Title: In re: Teplick v. Moulton

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL:01/25/2013 
N o t i c e : 
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 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
1111283 
Ex parte Gordon Moulton e t a l . 
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 
(In re: 
Richard Teplick 
v. 
Gordon Moulton et a l . ) 
(Mobile C i r c u i t Court, CV-09-901752) 
BOLIN, 
J u s t i c e . 
Gordon M o u l t o n , t h e p r e s i d e n t o f 
t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f South 
Alabama 
("USA"); 
S t a n l e y Hammack, t h e v i c e 
p r e s i d e n t f o r 
1111283 
H e a l t h Systems a t USA and s e n i o r h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r ; Dr. 
R o n a l d F r a n k s , t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n t f o r 
H e a l t h S c i e n c e s a t 
USA; 
and Dr. Samuel S t r a d a , t h e 
dean o f t h e C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e a t 
USA 
( h e r e i n a f t e r 
r e f e r r e d 
t o 
c o l l e c t i v e l y 
as " t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s " ) , 
p e t i t i o n 
t h i s C o u r t f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus 
d i r e c t i n g t h e 
M o b i l e C i r c u i t C o u r t t o 
v a c a t e i t s o r d e r d e n y i n g 
the p e t i t i o n e r s ' 
m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment and 
t o e n t e r an 
o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h a t m o t i o n . 
We g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n and i s s u e 
the w r i t . 
F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l 
H i s t o r y 
A. Dr. R i c h a r d T e p l i c k ' s Employment and T e r m i n a t i o n o f t h a t 
Employment 
On May 29, 2001, 
Dr. R o b e r t A. K r i e s b e r g , t h e 
dean o f t h e 
C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e and v i c e p r e s i d e n t f o r M e d i c a l A f f a i r s 
f o r 
USA, n o t i f i e d Dr. R i c h a r d T e p l i c k i n w r i t i n g t h a t t h e 
p o s i t i o n 
of 
c h i e f o f s t a f f o f USA H o s p i t a l s was b e i n g 
p o s t e d f o r 
a 
p e r i o d o f f i v e days and i n v i t e d him t o complete and r e t u r n an 
a p p l i c a t i o n , w h i c h was e n c l o s e d . 
K r i e s b e r g l i s t e d a number 
o f 
j o b 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 
a s s o c i a t e d 
w i t h 
t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n and i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k t h a t t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f would be 
a member o f 
t h e s e n i o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f 
t h e 
H e a l t h Systems a t 
USA and 
would r e p o r t d i r e c t l y t o 
him. K r i e s b e r g a l s o i n f o r m e d 
2 
1111283 
T e p l i c k t h a t t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f would a l s o h o l d a 
c l i n i c a l -
f a c u l t y appointment and t h a t p a t i e n t - c a r e 
a c t i v i t i e s 
w o u l d 
a c c o u n t f o r 
no more than "20% 
o f e f f o r t . " 
K r i e s b e r g f u r t h e r 
i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k t h a t t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f ' s 
s a l a r y would be 
g u a r a n t e e d f o r two y e a r s and t h a t 
t h e r e a f t e r i t 
would be 
d e t e r m i n e d on a p r o d u c t i v i t y - b a s e d compensation p l a n . T e p l i c k 
a p p l i e d f o r t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n and was h i r e d on 
October 1, 2001. T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t when he was h i r e d he 
d i d not e n t e r i n t o any w r i t t e n agreement and 
no p r o m i s e s were 
made t o 
him r e g a r d i n g t h e 
l e n g t h o f 
h i s 
employment as c h i e f o f 
s t a f f . 
S t a n l e y Hammack, as USA's s e n i o r h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t o r , 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he d i s a g r e e d 
w i t h 
K r i e s b e r g ' s 
d e c i s i o n t o 
c r e a t e 
t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n 
because 
USA was a 
r e l a t i v e l y " s m a l l o p e r a t i o n " and t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
o n l y added "an e x t r a l a y e r o f management." 
Hammack s t a t e d , 
however, t h a t he s u p p o r t e d K r i e s b e r g ' s d e c i s i o n t o c r e a t e t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n and t o h i r e T e p l i c k once 
K r i e s b e r g 
made t h e d e c i s i o n t o do so. 
