Title: Harris v. Owens

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 
09/21/2012 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e 
advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e 
Reporter of 
Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s 
p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA 
SPECIAL TERM, 2012 
1110421 
William Harris, i n 
h i s o f f i c i a l capacity as president 
of 
Alabama State University, et a l . 
v. 
F e l i s a Owens 
Appeal from Montgomery C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-10-811) 
WISE, J u s t i c e . 
The 
r e s p o n d e n t s , 
W i l l i a m 
H a r r i s 
( " H a r r i s " ) , i n h i s 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y as p r e s i d e n t o f Alabama S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 
("ASU"), and 
t h e i n d i v i d u a l members o f 
ASU's B o a r d o f T r u s t e e s 
1110421 
("the B o a r d " ) , i n t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s as members o f 
t h e 
B o a r d , a p p e a l 
from t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g t h e 
p e t i t i o n 
f i l e d by F e l i s a Owens s e e k i n g a w r i t o f 
mandamus and 
d e c l a r a t o r y 
r e l i e f as a r e s u l t o f t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r 
employment 
w i t h ASU and a w a r d i n g Owens 
f u l l 
backpay and 
b e n e f i t s . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y 
On O c t o b e r 19, 2009, Carmen D o u g l a s , v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f 
ASU's 
O f f i c e o f Human 
R e s o u r c e s , 
d e l i v e r e d a n o t i c e - o f -
t e r m i n a t i o n 
l e t t e r t o Owens. 
The l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t H a r r i s 
had approved a recommendation t o t e r m i n a t e Owens's employment 
and 
i n f o r m e d Owens o f h e r r i g h t t o r e q u e s t a h e a r i n g i n 
a c c o r d a n c e w i t h ASU p o l i c y . 
On O c t o b e r 20, 2009, Owens r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g . 
On 
O c t o b e r 22, 2009, Owens was p l a c e d on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l e a v e 
w i t h pay p e n d i n g t h e 
outcome o f 
t h e 
h e a r i n g . 
A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g 
a 
h e a r i n g , t h e h e a r i n g 
o f f i c e r recommended t h a t Owens be 
suspended f o r 
30 days w i t h o u t pay. 
ASU's O f f i c e o f Human R e s o u r c e s r e c e i v e d a copy o f 
t h e 
h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ' s f i n d i n g s and recommendation on J a n u a r y 4, 
2010. 
Douglas s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t Owens a l e t t e r d a t e d 
F e b r u a r y 
2 
1110421 
1, 2010. 
I n t h a t 
l e t t e r , Douglas 
s t a t e d t h a t 
H a r r i s had 
r e j e c t e d t h e h e a r i n g 
o f f i c e r ' s f i n d i n g s and recommendation; 
t h a t t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f Owens's employment was u p h e l d ; t h a t 
the t e r m i n a t i o n o f h e r employment was e f f e c t i v e 
J a n u a r y 31, 
2010; and t h a t she w o u l d cease r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s 
e f f e c t i v e 
March 1, 2010. Owens a p p e a l e d h e r t e r m i n a t i o n t o t h e B o a r d . 
Owens s t o p p e d r e c e i v i n g s a l a r y and b e n e f i t s on March 1, 
2010. 
S u b s e q u e n t l y , Douglas s e n t Owens a l e t t e r d a t e d May 7, 
2010, 
i n f o r m i n g h e r t h a t t h e 
B o a r d had u p h e l d t h e d e c i s i o n t o 
t e r m i n a t e h e r employment. 
On June 29, 2010, Owens 
f i l e d a " P e t i t i o n f o r W r i t o f 
Mandamus and P e t i t i o n f o r 
D e c l a r a t o r y and I n j u n c t i v e R e l i e f " 
i n t h e Montgomery 
C i r c u i t 
C o u r t . 
H a r r i s was named as a 
respondent i n 
h i s o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t y as t h e p r e s i d e n t o f ASU. 
E l t o n Dean, Oscar C r a w l e y , Bobby J u n k i n s , T a y l o r Hodge, B u f o r d 
C r u t c h e r , Thomas F i g u r e s , Lawrence Lemak, M a r v i n W i g g i n s , and 
H e r b e r t Young were a l s o named as r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s as members o f t h e B o a r d . 
