Central Alabama Community College v. Robinson

Citations: 53 So. 3d 917; 2009 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 581; 2009 WL 4506552Docket: 2080475

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; December 3, 2009; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion OriginalConcurrence Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Central Alabama Community College and C.I.T.Y. Skills Training Consortium appeal a Montgomery Circuit Court judgment favoring employees Hodtric C. Robinson, Suzanne L. Schmitz, and Joy Suttle, who were dismissed without a hearing in 2006. Following their dismissals, the employees appealed under the Fair Dismissal Act (FDA), leading to a determination by an administrative law judge (ALJ) that they were employed by the College, making the FDA applicable. The ALJ ruled their dismissals were improper and rescinded them. In response, the College and Consortium sought a writ of certiorari, while the employees filed a counterclaim for backpay, reinstatement, lost benefits, and other compensations, ultimately moving for summary judgment. On January 23, 2009, the circuit court denied the writ and granted the employees' summary judgment. The College and Consortium do not contest the writ denial but argue, for the first time in their reply brief, that sovereign immunity under Alabama's constitution serves as a jurisdictional barrier. While typically issues raised in a reply brief are not considered, the court may address sovereign immunity at any time due to its implications for subject-matter jurisdiction. Therefore, the court must evaluate the applicability of state immunity and its effect on the circuit court's jurisdiction over the employees' counterclaim.

Section 14 of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 establishes that the State of Alabama cannot be sued in any court. This provision creates an almost absolute immunity for the State and its agencies, meaning they cannot be subjected to lawsuits under any legal theory, and this immunity cannot be waived. Sovereign immunity serves as a jurisdictional barrier, preventing courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over claims against the State or its agencies. Consequently, any lawsuit filed solely against the State or its agencies is considered void ab initio.

State immunity also extends to higher education institutions, including community colleges. However, certain actions are not barred by § 14, including: (1) actions to compel State officials to perform their legal duties, (2) actions to enjoin State officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws, (3) actions to compel State officials to undertake ministerial acts, (4) actions under the Declaratory Judgments Act, (5) valid inverse condemnation actions against State officials in their representative capacity, and (6) actions for injunction or damages against State officials individually for fraudulent or unauthorized conduct. These exceptions do not classify as actions "against the State" for purposes of § 14, and the determination of whether an action is against the State is based on whether a favorable outcome for the plaintiff would directly impact State rights or finances.

Actions not barred by § 14 pertain only to claims against State officials in their official capacities, excluding the State agency or the State itself. In this case, an ALJ ordered the reinstatement of employees dismissed by the College. The College and the Consortium sought judicial review of this order, while the employees counterclaimed for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against both entities, primarily based on their employment relationship with the College. The ALJ established that the College was the employer, making it the real counterdefendant in the employees’ counterclaim. The College, as a state institution, is entitled to absolute immunity under Art. I, § 14 of the Alabama Constitution. Since the counterclaim was against the College and not a State official, it fell under the immunity provisions, rendering the counterclaim barred. Consequently, the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over it, leading to the conclusion that the judgment on the counterclaim is void and thus vacated. The appeal is dismissed as a void judgment cannot support an appeal. Additionally, a motion by the employees to strike part of the reply brief regarding State immunity is denied. A partial stay of the judgment concerning Schmitz's work with the Consortium is also mentioned, pending criminal proceedings.