165 So. 3d 567
Ala.2014Background
- Plaintiffs: 26 former non‑tenured teachers or probationary classified employees in Mobile County Public Schools who were nonrenewed at the end of the 2007–2008 school year and allege they were terminated under a reduction‑in‑force (RIF).
- After an earlier suit against the Board was dismissed in light of Weaver, plaintiffs refiled naming individual Board members and the superintendent and attached School Board Policy No. 6.44 (the RIF policy).
- Policy 6.44 generally disclaims contractual employment rights for non‑tenured/probationary employees but contains an exception: if a RIF is declared and a school principal designates an employee as one who would have been rehired but for the RIF, that employee has a one‑time recall right for one year.
- Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to recall under the statute and the policy and sought declaratory, injunctive, and make‑whole relief (including reinstatement and backpay); defendants moved to dismiss as time‑barred.
- The trial court dismissed, applying a 2‑year statutes‑of‑limitations for noncontract claims; it concluded the policy disclaimed any contractual right for these employees.
- The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed, holding plaintiffs stated a breach‑of‑contract claim based on the policy’s conditional recall provision, so the 6‑year contract limitations period applies and the complaint was timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs alleged a contract claim arising from the Board’s RIF policy | Policy created a contractual recall right for non‑tenured/probationary employees when principals designate them as "would have been rehired" | Policy expressly disclaims contractual rights for such employees; thus no contract claim | Held: The policy’s conditional language creates an exception that can give rise to a contract claim when its conditions are met; plaintiffs sufficiently alleged such a claim |
| Appropriate statute of limitations | Breach‑of‑contract claim (6‑year limitations) applies because policy can create contractual obligations | Claims are noncontractual (mandamus/declaratory/injunctive or wage‑type claims) subject to 2‑year limitations | Held: Because plaintiffs stated a contract claim, the 6‑year statute applies and the suit was timely |
| Sufficiency of allegations about principals’ designations | Plaintiffs alleged entitlement to recall under the policy and that positions were retained/hired that should have been offered to them | Plaintiffs failed to allege that any principal designated them as "would have been rehired" so policy conditions are unmet | Held: Complaint viewed favorably must be taken as alleging facts that could satisfy the condition; failure to prove is a merits question not resolved on dismissal |
| Use of attached policy on motion to dismiss | Policy is properly considered because it was attached and undisputed | N/A (defendants relied on policy language) | Held: Court may consider the attached policy without converting dismissal to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd. of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063 (Ala. 1985) (a board that adopts policy is bound to follow it; policy can create contractual rights)
- Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County v. Weaver, 99 So. 3d 1210 (Ala. 2012) (school boards are state agencies entitled to immunity; suits must name individual members in official capacities)
- Nance v. Matthews, 622 So. 2d 297 (Ala. 1993) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- AC, Inc. v. Baker, 622 So. 2d 331 (Ala. 1993) (when statute of limitations for contract actions begins to run)
- McCord‑Baugh v. Birmingham City Bd. of Educ., 894 So. 2d 672 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (board policies and procedures may give rise to implied contractual terms under appropriate facts)