I n h e r p e t i t i o n , Owens 
a l l e g e d t h a t , a t t h e time she was n o t i f i e d t h a t H a r r i s had 
approved t h e recommendation t o t e r m i n a t e h e r employment, she 
was a permanent employee o f ASU; t h a t § 2.6 o f t h e Non-
3 
1110421 
Academic Handbook ("the handbook") s t a t e d t h a t a permanent 
employee may n o t 
be d i s m i s s e d e x c e p t t h r o u g h t h e due-process 
p r o c e d u r e s s e t 
f o r t h i n 
t h e 
handbook; and t h a t , i n t e r m i n a t i n g 
her employment, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d 
n o t comply w i t h t h e 
due-
p r o c e s s p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n 
t h e handbook. 
On August 17, 2010, 
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d a motion f o r a 
summary judgment i n which t h e y argued t h a t Owens c o u l d n o t 
meet t h e i n i t i a l r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus, i . e . , she 
c o u l d n o t e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e o r d e r 
sought 
because she had r e c e i v e d w r i t t e n n o t i c e o f t h e a l l e g a t i o n s 
a g a i n s t h e r and had had an e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g 
b e f o r e a 
h e a r i n g o f f i c e r ; t h a t t h e 
p r o c e d u r a l d e f e c t s about which Owens 
c o m p l a i n e d d i d 
not amount t o v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e handbook; and 
t h a t , even i f 
t h e d e f e c t s d i d 
amount t o v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e 
handbook, any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s and 
would n o t s u p p o r t Owens's 
c l a i m f o r r e l i e f . 
On September 7, 2010, t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
c o n d u c t e d a 
h e a r i n g on t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' motion f o r 
a summary judgment,
1 
and, on October 6, 2010, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion 
1The r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f 
t h e September 
7, 2010, h e a r i n g . 
4 
1110421 
f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . A f t e r c o n d u c t i n g some d i s c o v e r y , the 
r e s p o n d e n t s , on June 21, 2011, renewed t h e i r m o t i o n f o r a 
summary judgment, i n 
w h i c h t h e y a g a i n argued t h a t the a l l e g e d 
p r o c e d u r a l 
d e f e c t s 
d i d n o t amount t o v i o l a t i o n s 
o f t h e 
handbook 
and 
t h a t , 
even 
i f t h e d e f e c t s 
d i d amount t o 
v i o l a t i o n s o f t h e 
handbook, any e r r o r was h a r m l e s s and d i d not 
j u s t i f y t h e r e l i e f sought by Owens. Owens f i l e d a r e s p o n s e , 
and, a f t e r c o n d u c t i n g a h e a r i n g ,
2 t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d the 
renewed motion f o r 
a summary judgment. 
On September 14, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a f i n a l 
o r d e r . I n t h a t o r d e r , the c i r c u i t c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e f a c t s 
were u n d i s p u t e d and t h a t t h e i s s u e i n v o l v e d was 
p r e d o m i n a n t l y 
a l e g a l o n e . The c i r c u i t 
c o u r t found t h a t , i n t e r m i n a t i n g 
Owens's employment, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s d i d 
n o t comply w i t h t h e 
p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n t h e handbook. I t a l s o f o u n d : 
"The 
Foreword t o the Handbook makes c l e a r t h a t 
' [ a ] n y p o l i c i e s i s s u e d by any i n d i v i d u a l s o r agency 
i n c o n f l i c t w i t h these p o l i c i e s a r e n u l l and v o i d . ' 
The 
a c t i o n s o f the o f f i c i a l s a t ASU i n t e r m i n a t i n g 
[Owens] c o n f l i c t w i t h t h e p o l i c i e s s e t f o r t h i n 
the 
Handbook. 
Respondents do n o t d i s p u t e t h e sworn 
a l l e g a t i o n s 
o f [ O w e n s ] ; 
r a t h e r , 
t h e y 
argue t h e 
R e s p o n d e n t s ' f a i l u r e t o f o l l o w t h e 
mandated p o l i c i e s 
a t ASU amounts t o h a r m l e s s e r r o r and t h a t t h e y a r e 
2The r e c o r d does n o t i n c l u d e a t r a n s c r i p t o f t h i s h e a r i n g . 
5 
1110421 
a f f o r d e d 
wide 
d i s c r e t i o n . 
p e r s u a d e d and d i s a g r e e s . 
The 
C o u r t 
i s n o t 
"By 
r e f u s i n g t o f o l l o w t h e mandates 
o f t h e 
Handbook, Respondents abused t h e i r 
d i s c r e t i o n and 
e x e r c i s e d 
t h a t 
d i s c r e t i o n i n an 
a r b i t r a r y and 
c a p r i c i o u s manner. 