Hammack 
s t a t e d 
t h a t h i s 
3 
1111283 
d i s a g r e e m e n t 
w i t h 
K r i e s b e r g 
c o n c e r n e d 
the 
"need 
of 
the 
p o s i t i o n i n g e n e r a l , i r r e s p e c t i v e of T e p l i c k . "
1 
T e p l i c k 
i n i t i a l l y 
r e p o r t e d 
d i r e c t l y 
t o 
K r i e s b e r g . 
T e p l i c k ' s 
d u t i e s 
as 
c h i e f of 
s t a f f 
i n c l u d e d 
s e r v i n g 
as 
a 
l i a i s o n between USA 
and 
the 
m e d i c a l 
s t a f f ; 
a s s i s t i n g 
w i t h 
d i s c h a r g e p l a n n i n g ; a s s i s t i n g w i t h q u a l i t y - a s s u r a n c e 
e f f o r t s ; 
w o r k i n g w i t h 
t h i r d - p a r t y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s 
and p a y o r s such 
as 
B l u e 
C r o s s - B l u e 
S h i e l d ; 
and 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g 
i n 
v a r i o u s 
committees r e l a t i v e t o c o s t c o n t r o l and 
c l i n i c a l 
c a r e . 
In 
a d d i t i o n 
t o 
h i s 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
d u t i e s 
as 
c h i e f 
of 
s t a f f , 
T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t he a l s o h e l d t h r e e s e p a r a t e 
p r o f e s s o r 
p o s i t i o n s 
w i t h i n 
the 
USA 
C o l l e g e 
of 
M e d i c i n e , 
i n c l u d i n g 
p r o f e s s o r of a n e s t h e s i o l o g y , 
s u r g e r y , 
and 
i n t e r n a l m e d i c i n e . 
T e p l i c k a l s o s t a t e d t h a t he h e l d the p o s i t i o n of 
a s s o c i a t e 
dean w i t h i n the C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e . 
T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
h i s 
j o b 
d u t i e s 
w i t h i n 
the 
academic 
p o s i t i o n s 
i n c l u d e d 
p e r f o r m i n g 
c l i n i c a l work two 
t o t h r e e months e v e r y year 
and 
l e c t u r i n g 
t o 
r e s i d e n t s , 
f e l l o w s , 
and 
m e d i c a l 
s t u d e n t s . 
T e p l i c k f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o h i s f o r m a l 
j o b 
t i t l e s 
and 
d u t i e s 
he 
a l s o 
s e r v e d 
on 
v a r i o u s 
committees, 
1Hammack r e p o r t e d t o K r i e s b e r g . 
4 
1111283 
i n c l u d i n g o v e r s e e i n g 
g r a d u a t e m e d i c a l e d u c a t i o n ; 
s e r v i n g on 
the Compliance and E t h i c s C o m m i t t e e ; s e r v i n g on t h e B i l l i n g 
Compliance Committee; and s e r v i n g as the USA r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t o 
the V e t e r a n ' s A d m i n i s t r a t i o n H o s p i t a l i n 
B i l o x i , 
M i s s i s s i p p i . 
T e p l i c k 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t , 
d e s p i t e h i s v a r i o u s 
p o s i t i o n s and 
d u t i e s , 
he had no 
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g 
a u t h o r i t y , 
no 
d i r e c t 
s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y over anyone, and 
no a u t h o r i t y t o 
h i r e o r 
f i r e anyone. 
K r i e s b e r g announced h i s r e t i r e m e n t i n 
t h e f a l l o f 2004, 
a t w h i c h time T e p l i c k began r e p o r t i n g t o Hammack. 
T e p l i c k 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
s h o r t l y a f t e r Hammack became h i s s u p e r v i s o r 
Hammack t o l d him t h a t t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was n o t 
needed i n 
t h e 
USA system "but t h a t [ T e p l i c k ' s ] j o b was s e c u r e " 
and 
t h a t "he would n o t h i r e a n o t h e r 
C h i e f - o f - s t a f f a f t e r 
[ T e p l i c k ] l e f t . " 
Subsequent t o Hammack's becoming T e p l i c k ' s 
immediate 
s u p e r v i s o r , 
some 
o f 
T e p l i c k ' s 
d u t i e s 
and 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were 
r e a s s i g n e d 
t o o t h e r s , 
i n c l u d i n g h i s 
s u p e r v i s o r y 
p o s i t i o n 
over 
t h e 
g r a d u a t e - m e d i c a l - e d u c a t i o n 
program and h i s p o s i t i o n as c o m p l i a n c e o f f i c e r on t h e B i l l i n g 
Compliance Committee. 
