Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Mobile County Merit System Employee's Ass'n v. Mobile County Personnel Board
Citations: 669 So. 2d 178; 1995 Ala. Civ. App. LEXIS 454; 1995 WL 490589Docket: 2940206
Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; August 18, 1995; Alabama; State Appellate Court
The Mobile County Merit System Employee’s Association sought a writ of mandamus from the circuit court to compel the Personnel Board of Mobile County to certify six eligible employees for the vacant position of executive director of the Mobile Housing Board. The Association argued that the Personnel Board's decision to conduct an open competitive examination rather than a promotional examination was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to its established rules and regulations. The trial court denied the writ, finding that the Personnel Board acted within its authority and that its actions were supported by evidence, thus not arbitrary or capricious. On appeal, the court emphasized the presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court's decisions and confirmed that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring the petitioner to demonstrate: a clear legal right to the sought order, an imperative duty by the respondent to act, the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, and proper jurisdiction. The court concluded that the Employee’s Association did not meet these criteria. The court referred to Local Act No. 470, which outlines the rules regarding filling vacancies, indicating that while promotions should be preferred, the Personnel Board has discretion in determining the best method to fill positions based on service needs. Testimonies indicated a lack of qualified candidates under the promotional selection system, leading the Personnel Board to opt for an open competitive process to serve the public’s interests better. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment denying the writ of mandamus.