As such, mandamus w i l l l i e t o 
compel a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . The 
C o u r t f i n d s t h a t [Owens's] r e q u e s t f o r mandamus and 
d e c l a r a t o r y judgment r e l i e f i s 
due t o 
be GRANTED. 
"The C o u r t h a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e 
p e t i t i o n , answer, 
motions and r e s p o n s e s , 
o r a l arguments o f c o u n s e l , 
the 
a p p l i c a b l e 
law, and 
h a v i n g 
r e v i e w e d 
t h e 
s u b m i s s i o n s o f t h e 
p a r t i e s , i t 
i s 
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 
and DECLARED as f o l l o w s : 
"(A) 
t h a t 
t h e 
Respondents 
have 
v i o l a t e d 
t h e i r 
mandatory p o l i c i e s 
w i t h 
r e s p e c t 
t o 
t h e 
t e r m i n a t i o n o f [ O w e n s ] ; 
"(B) 
t h a t 
[Owens] has n o t 
b e 
e 
n 
p r 
o 
p e r 
l 
y 
t e r m i n a t e d p u r s u a n t t o 
the mandatory 
p o l i c i e s 
of ASU; 
"(C) 
t h a t [Owens] 
s t i l l has 
permanent 
s t a t u s as an 
employee o f 
ASU; 
"(D) 
t h a t [Owens] 
s t i l l has 
permanent 
s t a t u s as an 
A c a d e m i c 
R e c o r d s 
A n a l y s t a t 
ASU; 
"(E) 
t h a t 
t h e 
Respondents 
f o l l o w 
t h e i r 
mandated 
6 
1110421 
p o l i c i e s , 
r e i n s t a t i n g 
[Owens] t o h e r 
former 
p o s i t i o n 
o r 
a n o t h e r 
p o s i t i o n 
w i 
t 
h 
commensurate 
d u t i e s , 
s a l a r y 
and 
b e n e f i t s , 
w i t h 
f u l l back pay and 
back b e n e f i t s ; 
"(F) 
t 
h 
a 
t 
R 
e s 
p 
o 
n 
d 
e 
n 
t 
s 
r e i n s t a t e [Owens's] pay 
from t h e d a t e 
t h a t i t 
ceased t o t h e p r e s e n t , 
w i t h a r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f 
b 
e 
n 
e 
f 
i 
t 
s 
a 
n 
d 
a 
r e i n s t a t e m e n t 
o f 
[Owens] 
assuming 
t h e 
d u t i e s o f h e r p o s i t i o n ; 
and 
"(G) 
t h a t 
c o s t s 
a r e 
t a x e d 
a g a i n s t t h e Respondents 
f o r which e x e c u t i o n may 
commence." 
( C a p i t a l i z a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l . ) 
On October 13, 2011, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s 
f i l e d a motion t o 
a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n a l o r d e r , w h i c h 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t d e n i e d . 
T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
"The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r 
i s s u i n g 
a 
w r i t 
o f 
mandamus i n v o l v e s o n l y q u e s t i o n s o f law. T h e r e f o r e , 
the same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w 
a p p l i e s t o b o t h t h e 
a p p e a l and p e t i t i o n : 
a de novo s t a n d a r d . 
See, 
e.g., 
George v. Sims, 888 So. 2d 1224, 1226 ( A l a . 
2004) 
( o b s e r v i n g i n a case i n w h i c h t h e p l a i n t i f f 
sought a p e t i t i o n f o r 
mandamus t h a t ' [ b ] e c a u s e t h e 
7 
1110421 
f a c t s a r e u n d i s p u t e d and we a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h pure 
q u e s t i o n s 
o f law, our s t a n d a r d 
of r e v i e w 
i s de 
n o v o . ' ) . " 
Regions Bank v. Reed, 60 So. 3d 868, 877 ( A l a . 2010) . We note 
t h a t , i n Ex p a r t e M i l e s , 841 So. 2d 242, 243-44 ( A l a . 
2002), 
we s t a t e d : 
"'"A 
w r i t 
of 
mandamus 
i s 
an 
e x t r a o r d i n a r y 
remedy, 
and 
i t 
w i l l 
be 
' i s s u e d 
o n l y when t h e r e i s : 
1) a 
c l e a r 
l e g a l r i g h t i n the p e t i t i o n e r t o t h e o r d e r 
sought; 
2) an 
i m p e r a t i v e 
d u t y 
upon the 
respondent t o p e r f o r m , 
accompanied by a 
r e f u s a l t o do so; 3) t h e l a c k o f 
a n o t h e r 
adequate remedy; and 4) p r o p e r l y 
i n v o k e d 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
of the 
c o u r t . ' 
Ex 
p a r t e 
 
U n i t e d 
Serv. 