5 
1111283 
Hammack 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
soon 
a f t e r 
K r i e s b e r g 
r e t i r e d 
T e p l i c k 
i n q u i r e d 
about the s t a t u s 
o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n and t h a t he i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k t h a t he was " n o t 
a f a n " 
of t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n and t h a t he would " s e e 
how i t 
w o r k s . " 
Hammack d e n i e d 
t e l l i n g 
T e p l i c k 
t h a t he would n o t 
e l i m i n a t e t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
u n t i l 
a f t e r 
T e p l i c k 
chose t o l e a v e the 
p o s i t i o n . 
Hammack a l s o e x p l a i n e d t h a t some 
of T e p l i c k ' s 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and d u t i e s were r e a s s i g n e d a t 
t h a t time f o r the purpose o f c r e a t i n g " b r o a d e r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , 
p e r s p e c t i v e and a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " because T e p l i c k , as c h i e f o f 
s t a f f , had no one r e p o r t i n g d i r e c t l y t o h i m . 
In J u l y 2007, Hammack began d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h b o t h Franks 
and S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e 
c h i e f -
o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , i n c l u d i n g d i s c u s s i n g t h e 
r e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 
T e p l i c k ' s 
d u t i e s and t h e p r o j e c t e d 
f i n a n c i a l 
s a v i n g s 
from 
e l i m i n a t i n g 
t h e 
p o s i t i o n . 
Franks 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
t h e s e 
d i s c u s s i o n s c e n t e r e d on b o t h t h e 
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r e l i m i n a t i n g the p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f . 
F r a n k s t e s t i f i e d t h a t Hammack was p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y opposed t o 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
b u t 
t h a t 
Hammock 
had n o t 
p r e d e t e r m i n e d t o e l i m i n a t e the p o s i t i o n a t t h e time 
t h e s e 
6 
1111283 
d i s c u s s i o n s were t a k i n g p l a c e . S t r a d a a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t 
t h e 
d i s c u s s i o n s 
c e n t e r e d on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and 
f i n a n c i a l 
a s p e c t s o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n b u t t h a t he " t h o u g h t " 
d u r i n g t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s 
t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e the 
p o s i t i o n had a l r e a d y been made by Hammack. 
Hammack s t a t e d t h a t he d e c i d e d i n t h e f a l l o f 2008 t o 
e l i m i n a t e t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . Hammack t e s t i f i e d t h a t 
the 
d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s i t i o n was based on USA's 
d i f f i c u l t f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n a t 
the 
time and h i s b e l i e f 
t h a t 
e l i m i n a t i n g the p o s i t i o n would s t r e a m l i n e USA's o p e r a t i o n s and 
b r i n g d i r e c t a c c o u n t a b i l i t y between department chairmen and 
h o s p i t a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .
2 
Hammack t e s t i f i e d t h a t he t h o u g h t 
e l i m i n a t i n g 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
was " t h e most 
e f f i c i e n t t h i n g t o do and save money a t t h e same t i m e " and 
t h a t the 
d e c i s i o n t o 
e l i m i n a t e t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n was 
not based on T e p l i c k ' s j o b p e r f o r m a n c e . 
Hammack i n f o r m e d 
P r e s i d e n t M o u l t o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e c h i e f - o f -
s t a f f p o s i t i o n , w h i c h d e c i s i o n P r e s i d e n t M o u l t o n a p p r o v e d . 
Hammack i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k i n a m e e t i n g on O c t o b e r 10, 
2008, o f 
the 
d e c i s i o n t o 
e l i m i n a t e t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
2Hammack 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k ' s 
s a l a r y , 
i n c l u d i n g 
b e n e f i t s , 
was a p p r o x i m a t e l y $400,000 a n n u a l l y . 
