City of Mobile v. Matthews
220 So. 3d 1061
Ala. Civ. App.2016Background
- Matthews was terminated by the City in May 2011; she failed to properly appeal that termination, so the May 2011 termination remained effective.
- The Mobile County Personnel Board purportedly reinstated Matthews on July 26, 2011, but this order was later held void in Matthews v. City of Mobile, 182 So.3d 547 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) because Matthews’ e‑mail did not constitute a valid filing.
- While the prior appeal and related proceedings were pending, the City again notified Matthews of termination on January 29, 2013; Matthews timely appealed the 2013 termination to the Board.
- The Board upheld the 2013 termination on July 2, 2013; Matthews appealed to the trial court.
- The trial court initially affirmed the Board, then on reconsideration reversed (Dec. 1, 2015), finding a due‑process violation (Matthews was excluded from the Board hearing) and ordering reinstatement.
- The City appealed; this court sua sponte considered whether the prior decision in Matthews v. City of Mobile rendered the 2013 appeal moot and requested letter briefs. The court concluded the appeal is moot and dismissed it.
Issues
| Issue | Matthews' Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this appeal (challenging the 2013 termination) is justiciable or moot | The appeal is controlled by the current record and not moot because the record on appeal lacks the 2011 litigation materials | The 2013 termination review is moot because the 2011 termination remained effective after this court declared the Board’s July 26, 2011 reinstatement void | Mootness: the court held the appeal is moot because Matthews was not validly employed after the 2011 termination, so reviewing the 2013 action would not affect parties’ rights |
| Whether the public‑interest exception to mootness applies | Matthews did not press public‑interest exception | The City urged the public‑interest exception, claiming the constitutional‑issue procedure affects many employees and will recur | Public‑interest exception not applied: court found no need for an authoritative decision because controlling precedent already exists |
| Whether the trial court erred in deciding a constitutional due‑process claim in the administrative appeal | Matthews relied on trial court’s due‑process finding to obtain reversal and reinstatement | City argued constitutional claims must be raised in a collateral action, not in the administrative appeal, relying on precedent (e.g., Wright) | Court declined to reach the merits because the appeal is moot and noted the issue is already addressed by existing precedent; it rejected City’s request to invoke public‑interest exception to obtain a new authoritative ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Matthews v. City of Mobile, 182 So.3d 547 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (prior appeal holding Board’s July 26, 2011 reinstatement void because e‑mail did not constitute a filing)
- Butler v. Olshan, 280 Ala. 181, 191 So.2d 7 (Ala. 1966) (appellate courts may take judicial notice of their own records under specified conditions)
- Underwood v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 39 So.3d 120 (Ala. 2009) (mootness doctrine and exceptions)
- Chapman v. Gooden, 974 So.2d 972 (Ala. 2007) (narrow construction of public‑interest exception to mootness)
- Wright v. City of Mobile, 170 So.3d 656 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014) (administrative appeals and treatment of constitutional issues)
- Florence Surgery Ctr., L.P. v. Eye Surgery Ctr. of Florence, LLC, 121 So.3d 386 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013) (lack of justiciable controversy renders appeal moot)
- Baldwin Cty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So.2d 42 (Ala. 2003) (court must notice jurisdictional defects, including lack of justiciability)
- Case v. Alabama State Bar, 939 So.2d 881 (Ala. 2006) (definition and test for mootness)