S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 
501, 503 ( A l a . 
1993). 
A w r i t of mandamus 
w i l l i s s u e o n l y i n s i t u a t i o n s where o t h e r 
r e l i e f i s 
u n a v a i l a b l e or i s i n a d e q u a t e , and 
i t 
cannot be used as a 
s u b s t i t u t e f o r 
a p p e a l . 
Ex p a r t e D r i l l P a r t s & Serv. Co., 
590 So. 2d 252 ( A l a . 
1991)."' 
" ( Q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Empire F i r e & M a r i n e I n s . Co., 
720 So. 2d 893, 894 ( A l a . 
1998).) 
Moreover, ' [ t ] h e 
burden i s on t h e p e t i t i o n e r who 
seeks a w r i t of 
mandamus t o show t h a t each element 
r e q u i r e d f o r 
i s s u a n c e o f t h e w r i t has been s a t i s f i e d . ' 
Ex p a r t e 
P a t t e r s o n , 853 So. 2d 260, 263 ( A l a . C i v . 
App. 2002) 
( c i t i n g Ex p a r t e C o n s o l i d a t e d P u b l ' g Co., 601 So. 2d 
423 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ) . " 
Ex p a r t e S e r i o , 893 So. 2d 1148, 1150 ( A l a . 
2004). 
D i s c u s s i o n 
8 
1110421 
The r e s p o n d e n t s argue t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d when 
i t g r a n t e d Owens's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t o f mandamus and h e r 
r e q u e s t f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment and awarded Owens backpay and 
b e n e f i t s . 
The r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e immune from 
any c l a i m f o r monetary damages under A r t . I , § 14, A l a . Const. 
1901, and t h a t t h e r e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t 
the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 
judgment. 
A. 
I n i t i a l l y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o n t e n d t h a t the c i r c u i t c o u r t 
e r r e d i n awarding Owens backpay and b e n e f i t s because, 
t h e y 
say, 
t h e y a r e immune 
from 
l i a b i l i t y 
f o r monetary 
damages 
p u r s u a n t t o A r t . I , § 14, A l a . 
Const. 
1901.
3 
" ' I t i s s e t t l e d beyond 
c a v i l t h a t S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
cannot 
be 
sued 
f o r damages 
i n 
t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s . 
Burgoon v. Alabama S t a t e Dep't o f Human  
Res., 835 So. 2d 131, 132-33 ( A l a . 2002).' 
Ex p a r t e  
D a n g e r f i e l d , 49 So. 3d [675,] 681 [ ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) ] . " 
Ex p a r t e Montgomery Cnty. Bd. o f Educ., [Ms. 1101401, J a n u a r y 
27, 2012] 
So. 3d 
, 
( A l a . 2012). 
I n Vandenberg v. 
Aramark E d u c a t i o n a l S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 81 So. 3d 326 ( A l a . 2011), 
t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
3The r e s p o n d e n t s do n o t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o 
immunity as t o Owens's c l a i m s f o r 
mandamus and d e c l a r a t o r y -
judgment 
r e l i e f . 
9 
1110421 
" T h i s C o u r t has h e l d t h a t the immunity 
a f f o r d e d 
the 
S t a t e by § 14 a p p l i e s t o i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o f 
the S t a t e and S t a t e o f f i c e r s sued i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t i e s when such an 
a c t i o n i s e f f e c t i v e l y 
an 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
the 
S t a t e . 
Lyons 
v. 
R i v e r 
Road 
 
C o n s t r . , I n c . , 858 So. 2d 257, 261 ( A l a . 2003) 
. 
We 
have s p e c i f i c a l l y 'extended the r e s t r i c t i o n on s u i t s 
a g a i n s t 
the S t a t e 
found i n § 14 
" t o the 
s t a t e ' s 
i n s t i t u t i o n s 
of h i g h e r 
l e a r n i n g " and ha[ve] 
h e l d 
t h o s e 
i n s t i t u t i o n s 
a b s o l u t e l y immune from 
s u i t 
as 
a g e n c i e s of the S t a t e . ' 
Ex p a r t e Troy U n i v . , 
961 
So. 2d 105, 109 ( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g T a y l o r v. Troy  
S t a t e U n i v . , 437 So. 2d 472, 474 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) ) . 
