Case Title: Morrow v. Town of Littleville

Citation: 576 So. 2d 210

Docket Number: 1900024

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1991-02-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
576 So. 2d 210 (1991)
John MORROW
v.
TOWN OF LITTLEVILLE.
1900024.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
February 15, 1991.
*211 John R. Benn of Slusher & Benn, Florence, for appellant.
George W. Royer, Jr. of Sirote & Permutt, Huntsville, for appellee.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The plaintiff, John Morrow, appeals from a summary judgment for the defendant, the Town of Littleville, in this action seeking to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for the breach of an employment contract. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiff's complaint, which was filed more than six months, but less than one year, after the occurrence of the incidents complained of, reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
The defendant moved for a summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had attempted to state a tort claim for the wrongful termination of an employment contract in count one[2] and, therefore, that that count, as well as the § 1983 claim set out in count two, was barred by Ala.Code 1975, § 11-47-23, which provides:
The defendant supported its motion with the affidavit of its town clerk, in which the clerk stated that the plaintiff had not presented any claims to her pertaining to the matters alleged in his complaint. The plaintiff argued that he had stated a claim for the breach of an employment contract in count one and, therefore, that he had satisfied the requirements of § 11-47-23 by filing his complaint within two years from the date his employment was terminated. See Marvin W. Sumlin Constr. Co. v. City of Prichard, 465 So. 2d 371 (Ala.1985), where this Court held that the filing of a complaint seeking damages for the breach of a contract is a sufficient claim for payment to satisfy the requirements of § 11-47-23. The plaintiff also argued that § 11-47-23 was not applicable to his § 1983 claim. The trial court agreed with the defendant and entered a summary judgment in its favor, finding that it was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Thus, the issues presented for our review are 1) whether count one of the plaintiff's complaint states a claim for the breach of an employment contract and 2) whether § 11-47-23 is applicable to a § 1983 claim brought in a state court against a municipality. For the following reasons, we hold that § 11-47-23 is not a bar to either of the plaintiff's claims.
Although we are called upon to review a summary judgment in this case, the standard of review applicable to the first issue, as presented, is the one applicable to motions to dismiss:
Seals v. City of Columbia, 575 So. 2d 1061 (Ala.1991), quoting Fontenot v. Bramlett, 470 So. 2d 669, 671 (Ala.1985). (Emphasis in Fontenot.)
The plaintiff alleged in count one of his complaint that the defendant had a "Policy and Procedures Manual" and that the defendant had failed to follow the policies and procedures set out therein in terminating his employment. Construing the complaint liberally in favor of the plaintiff, as the applicable standard of review requires us to do, we must disagree with the defendant's contention that the trial court correctly characterized count one of the complaint as attempting to state a tort claim for the wrongful termination of an employment contract. Instead, we conclude that count one is sufficient to state a claim for the breach of an employment contract. This Court has held that an employee-at-will relationship can be modified by provisions in an employee handbook by which the employer promises not to discharge employees except by procedures or for causes set forth in the handbook:
The defendant relies on Stewart v. City of Northport, 425 So. 2d 1119 (Ala.1983), to support its argument that § 11-47-23 is a bar to the plaintiff's § 1983 claim. In Stewart, this Court held that § 11-47-23 was applicable to a § 1983 claim brought in a state court against a municipality. The Court stated, in part, as follows:
425 So. 2d  at 1121. The Court went on to distinguish § 11-47-23 from Georgia's ante-litem notice provision and to hold that there were no constitutional barriers, such as the exhaustion of administrative remedies, to the plaintiffs' filing of their § 1983 action. The Court specifically held that Ehlers v. City of Decatur, Georgia, 614 F.2d 54 (5th Cir.1980), did not control that case.[3]
Relying on Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 105 S. Ct. 1938, 85 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1985); Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 109 S. Ct. 573, 102 L. Ed. 2d 594 (1989); Acoff v. Abston, 762 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir.1985); and Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, 876 F.2d 1480 (11th Cir.1989), the plaintiff argues that the only statute of limitations now applicable to a § 1983 claim filed in a court in Alabama, whether that court is a state court or a federal court, is the two-year statute of limitations set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-38(l). In essence, the plaintiff's argument is that Stewart v. City of Northport, supra, has been overruled by federal case law. We agree.
In Wilson v. Garcia, supra, the United States Supreme Court held that courts entertaining claims brought under § 1983 should borrow the state statute of limitations for personal injury actions. Later, in Owens v. Okure, supra, the Court held that where state law provides multiple statutes of limitations for personal injury actions, courts considering § 1983 claims *214 should borrow the general or residual statute of limitations for personal injury actions. The rationale of the Court's holdings in Wilson and Owens is, perhaps, best explained in the following quote from Owens:
488 U.S.  at 239-43, 109 S. Ct.  at 576-78.
Thus, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that there is only one statute of limitations in each state applicable to a § 1983 claim. In Alabama, § 6-2-38(l), supra, is the statute of limitations applicable to a § 1983 claim. See Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin, supra.
We note the defendant's argument that § 11-47-23 is not a statute of limitations. It is true that this Court has characterized § 11-47-23 as a nonclaim provision, see, e.g., Marvin W. Sumlin Constr. Co. v. City of Prichard, supra, and Ivory v. Fitzpatrick, 445 So. 2d 262 (Ala.1984); however, contrary to the defendant's assertions, our characterization of it as a nonclaim provision does not change the fact that § 11-47-23, if not complied with, would operate as a statute of limitations by barring a § 1983 claim. The exact nature of a nonclaim provision was explained in Ivory v. Fitzpatrick, supra:
445 So. 2d  at 264. (Emphasis in original.)
We further note that in Acoff v. Abston, supra, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals also recognized that § 11-47-23 operated as a statute of limitations and, construing *216 Wilson v. Garcia, supra, held as follows:
762 F.2d  at 1546.
In light of the United States Supreme Court's holdings in Wilson v. Garcia, supra, and Owens v. Okure, supra, we hereby overrule Stewart v. City of Northport, supra, to the extent that it stands for the proposition that § 11-47-23 is applicable to a § 1983 claim filed in a state court in Alabama against a municipality.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, ADAMS, STEAGALL, KENNEDY and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
[1]  The defendant does not dispute that count two states a claim for damages under § 1983.
[2]  A tort claim for the wrongful termination of an employment contract has not been recognized in Alabama. See Salter v. Alfa Insurance Co., 561 So. 2d 1050 (Ala.1990).
[3]  In Ehlers, then Judge Godbold, writing for a panel of the court, stated:

"Federal courts may not require exhaustion of state administrative or judicial remedies in a § 1983 action for damages for deprivation of a constitutional right. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (1961); Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Georgia Public Serv. Comm'n, 547 F.2d 938, 939-940 n. 1 (5th Cir.1977); Bryant v. Potts, 528 F.2d 621 (5th Cir.1976). States may not statutorily burden access to the federal courts with requirements federal courts themselves are prohibited from imposing. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 (Supremacy Clause). Contrast De Almanza v. Laredo Water Works Syst., 582 F.2d 970 (5th Cir.1978) (ante-litem notice constitutional as applied to state law claim in diversity suit). Georgia's ante-litem notice requirement therefore may not constitutionally be applied to this § 1983 action for damages for deprivation of a constitutional right."
614 F.2d  at 56. In light of our holding in this case, we need not decide whether the Stewart court erred in holding that § 11-47-23 does not require a complainant to exhaust a state remedy prior to filing a § 1983 claim.