7 
1111283 
based 
on 
USA's 
f i n a n c i a l 
s i t u a t i o n 
as 
w e l l 
as 
on 
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . 
Hammack 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he 
encouraged T e p l i c k t o e x p l o r e 
o t h e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n t h e 
USA system. 
On December 29, 2008, Hammack f o r m a l l y 
n o t i f i e d 
T e p l i c k by l e t t e r t h a t t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n would be 
e l i m i n a t e d e f f e c t i v e March 31, 2009. 
T e p l i c k ' s employment was 
t e r m i n a t e d on March 31, 2009, when t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
was e l i m i n a t e d . 
T e p l i c k was t h e l a s t t o h o l d t h e 
p o s i t i o n o f 
c h i e f o f s t a f f ; h i s former f u n c t i o n s as t h e 
c h i e f o f s t a f f a r e 
now b e i n g 
c a r r i e d o u t 
by o t h e r s . 
T e p l i c k 
d i s p u t e s 
Hammack's 
c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t 
USA's 
d i f f i c u l t f i n a n c i a l s i t u a t i o n was t h e r e a s o n f o r e l i m i n a t i n g 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . 
Hammack 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t , i n 
a d d i t i o n t o e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , 
o t h e r 
c o s t - c u t t i n g measures were t a k e n t o a d d r e s s USA's 
p r e c a r i o u s 
f i n a n c i a l 
s i t u a t i o n . 
Hammack 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
m e d i c a l 
t r a n s c r i p t i o n s were o u t s o u r c e d , which r e s u l t e d i n 
a s a v i n g s o f 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y $300,000. Hammack a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e a i r -
m e d i c a l - t r a n s p o r t 
s e r v i c e o p e r a t e d by USA c l o s e d i n 
2002 and 
t h a t t h e r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t program 
c l o s e d 
" s e v e r a l 
y e a r s " 
l a t e r . 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t t h e c l o s i n g o f t h e a i r - m e d i c a l -
8 
1111283 
t r a n s p o r t 
s e r v i c e and t h e r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t program d i d n o t 
o c c u r w i t h i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o t h e time the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d , 
the c l o s i n g o f t h e a i r - m e d i c a l -
t r a n s p o r t 
s e r v i c e o c c u r r i n g i n 2002 and t h e c l o s i n g o f 
t h e 
r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t 
program, 
a c c o r d i n g 
t o Hammack, 
o c c u r r i n g 
" s e v e r a l " y e a r s 
l a t e r . 
Hammack s u b s e q u e n t l y c l a r i f i e d 
t h a t 
the c l o s i n g o f the r e n a l - t r a n s p l a n t program o c c u r r e d " a r o u n d 
2009." 
T e p l i c k 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he o f f e r e d t o t a k e a 
s a l a r y 
r e d u c t i o n i n l i e u o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
but t h a t Hammack r e j e c t e d t h i s i d e a . 
T e p l i c k a l s o n o t e s t h a t 
no 
f o r m a l 
c o s t - b e n e f i t 
s t u d y was c o n d u c t e d c o n c e r n i n g t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n ; no o t h e r h i g h - l e v e l p o s i t i o n s were 
e l i m i n a t e d ; no s a l a r y r e s t r u c t u r i n g o r o t h e r j o b demotions 
were c a r r i e d o u t ; and, i n some c a s e s , h i g h - l e v e l employees 
r e c e i v e d 
r a i s e s . 
As 
f o r t h e 
o u t s o u r c i n g 
o f 
m e d i c a l 
t r a n s c r i p t i o n s , T e p l i c k n o t e s t h a t the 
employees a f f e c t e d by 
t h a t o u t s o u r c i n g were a l l o w e d t o 
a p p l y f o r o t h e r employment 
a t 
USA. 
He 
a l s o 
n o t e s 
t h a t 
the o u t s o u r c i n g 
o f 
m e d i c a l 
t r a n s c r i p t i o n s d i d 
n o t c o m p l e t e l y e l i m i n a t e t h e f u n c t i o n o r 
9 
1111283 
i t s c o s t s ; r a t h e r , i t m e r e l y r e d u c e d c o s t s by c o n t r a c t i n g the 
work out. 
