Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court reviewed challenges to State Board of Education policies governing flexible work schedules and the employment or contracting of elected state officials within Alabama's two-year-college system. The court held that the Board had statutory authority to adopt the policies and addressed whether they violated protections for political activity, separation-of-powers principles, and the Fair Dismissal Act. The court reversed the trial court's judgment invalidating the policies and granting injunctive relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the State Board of Education had statutory authority under Ala. Code § 16-60-111.4(1) and related provisions to adopt Policies 609.04 and 220.01.
- Whether Policy 609.04 or Policy 220.01 violated Ala. Code § 17-1-4(a)(3), which protects state employees' participation in political activities.
- Whether the policies created an impermissible additional qualification for legislative office and thereby violated the separation-of-powers provision in Art. III, § 43, Ala. Const. 1901.
- Whether the policies violated the Fair Dismissal Act, Ala. Code § 36-26-100 et seq.
- Whether the trial court's declaration that the policies were void and its injunctive relief should be affirmed.
Holdings
- The Board acted within its statutory authority under Ala. Code § 16-60-111.4(1) and related provisions to adopt the policies as regulations governing the internal management of the two-year-college system.
- Neither Policy 609.04 nor Policy 220.01 violated Ala. Code § 17-1-4(a)(3).
- The policies did not create an additional qualification for legislative office and therefore did not violate Art. III, § 43, Ala. Const. 1901.
- The policies did not violate the Fair Dismissal Act, Ala. Code § 36-26-100 et seq.
Key quotations
“By the plain language of these Code sections, the legislature has granted the Board authority to regulate, supervise, and administer the two-year-college system, including authority, through the chancellor as its agent, regarding the management and operation of the two-year colleges.” (at 371)
“The statute means what it says; the language is unambiguous.” (at 372)
“Policy 609.04 does not deny two-year-college employees the right to participate in political activities; it merely requires that they obtain leave in order to do so during normal work hours.” (at 373)
“The policies, like the legislative act at issue in Mulholland, are "simply a limitation upon the right to retain the [employment] already held when seeking [an elected state office]. It is not a limitation upon the right to seek ... office."” (at 377)
Factual background
On August 23, 2007, the Alabama State Board of Education adopted Policy 609.04, requiring employees engaged in outside employment or activities during normal work hours to use personal, annual, or qualifying unpaid leave, and Policy 220.01, generally prohibiting the two-year-college system from employing elected state officials or entering into specified contracts with them. Several Alabama legislators were employed by, or sought employment in, the two-year-college system and challenged the policies as unlawful restrictions on their legislative service and employment. The policies replaced or restricted prior flexible-scheduling practices under which college presidents had permitted employees to adjust schedules for outside activities or legislative duties.
Procedural history
Legislators and other plaintiffs challenged Policy 609.04 and Policy 220.01 shortly after the policies were adopted. The trial court initially invalidated the policies as having been adopted in violation of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, but this Court reversed and remanded in Byrne v. Galliher, 39 So. 3d 1049 (Ala. 2009), holding that the policies were internal-management policies exempt from the AAPA's definition of a rule. On remand, the trial court again declared the policies invalid, finding that the Board exceeded its statutory authority, violated statutory political-activity protections, infringed separation of powers, and violated the Fair Dismissal Act. The Board defendants appealed.