T h i s 
§ 14 b a r a l s o p r o h i b i t s ' a c t i o n s a g a i n s t 
o f f i c e r s , 
t r u s t e e s , 
and employees 
of 
s t a t e 
u n i v e r s i t i e s 
i n 
t h e i r o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s . ' Alabama A g r i c . & Mech.  
U n i v . v. Jones, 895 So. 2d 867, 873 ( A l a . 2004) 
. 
We 
have, however, s t a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n causes o f a c t i o n 
are not b a r r e d by § 14: 
II 
I 
II 'There 
are 
f o u r 
g e n e r a l 
c a t e g o r i e s 
of 
a c t i o n s 
which 
i n 
A l a n d v. Graham, 287 
A l a . 226, 
250 So. 2d 677 
(1971), we 
s t a t e d 
do 
not 
come 
w i t h i n 
the 
p r o h i b i t i o n of § 14: 
(1) a c t i o n s 
b r o u g h t t o compel S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
t o 
p e r f o r m 
t h e i r 
l e g a l 
d u t i e s ; 
(2) 
a c t i o n s 
b r o u g h t 
t o 
e n j o i n 
S t a t e o f f i c i a l s from e n f o r c i n g an 
u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l law; (3) a c t i o n s 
t o 
compel 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
t o 
p e r f o r m m i n i s t e r i a l a c t s ; and (4) 
a c t i o n s 
b r o u g h t 
under 
the 
D e c l a r a t o r y 
Judgments 
A c t 
... 
s e e k i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s t a t u t e 
and 
i t s a p p l i c a t i o n i n a 
g i v e n 
s i t u a t i o n . 
287 A l a . a t 229-230, 
250 
So. 
2d 677. 
Other 
a c t i o n s 
w h i c h are not p r o h i b i t e d by § 14 
a r e : 
(5) 
v a l i d 
i n v e r s e 
condemnation 
a c t i o n s 
b r o u g h t 
10 
1110421 
a g a i n s t S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s i n t h e i r 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y ; and 
(6) 
a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n or damages 
b r o u g h t 
a g a i n s t 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
i n t h e i r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e c a p a c i t y 
and 
i n d i v i d u a l l y 
where 
i t 
was 
a l l e g e d 
t h a t 
t h e y 
had 
a c t e d 
f r a u d u l e n t l y , 
i n 
bad 
f a i t h , 
beyond 
t h e i r 
a u t h o r i t y or 
i n 
a 
m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 
law. 
W a l l a c e v. Board of E d u c a t i o n 
of 
 
Montgomery County, 280 A l a . 
[635] 
a t 639, 
197 
So. 
2d 428 
[ ( 1 9 6 7 ) ] ; 
U n z i c k e r 
v. 
S t a t e , 
346 
So. 
2d 
931, 
933 
( A l a . 1977); 
E n g e l h a r d t 
 
v. J e n k i n s , 273 A l a . 352, 
141 
So. 
2d 193 
(1962).' " 
"'Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp., 
937 So. 2d 56, 58 
( A l a . 2006) ( q u o t i n g 
[Ex 
 
p a r t e ] C a r t e r , 395 
So. 
2d 
[65,] 
68 
[ ( A l a . 
1980)]) (emphasis o m i t t e d ) . 
These a c t i o n s 
are sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as 
" e x c e p t i o n s " 
t o 
§ 
14; 
however, 
i n 
a c t u a l i t y 
t h e s e 
a c t i o n s 
are 
s i m p l y 
not 
c o n s i d e r e d 
t o 
be 
a c t i o n s 
" ' a g a i n s t 
the 
S t a t e ' 
f o r 
§ 
14 
p u r p o s e s . " 
P a t t e r s o n v. G l a d w i n Corp., 
835 
So. 
2d 137, 
142 
( A l a . 2002) . 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
has 
q u a l i f i e d 
those 
" e x c e p t i o n s , " 
n o t i n g 
t h a t 
" ' [ a ] n 
a c t i o n 
i s one 
a g a i n s t 
the 
[ S ] t a t e when a f a v o r a b l e 
r e s u l t 
f o r 
the 
p l a i n t i f f would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a c o n t r a c t 
or p r o p e r t y 
r i g h t of the S t a t e , or would 
r e s u l t i n the p l a i n t i f f ' s r e c o v e r y of money 
from the [ S ] t a t e . ' " Alabama A g r i c . & Mech.  
U n i v . v. Jones, 895 
So. 
