Wright v. City of Mobile
170 So. 3d 656
Ala. Civ. App.2014Background
- Angela Wright, a longtime City of Mobile public-safety dispatcher, faced pre-disciplinary proceedings after alleged sleeping on duty and failing to send medical/ambulance screens.
- A COMPD Trial Board (department officers) held the pre-disciplinary hearing, recommended a suspension (30 days), and the Chief’s purported recommendation for dismissal was not in the record.
- Mayor Jones (the appointing authority) sent an "Official Notice of Dismissal" terminating Wright; Wright appealed to the Mobile County Personnel Board (the Board).
- The Board upheld dismissal after a post-termination hearing; Wright then appealed to the Mobile Circuit Court under the local act and argued her dismissal violated procedural due process and Rule 14.3(a) (which governs pre-disciplinary hearings).
- The trial court found substantial evidence supported discipline but reversed the dismissal to a 30-day suspension because the record showed only a Trial Board recommendation for suspension, not a supervisory recommendation for dismissal, and ordered reinstatement.
- On appeal, Wright argued the pre-disciplinary hearing was invalid because the Mayor did not personally preside; the appellate court considered whether Rule 14.3(a) required the appointing authority’s personal attendance and whether constitutional due-process claims could be raised in the Board appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 14.3(a) required the appointing authority to personally preside at the pre-disciplinary hearing | Wright: Rule 14.3(a) requires the appointing authority (Mayor) to attend; absence voids any discipline | City: Rule 14.3(a) allows either the official or a designated representative to conduct the hearing | Held: "Or" is disjunctive; Rule 14.3(a) permits a designated representative to conduct the hearing, so Mayor's absence did not void the proceeding |
| Whether the Board/trial court could decide Wright's constitutional due-process claim in the personnel-appeal action | Wright: Due-process claim under Loudermill can be litigated on appeal from the Board | City: Constitutional claims are beyond the Board's authority and not properly decided in the administrative-appeal proceeding | Held: Constitutional challenges must be raised in a separate, collateral proceeding; trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide constitutional issues on the personnel appeal |
| Whether the trial court erred by not ruling on the procedural (Rule 14.3(a)) argument before reaching the merits | Wright: Trial court should have resolved the procedural/validity question first | City: Trial court appropriately reviewed the Board's decision on its limited record | Held: Trial court could have addressed the legal question, but its failure was harmless because Rule 14.3(a) does not require the Mayor's personal attendance |
| Whether reversal is required because procedural defects in the record (no supervisory recommendation for dismissal) made the dismissal invalid | Wright: Dismissal was void and should be fully set aside with full restoration | City: Board's substantive finding of substantial evidence supports discipline | Held: Trial court properly reinstated Wright and converted dismissal to the 30-day suspension recommended by the Trial Board; appellate court affirmed (City did not cross-appeal the reinstatement) |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (sets pretermination due-process notice and opportunity-to-explain requirements)
- Ex parte Averyt, 487 So.2d 912 (Ala. 1986) (constitutional issues in administrative proceedings must be raised in a separate collateral action)
- Turner v. Mobile Cnty. Pers. Bd., 689 So.2d 168 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997) (Board lacks authority to decide constitutional claims in personnel appeals)
- City of Mobile v. Robertson, 863 So.2d 117 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003) (applying Averyt and Turner principle to bar constitutional review in personnel-board appeals)
- Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 64 v. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson Cnty., 103 So.3d 17 (Ala. 2012) (administrative-rule language is given its plain and ordinary meaning)
- Board of Water & Sewer Comm’rs of City of Mobile v. Smith, 591 So.2d 521 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991) (certiorari review may resolve questions of law in personnel-board appeals)