Matthews v. City of Mobile
182 So. 3d 547
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Matthews, a City of Mobile employee, received notice of a 24-hour unpaid suspension (effective Feb 21, 2011) and timely filed a written appeal of that suspension with the Mobile County Personnel Board on Feb 15, 2011.
- While that appeal was pending, the City gave Matthews a predisciplinary notice (Apr 18, 2011) and terminated her employment after a May 2, 2011 hearing; Matthews received notice of termination on May 9, 2011.
- Matthews emailed the Board (May 13, 2011) expressing her desire to appeal the termination; the Board’s rules and the Act require a "written answer" to be "filed" with the Board’s personnel director within ten days to perfect an appeal.
- The Board heard both matters on July 12, 2011, affirmed the 24-hour suspension, but attempted to modify the termination to a suspension without backpay; the court held the Board lacked jurisdiction over the termination claim.
- The City purported to appeal the Board’s modification of the termination to circuit court; Matthews and the City later attempted to appeal or cross-appeal to the trial court by email. The trial court entered judgment, but the appellate court concluded the trial court never obtained subject-matter jurisdiction because required filings were not properly "filed."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matthews’s May 13, 2011 email satisfied the Act/Rule requirement to "file" a written answer appealing her termination to the Personnel Board | Matthews contended her email constituted a written answer/appeal | City argued the Act and Board rules require a proper filing with the Board (not an email to a staff member) | Email did not constitute a proper “filing”; appeal of termination to Board was ineffective |
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction to decide the termination appeal | Matthews argued she attempted to appeal and Board could act | City maintained the appeal was not properly filed so Board lacked jurisdiction | Board lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over termination; its decision on termination was void |
| Whether Matthews’s and City’s email attempts to appeal the Board’s decision to circuit court invoked the trial court’s jurisdiction | Matthews asserted her counsel’s email constituted filing of a notice of appeal to circuit court | City and trial court proceeded despite email-based notices; City argued notice was given | Emails did not satisfy statute’s filing requirement; circuit court never obtained jurisdiction |
| Consequence of lack of jurisdiction on lower-court judgment and appeals | Matthews sought relief and challenged Board actions in circuit court | City pursued appeal of Board decision to circuit court | Trial court judgment is void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wallace v. Tee Jays Mfg. Co., 689 So.2d 210 (Ala. Civ. App.) (court may raise jurisdictional defects sua sponte)
- IMED Corp. v. Systems Eng’g Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344 (Ala. 1992) (statutory language must be given its plain, ordinary meaning)
- Tuscaloosa County Comm’n v. Deputy Sheriffs’ Ass’n of Tuscaloosa County, 589 So.2d 687 (Ala. 1991) (words of a statute are given their natural, plain meaning)
- Ex parte Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 721 So.2d 1135 (Ala.) (legislative intent controls when statute is unambiguous)
- Ingram v. State, 882 So.2d 374 (Ala. Crim. App.) (oral notice did not satisfy requirement to "file" a written notice)
- Turner v. Alabama State Tenure Comm’n, 523 So.2d 401 (Ala. Civ. App.) (oral notice did not constitute filing; filing requires delivery to specified officer)
- City of Prattville v. S & M Concrete, LLC, 151 So.3d 295 (Ala. Civ. App.) (statutory appeal timing is jurisdictional)
- LaGrange Church of the Nazarene, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment of Muscle Shoals, 473 So.2d 1076 (Ala. Civ. App.) (appeal period to board is jurisdictional)
- Alves v. Bd. of Educ. for Guntersville, 222 So.2d 129 (Ala. Civ. App.) (tribunal decision entered without subject-matter jurisdiction is void)
- Board of Sch. Comm’rs of Mobile Cnty. v. Thomas, 130 So.3d 199 (Ala. Civ. App.) (void decision cannot support appeal)
- Ex parte Alabama State Pers. Bd., 90 So.3d 766 (Ala. Civ. App.) (circuit court lacks jurisdiction when notice of appeal is not properly filed)
- Ex parte Personnel Bd. of Jefferson Cnty., 513 So.2d 1029 (Ala. Civ. App.) (untimely or improper appeal does not confer circuit-court jurisdiction)
- Maclin v. Congo, 106 So.3d 405 (Ala. Civ. App.) (judgment entered without jurisdiction is void)