2d 867, 
873 
(Ala 
2004) 
( q u o t i n g 
S h o a l s 
Cmty. 
C o l l . 
^ 
 
C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 
1314 
( A l a . C i ^ 
App. 
1995)) (emphasis added i n J o n e s ) . ' 
"Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. H a r b e r t 
I n t ' l , 
In 
990 
So. 
2d 831, 
840 
( A l a . 2008) . 
As 
c l a r i f i e d 
I n c . , 
i n 
11 
1110421 
H a r b e r t , these ' e x c e p t i o n s , ' i n c l u d i n g the e x c e p t i o n 
f o r a c t i o n s s e e k i n g a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment under the 
D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , 
a p p l y 
o n l y 
t o 
a c t i o n s 
a g a i n s t S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s , not a c t i o n s a g a i n s t 
S t a t e 
a g e n c i e s . 
I d . 
a t 
841. 
The 
d e f e n d a n t boards 
of 
t r u s t e e s 
are 
c o r p o r a t e 
b o d i e s 
g o v e r n i n g 
the 
u n i v e r s i t i e s , 
and 
t h e r e 
i s 
no 
e x c e p t i o n 
t o 
the 
immunity 
a f f o r d e d 
the 
S t a t e 
by 
§ 
14 
t h a t 
would 
p e r m i t 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
t o 
e n t e r t a i n 
an 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
them, 
r e g a r d l e s s 
of 
whether 
monetary, 
i n j u n c t i v e , or d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f i s b e i n g 
sought. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
the boards of t r u s t e e s are due 
t o 
be 
d i s m i s s e d as p a r t i e s w i t h r e g a r d t o a l l the 
c l a i m s 
a l l e g e d by the s t u d e n t s , 
and we need o n l y 
c o n s i d e r 
those 
c l a i m s 
as 
t h e y 
r e l a t e 
t o 
the 
u n i v e r s i t y 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and the f o o d - s e r v i c e v e n d o r s .
7 
II 
"
7However, 
a l t h o u g h 
the 
s t u d e n t s 
may 
seek 
 
i n j u n c t i v e 
and 
d e c l a r a t o r y 
r e l i e f 
a g a i n s t 
the 
 
u n i v e r s i t y 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , 
§ 
14 
s t i l l 
immunizes 
 
those 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
from 
any 
c l a i m 
f o r money  
damages. H a r b e r t , 
990 So. 2d a t 839-41." 
81 So. 3d a t 332-33 (some emphasis added). 
In 
t h i s 
case, 
§ 14 immunizes the r e s p o n d e n t s from 
any 
c l a i m f o r monetary damages. 
T h e r e f o r e , the c i r c u i t c o u r t d i d 
not have s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n over Owens's c l a i m f o r 
backpay and b e n e f i t s . 
See Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't of Transp., 
978 
So. 
2d 
17 
( A l a . 2007). 
" ' " ' L a c k i n g 
s u b j e c t 
m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n 
[a c o u r t ] 
may 
t a k e 
no 
a c t i o n 
o t h e r 
than 
t o 
e x e r c i s e 
i t s power t o d i s m i s s 
the 
[ c l a i m ] 
Any 
o t h e r 
a c t i o n t a k e n by a c o u r t l a c k i n g s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n i s 
12 
1110421 
n u l l and v o i d . ' " ' Ex p a r t e B l a n k e n s h i p , 893 So. 2d [303,] 307 
[ ( A l a . 
2004)] 
( q u o t i n g 
S t a t e v. P r o p e r t y a t 2018 Rainbow  
D r i v e , 740 So. 2d 1025, 1029 ( A l a . 1999), q u o t i n g i n t u r n 
Beach v. D i r e c t o r o f Revenue, 934 S.W.2d 315, 318 (Mo. C t . 
App. 
1996)." 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f Transp., 978 So. 2d 
a t 27. Thus, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s o r d e r was v o i d t o t h e e x t e n t 
i t p u r p o r t e d t o award backpay and b e n e f i t s t o Owens. 
"Our 
remedy i n such a s i t u a t i o n , 
when we 
f i n d no 
s u b j e c t - m a t t e r 
j u r i s d i c t i o n i n 
t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i s 
t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l and 
v a c a t e t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment." 
Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't  
of Human Res., 999 So. 2d 891, 898 ( A l a . 2008) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
we d i s m i s s t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' a p p e a l as t o t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
f i n a l 
o r d e r 
awarding 
Owens 
backpay and 
b e n e f i t s , and we v a c a t e 
t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
o r d e r . 
