142 So. 3d 543
Ala.2013Background
- In 2006–2008 Councilmember Louise Alexander was criminally indicted under Alabama ethics statutes, represented by White, Arnold & Dowd, P.C. (WAD), and later acquitted.
- Alexander and WAD allege a Bessemer practice of reimbursing legal fees for officials cleared of charges (citing prior payment to Councillor Betty Woods) and that the City attorney told them the City would pay if Alexander was cleared.
- After acquittal, WAD billed the City for legal fees; the City Council declined to approve payment following advisory opinions from the Alabama Ethics Commission that payment was prohibited.
- Alexander and WAD sued the City and individual councillors alleging (inter alia) bad-faith failure to pay legal fees and race-based § 1983 discrimination for treating Alexander (Black) differently than Woods (white).
- The trial court dismissed most claims but left (1) the bad-faith claim against the City and (2) the § 1983 racial-discrimination claim against individual councillors. The City and councillors petitioned for mandamus to compel dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the City is liable for bad-faith failure to pay Alexander’s legal fees (tort) | Alexander/WAD: City had a policy/practice and representations that created an obligation; refusal was bad-faith tort | City: municipal local-governmental immunity bars intentional-tort suits under Ala. Code § 11-47-190; exceptions don't apply | Court: Granted mandamus; local-governmental immunity bars the bad-faith tort claim against the City — dismiss that claim |
| Whether individual councillors are entitled to absolute (legislative) immunity for denying payment | Alexander/WAD: refusal was discriminatory administrative action, not legislative protection | Councillors: votes about spending are legislative; thus absolute immunity applies | Court: Denied mandamus as to absolute immunity — petitioners didn’t show the act was legislative (no showing of legislative facts/general policy) |
| Whether individual councillors are entitled to qualified (good-faith) immunity from § 1983 racial-discrimination claim | Alexander/WAD: councillors acted with racial intent in denying payment; qualified immunity inapplicable if clearly established right violated | Councillors: even if not legislative, qualified immunity shields discretionary acts absent violation of clearly established law; inquiry is fact-specific | Court: Denied mandamus as to qualified immunity — fact-specific inquiry required; cannot resolve on motion to dismiss; allow further proceedings |
| Proper mandamus review / scope: can court decide immunity on motion to dismiss? | Alexander/WAD: factual motivation matters; deny immunity at pleading stage | Petitioners: immunity may be decided now by mandamus | Court: Mandamus appropriate for immunity claims, but where qualified-immunity requires fact development, further proceedings are required (mandamus denied on those points) |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Montgomery v. Collins, 355 So.2d 1111 (Ala. 1978) (recognized circumstances for municipal payment liability in certain situations)
- Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1998) (local legislators entitled to absolute immunity for legislative acts)
- Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1951) (legislative immunity from suit under § 1983 for legislative functions)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity protects officials unless clearly established rights were violated)
- Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1979) (absolute immunity for regional legislators performing legislative functions)
- Point Props., Inc. v. Anderson, 584 So.2d 1332 (Ala. 1991) (discussing qualified and legislative immunity for municipal officials)
- Ex parte Dickson, 46 So.3d 468 (Ala. 2010) (mandamus review appropriate for denials of immunity-based dismissal)
- Ex parte Simpson, 36 So.3d 15 (Ala. 2009) (mandamus as remedy for immunity denial)
- Cutting v. Muzzey, 724 F.2d 259 (1st Cir. 1984) (test distinguishing legislative vs. administrative acts)
- Hughes v. Tarrant County, 948 F.2d 918 (5th Cir. 1991) (applying Cutting test; spending decisions may be administrative)
- Trevino v. Gates, 23 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1994) (burden on official to demonstrate absolute immunity; context-specific analysis)