d i s p u t a b l y d i d n o t p u r s u e , a s s e r t s t h a t White c o u l d not m a i n t a i n State an Reed a p e t i t i o n f o r a common- law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . We a g r e e . In Worley, supra, an e m p l o y e e o f t h e o f f i c e o f t h e s e c r e t a r y o f s t a t e r e s i g n e d h e r employment. later claimed That employee t h a t h e r r e s i g n a t i o n had been c o e r c e d and t h a t 6 2100444 she had been c o n s t r u c t i v e l y t e r m i n a t e d . to the State Personnel it lacked She f i l e d an a p p e a l Board, which u l t i m a t e l y concluded t h a t jurisdiction b e c a u s e t h e l a w does not provide a s t a t e employee a r i g h t t o a p p e a l from a v o l u n t a r y r e s i g n a t i o n . The employee Personnel t h e r e a f t e r appealed Board Montgomery the decision and s i m u l t a n e o u s l y filed of the State a petition i n the C i r c u i t C o u r t f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i seeking a j u d i c i a l review of her a l l e g e d l y unlawful d i s m i s s a l . 46 So. 3d a t 920. motion t o dismiss The Montgomery Circuit Court denied the p e t i t i o n , prompting the respondents t o f i l e a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus w i t h o u r supreme In granting that a petition, o u r supreme court court. stated, in pertinent part: " A l t h o u g h a p a r t y s e e k i n g r e v i e w o f a r u l i n g by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c y may p e t i t i o n t h e c o u r t f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , t h i s means o f r e v i e w i s a l l o w a b l e o n l y when no s t a t u t o r y r i g h t o f appeal or s t a t u t o r y c e r t i o r a r i review i s a v a i l a b l e . C o l l i n s v . A l a b a m a Dep't o f C o r r . , 982 So. 2d 1078, 1080 ( A l a . 2 0 0 7 ) . S e c t i o n 41-22-20, A l a . Code 1975, however, explicitly provides both a statutory vehicle f o r obtaining judicial review and a d e f i n i t i o n of the r e q u i r e d process. This s t a t u t o r y p r o c e s s , b y i t s e x i s t e n c e , f o r e c l o s e s r e v i e w b y way o f a p e t i t i o n f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i . " 46 So. 3d a t 921-22. invoking the appellate Finding mechanism 7 that t h e employee was n o t a v a i l a b l e t o h e r , b u t was 2100444 attempting judicial t o c i r c u m v e n t t h a t p r o c e d u r e by d i r e c t l y review certiorari, i t sought White's court's the t r i a l White's p e t i t i o n as for a from i n Worley assuming to review of was due effectively jurisdiction of the d e c i s i o n Because appeal § 36-26-27 that over she a petition could a not f o r a common- subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n the p e t i t i o n . See Ex parte Conner, 855 So. 2d 486, 489 court thus seeking employment, and in failing review Civ. ( A l a . 2003) . to dismiss The that portion of the d e c i s i o n t o terminate i t s judgment decision i s void. court White lacked erred The t r i a l terminate therefore petition of c e r t i o r a r i . to provided decision, circumvent t h a t procedure by f i l i n g writ writ f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i i n s o f a r judicial right decision court employment. statutory law common-law 46 So. 3d a t 923-24. supreme precluded petition t h e supreme c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n t o be d i s m i s s e d . Our via a obtaining purporting trial of the White's to overturn that See Vann v . Cook, 989 So. 2d 556, 559 ( A l a . App. 2 0 0 8 ) . In her p e t i t i o n , decision to place White a l s o sought j u d i c i a l review her on mandatory 8 leave of the pending the 2100444 administrative hearing. Reed e f f e c t i v e l y did so w i t h o u t Ala. Code I n her p e t i t i o n , White a s s e r t e d t h a t i n v o l u n t a r i l y suspended h e r w i t h o u t f o l l o w i n g the n o t i c e requirements s e t out i n 1975, § 36-26-28, d e p r i v i n g h e r o f due p r o c e s s In i t s judgment, suspended w i t h o u t entitled pay b u t to full the t r i a l thereby i n relation court unconstitutionally to her suspension. 1 f o u n d t h a t White had been p a y as o f M a r c h 16, 2005, a n d t h a t she was reinstatement w i t h back pay. the j u d g m e n t as v o i d i n g t h e s u s p e n s i o n and r e s t o r i n g any a n n u a l l e a v e We i n t e r p r e t o f W h i t e ' s employment used t o pay White d u r i n g the p e r i o d b e t w e e n M a r c h 16, 2005, a n d t h e d a t e o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r employment on A p r i l 1 Alabama Code 13, 2005. 