B. 
The r e s p o n d e n t s a l s o c o n t e n d t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t e r r e d 
when i t 
g r a n t e d Owens's p e t i t i o n 
f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus and 
d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f because 
" t h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i e n t 
e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d t o 
s u p p o r t 
t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t ' s 
judgment. The e v i d e n c e 
b e f o r e 
t h i s C o u r t shows t h a t Owens was p r o v i d e d a l l 
p r o c e s s t h a t she was due and t h a t any d e v i a t i o n from 
13 
1110421 
the 
s t r i c t u r e s o f p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n ASU's 
Handbook amounts t o 'harmless e r r o r ' and does not 
form 
a 
s u f f i c i e n t 
b a s i s 
f o r o v e r t u r n i n g 
ASU's 
employment d e c i s i o n . " 
(Respondents' b r i e f , a t p. 15.) We note t h a t the r e s p o n d e n t s 
c i t e no s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i r 
h a r m l e s s - e r r o r 
argument, i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P. 
"'The 
purpose o f R u l e 28, A l a . R. App. P., 
o u t l i n i n g the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a p p e l l a t e 
b r i e f s , i s 
t o c o n s e r v e the time and energy 
of the a p p e l l a t e c o u r t and t o a d v i s e t h e 
o p p o s i n g p a r t y o f t h e p o i n t s he o r she 
i s 
o b l i g a t e d t o make. 
U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Levy, 
391 F.3d 1327 (11th C i r . 2004) ( d i s c u s s i n g 
the r u l e t h a t i s s u e s n o t b r i e f e d a r e w a i v e d 
and R u l e 28, Fed. R. App. P., w h i c h 
s e t s 
out t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a p p e l l a t e 
b r i e f s 
i n the f e d e r a l c o u r t s ) . 
R u l e 
2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , 
A l a . R. App. P., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e argument 
s e c t i o n o f the a p p e l l a n t ' s b r i e f s h a l l s e t 
o u t 
" t h e 
c 
o n t e n t i o n s 
o f 
t h e 
a p p e l l a n t / p e t i t i o n e r 
w i t h 
r e s p e c t t o the 
i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d , and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r , 
w i t h 
c i t a t i o n s 
t o t h e c a s e s , 
s t a t u t e s , 
o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , and p a r t s o f t h e r e c o r d 
r e l i e d on." 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , " ' [ i ] t i s 
n o t 
the f u n c t i o n o f t h i s C o u r t t o do a p a r t y ' s 
l e g a l r e s e a r c h o r t o 
make and a d d r e s s l e g a l 
arguments f o r a p a r t y based on u n d e l i n e a t e d 
g e n e r a l 
p r o p o s i t i o n s 
n o t 
s u p p o r t e d 
by 
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y o r argument.'" B u t l e r  
v. Town o f Argo, 871 So. 2d 1, 20 
( A l a . 
2003) 
( q u o t i n g 
Dykes v. Lane 
T r u c k i n g , 
I n c . , 652 So. 2d 248, 251 ( A l a . 
1 9 9 4 ) ) . ' 
"Ex 
p a r t e Borden, 60 So. 3d 940, 943 ( A l a . 2007). 
Because G r a c i e has n o t c o m p l i e d w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , 
we do n o t c o n s i d e r t h i s i s s u e . " 
14 
1110421 
Van V o o r s t v. F e d e r a l E x p r e s s Corp., 16 So. 3d 86, 92-93 ( A l a . 
2008). 
I t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t g e n e r a l 
p r o p o s i t i o n s 
of law are not c o n s i d e r e d 
" s u p p o r t i n g a u t h o r i t y " f o r 
purposes of R u l e 28. 
Ex p a r t e R i l e y , 464 
So. 
2d 
92 
( A l a . 
1985).' 
S.B. 
v. S a i n t James Sch., 
959 
So. 
2d 
72, 
89 
( A l a . 2006). 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
w i l l 
not 
' c r e a t e 
l e g a l arguments f o r a p a r t y based on 
u n d e l i n e a t e d 
g e n e r a l 
p r o p o s i t i o n s 
u n s u p p o r t e d 
by 
a u t h o r i t y 
or 
argument.' 
S p r a d l i n v. S p r a d l i n , 601 
So. 
2d 76, 
79 
( A l a . 
1992) . 
