68 So. 3d 782
Ala.2011Background
- In 2000, the Alabama State Board of Education assumed financial control of the Bessemer School System and appointed Blake as CFO under § 16-6B-4.
- Legislation § 16-22-13.1 created a 5.5% pay increase for Minor and similarly situated teachers beginning 2000-01 based on years of experience.
- Marvin Taylor and others calculated and paid the increases; in 2001 Minor sued the State defendants and Bessemer Board for miscalculation and sought backpay and 1983 relief.
- In 2004 the State Board returned financial control to the Bessemer Board; in 2005 the trial court granted immunity dismissals and later granted relief against the Board.
- The trial court concluded the Board and state officials had immunity; Minor later sought modification, and the trial court’s April 23, 2005, order did not specify all defendants and was not final, prompting mandamus petitions.
- The Alabama Supreme Court treated the appeals as petitions for a writ of mandamus to review immunity issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board and state officials are immune from Minor's claim. | Minor asserts immunity does not bar relief for miscalculation of statutory pay increases. | Board and state officials are absolutely immune under Art. I, § 14, Ala. Const. 1901. | Board immune as an agency; officials not immune for ministerial duty against the Board; State defendants immune as to the official-capacity claim. |
| Whether the April 23, 2005 order was a final judgment subject to appeal or mandamus review. | Order was final and reviewable. | Order was not final as to all parties and issues. | Order not final; mandamus review appropriate for immunity challenges. |
| Whether § 14 immunity bars claims against the Bessemer Board and its officials for the pay-increase miscalculation. | Exceptions to § 14 allow non-State actions; Board officials must fulfill statutory duty. | State agencies are absolutely immune; no applicable exception to shield the Board itself. | Board entitled to immunity as an agency; Board members in official capacities not immune for ministerial duty; immunity extended to State officials in official capacity; reverse on others. |
| Whether the State defendants may be compelled to act regarding the pay increase. | State defendants have a duty to ensure proper pay increases under statute. | State defendants cannot be compelled; they lack discretion or power to grant relief. | State officials immune; cannot be compelled to pay; writ granted to dismiss state claims. |
| Whether Minor’s remaining § 1983 claim is before the Court on mandamus review. | § 1983 claim should be considered alongside the immunity issues. | Court should not adjudicate § 1983 claim in mandamus proceeding. | § 1983 claim not reached in mandamus; petition denied as to § 1983 relief; remains pending in proper forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Edgar, 543 So. 2d 682 (Ala.1989) (mandamus standard and extraordinary relief)
- Ex parte Alfab, Inc., 586 So. 2d 889 (Ala.1991) (requirements for mandamus relief)
- Ex parte Johnson, 638 So. 2d 772 (Ala.1994) (mandamus prerequisites)
- Ex parte Gates, 675 So. 2d 371 (Ala.1996) (mandamus standard and jurisdiction)
- Ex parte Inverness Constr. Co., 775 So. 2d 153 (Ala.2000) (de novo review of undisputed facts; immunity considerations)
- Alabama Dep’t of Transp. v. Harbert International, Inc., 990 So. 2d 831 (Ala.2008) (state immunity and official-capacity claims; exceptions to § 14)
- Alabama Agric. & Mech. Univ. v. Jones, 895 So. 2d 867 (Ala.2004) (exceptions to § 14 immunity not extending to agencies; considerations for State officials)