1975, § 36-26-28, p r o v i d e s , i n pertinent part: "(a) An a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t y may, f r o m t i m e t o t i m e , p e r e m p t o r i l y s u s p e n d any e m p l o y e e w i t h o u t p a y o r o t h e r c o m p e n s a t i o n as p u n i s h m e n t f o r i m p r o p e r behavior The s u s p e n s i o n w i t h l o s s o f p a y may be e f f e c t e d o n l y b y s e r v i c e upon t h e e m p l o y e e b y t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t y of w r i t t e n charges s e t t i n g out c l e a r l y t h e d e l i n q u e n c y f o r w h i c h t h e s u s p e n s i o n was made, a c o p y o f w h i c h must a t t h e same t i m e be mailed or d e l i v e r e d t o the State Personnel D i r e c t o r , and a w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e r i g h t t o a p p e a l t h e suspension as p r o v i d e d i n subsection (b). The s u s p e n d e d e m p l o y e e s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o f i l e w i t h the appointing authority a written answer o r e x p l a n a t i o n of the charges." 9 2100444 In hisinitial the p e t i t i o n a p p e l l a t e b r i e f , Reed does n o t a r g u e t h a t f o r a common-law w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i s h o u l d have been d i s m i s s e d b e c a u s e W h i t e h a d a s t a t u t o r y r i g h t t o a p p e a l her suspension. In f a c t , regarding that suspension o f W h i t e ' s employment. would have judgment. 1995) no before choice of but the to that when o f an a s p e c t necessary duty addressing Ordinarily, that However, court of the this subject-matter j u r i s d i c t i o n (Ala. t o argue t h e the issue whether a lower f r o m w h i c h t h e a p p e a l was t a k e n . the 662 So. 2d 256, 257 of t h e judgment, to ascertain this aspect an a p p e l l a n t f a i l s the a p p e l l a t e court). imperative judgment affirm See B e t t i s v . T h o r n t o n , (stating propriety aspect Reed makes no argument w h a t s o e v e r court i s not h a s an c o u r t had the t o e n t e r t h e judgment Conner, s u p r a . S e c t i o n 3 6 - 2 6 - 2 8 ( b ) s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e s an e m p l o y e e o f a s t a t e a g e n c y who h a s been s u s p e n d e d w i t h o u t p a y a r i g h t t o appeal 2 that suspension. 2 Assuming that White had S e c t i o n 36-26-28(b)(1) p r o v i d e s : "The s u s p e n d e d e m p l o y e e may w i t h i n 10 d a y s a f t e r n o t i c e pursuant t o t h i s s e c t i o n f i l e a written notice of appeal from the suspension. I f the suspended employee g i v e s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l from t h e s u s p e n s i o n , t h e a p p o i n t i n g a u t h o r i t y s h a l l have t h e 10 been 2100444 s u s p e n d e d w i t h o u t pay, have asserted any which we procedural do not or d e c i d e , White substantive could due-process v i o l a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o h e r s u s p e n s i o n t h r o u g h s u c h an a p p e a l . Hence, f o r t h e same r e a s o n s the t e r m i n a t i o n i s s u e , matter jurisdiction judicial as t h o s e s e t o u t above r e g a r d i n g the t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t have s u b j e c t - over t h a t a s p e c t of the p e t i t i o n r e v i e w o f t h e manner i n w h i c h Therefore, W h i t e was i t s judgment i n t h a t r e s p e c t i s a l s o seeking suspended. void. A v o i d j u d g m e n t w i l l n o t s u p p o r t an a p p e a l ; an a p p e l l a t e court must judgment. 782 So. dismiss an attempted appeal from such a void Hunt T r a n s i t i o n & I n a u g u r a l Fund, I n c . v. G r e n i e r , 2d dismissed, 270, 274 albeit vacate i t s void ( A l a . 2000). with instructions Reed's appeal is to trial court the thus to judgment. APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Pittman, Bryan, and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t , without writing. d i s c r e t i o n of whether t o s t a y the s u s p e n s i o n pending the d i s p o s i t i o n of the appeal or proceed w i t h the s u s p e n s i o n and p r o v i d e t h e e m p l o y e e w i t h a p o s t suspension review subject to the time frames prescribed herein." 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.