F u r t h e r , 
i t i s w e l l 
s e t t l e d 
t h a t 
"[w]here an 
a p p e l l a n t 
f a i l s 
t o 
c i t e 
any 
a u t h o r i t y 
f o r 
an argument, t h i s C o u r t may 
a f f i r m the judgment 
as t o t h o s e i s s u e s , f o r i t i s n e i t h e r t h i s C o u r t ' s 
d u t y 
nor 
i t s f u n c t i o n 
t o 
p e r f o r m 
a l l the 
l e g a l 
r e s e a r c h f o r an a p p e l l a n t . " ' 
S p r a d l i n v. Birmingham  
A i r p o r t 
A u t h . , 
613 
So. 
2d 
347, 
348 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 3 ) ( q u o t i n g Sea Calm S h i p p i n g Co., 
S.A. 
v. Cooks, 
565 
So. 
2d 212, 
216 
( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ) . " 
A l l s o p p v. B o l d i n g , 
86 So. 
3d 952, 
960 
( A l a . 2011). 
The 
o n l y 
c i t a t i o n s 
t o 
a u t h o r i t y 
i n c l u d e d 
i n 
the 
r e s p o n d e n t s ' argument s t a n d f o r the g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n s 
t h a t 
" [ t ] h e d o c t r i n e t h a t e r r o r , i n o r d e r t o f u r n i s h a ground f o r 
r e v e r s a l , must be p r e j u d i c i a l i s g e n e r a l l y a p p l i e d t o r e v i e w 
of 
a d e c i s i o n by 
an 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d " 
and 
t h a t 
" ' [ a ] n 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t 
s h o u l d 
v i e w 
w i t h 
l e s s 
s t r i c t n e s s 
the 
p r o c e d u r a l 
a s p e c t s 
of p r o c e e d i n g s b e f o r e 
an 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
body t h a n when d e a l i n g w i t h p r o c e d u r a l a s p e c t s o c c u r r i n g i n a 
l o w e r c o u r t . ' 
S t a t e v. Alabama P u b l i c S e r v i c e Commission, 
293 
15 
1110421 
A l a . 553, 
562-63, 307 So. 3d 521, 528-29 (1975)." 
Ferguson v.  
Hamrick, 388 So. 3d 981, 984 
( A l a . 1980) .
4 
However, t h e 
r e s p o n d e n t s do n o t c i t e any a u t h o r i t y t h a t 
s u p p o r t s 
t h e i r 
s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t t h e h a r m l e s s - e r r o r 
r u l e would 
a p p l y 
t o t h e i r 
f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n 
the handbook. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e r e s p o n d e n t s ' argument i n t h i s 
r e g a r d does n o t comply w i t h R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , 
A l a . R. App. P., 
and we w i l l n o t c o n s i d e r 
t h i s i s s u e . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m 
the 
p o r t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t 
c o u r t ' s 
f i n a l 
o r d e r 
g r a n t i n g 
mandamus and d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f . 
For 
t h e a b o v e - s t a t e d 
r e a s o n s , we 
d i s m i s s 
t h e a p p e a l 
i n s o f a r as i t i s 
from t h e 
p o r t i o n o f 
t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s f i n a l 
o r d e r awarding Owens backpay and b e n e f i t s , and 
we v a c a t e t h a t 
p o r t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s 
f i n a l o r d e r . 
However, we 
a f f i r m t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment g r a n t i n g 
mandamus and d e c l a r a t o r y r e l i e f . 
4 T h i s C o u r t i n Ferguson was r e v i e w i n g a d e c i s i o n by 
t h e 
B o a r d o f M e d i c a l 
Examiners. 
A l s o , 
t h i s C o u r t i n Ferguson 
n o t e d t h a t t h e r e was a s t a t u t e t h a t s p e c i f i c a l l y p r o v i d e d 
t h a t 
the h a r m l e s s - e r r o r 
r u l e a p p l i e d t o d e c i s i o n s o f t h e B o a r d o f 
M e d i c a l Examiners. 
However, t h e r e s p o n d e n t s do n o t c i t e any 
s t a t u t e t h a t p r o v i d e s 
t h a t t h e h a r m l e s s - e r r o r 
r u l e a p p l i e s t o 
the r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n o f t h e B o a r d i n t h i s case. 
16 
1110421 
AFFIRMED IN PART; APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART AND JUDGMENT 
VACATED IN PART. 
Malone, 
C.J., and 
W o o d a l l , 
S t u a r t , 
B o l i n , 
P a r k e r , 
Murdock, Shaw, and Main, J J . , c o n c u r . 
17