B. T e p l i c k ' s Employment 
C l a s s i f i c a t i o n 
G e r a l d G a t t i s , the a s s o c i a t e d i r e c t o r f o r Human R e s o u r c e s 
a t USA, 
t e s t i f i e d i n h i s a f f i d a v i t t h a t T e p l i c k was 
a t a l l 
t i m e s 
an 
a t - w i l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
employee 
of 
USA. 
G a t t i s 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
as 
an 
a t - w i l l employee 
T e p l i c k 
s e r v e d 
a t 
the 
p l e a s u r e 
of h i s s u p e r i o r s and c o u l d be t e r m i n a t e d 
or have h i s 
p o s i t i o n 
e l i m i n a t e d 
a t 
anytime. 
G a t t i s 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees such as T e p l i c k were d e s i g n a t e d 
by 
the code "110." The d e s i g n a t i o n "110" 
i s h i s t o r i c a l l y the code 
USA 
g i v e s 
t o 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , 
m a n a g e r i a l , 
and 
e x e c u t i v e 
employees 
t o 
r e f l e c t 
t h a t 
c a t e g o r y 
of 
each 
employee's 
a s s o c i a t e d f e d e r a l "EEO 
s k i l l code." G a t t i s t e s t i f i e d t h a t i t 
i s v e r y a p p a r e n t t o an i n d i v i d u a l d e s i g n a t e d 
as a "110" 
t h a t 
he 
or she 
i s d i f f e r e n t from a s t a f f employee because of 
the 
j o b r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and 
s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r 
s a l a r y of 
t h a t 
i n d i v i d u a l . 
G a t t i s f u r t h e r s t a t e d t h a t employees 
d e s i g n a t e d 
as "110" 
are not s u b j e c t t o the USA 
s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook. 
G a t t i s a l s o s t a t e d t h a t because T e p l i c k was 
d e s i g n a t e d 
as 
a 
"110" 
he was 
not e n t i t l e d t o any due p r o c e s s upon 
s e p a r a t i o n 
10 
1111283 
from h i s employment from USA. 
F i n a l l y G a t t i s t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
a l t h o u g h some p e r s o n n e l - a c t i o n forms l i s t e d T e p l i c k as " s t a f f 
exempt," t h o s e l i s t i n g s were t h e r e s u l t o f a c l e r i c a l 
e r r o r 
and a m i s t a k e because T e p l i c k was never a s t a f f employee o f 
USA. 
T e p l i c k 
d i s p u t e s h i s d e s i g n a t i o n as a "110," s t a t i n g 
i n s t e a d t h a t he was a s t a f f employee and a f a c u l t y member o f 
USA. 
S t a f f employees have c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s upon 
s e p a r a t i o n from t h e i r employment a t USA. I n s u p p o r t o f h i s 
c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he was a s t a f f employee, T e p l i c k p o i n t s t o t h e 
f a c t s t h a t he l a c k e d any r e a l a u t h o r i t y over anyone and d i d 
not have t h e a u t h o r i t y " 1 1 0 s " g e n e r a l l y have t o h i r e o r f i r e 
i n d i v i d u a l s ; 
t h a t 
Hammack, 
h i s 
immediate 
s u p e r v i s o r , 
d e s c r i b e d 
the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n as b e i n g o f 
" s t a f f 
o r i e n t a t i o n ... [ t ] h e y have no one t h a t 
r e a l l y 
r e p o r t s t o 
them"; t h a t he was d e s i g n a t e d as " s t a f f " on s e v e r a l p e r s o n n e l -
a c t i o n 
f o r m s ; and 
t h a t 
he 
s i g n e d 
f o r and 
r e c e i v e d 
a 
" U n i v e r s i t y o f South Alabama 
S t a f f Employee Handbook" and 
g e n e r a l l y an employee d e s i g n a t e d as a " 1 1 0 " does n o t s i g n 
f o r 
or r e c e i v e a s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook. 
The s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook s p e c i f i c a l l y 
p r o v i d e s : 
11 
1111283 
" T h i s handbook has been f o r m u l a t e d 
t o a s s u r e 
t h a t a l l s t a f f employees o f the U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h 
Alabama are i n f o r m e d of the p e r s o n n e l p o l i c i e s and 
p r o c e d u r e s 
of the U n i v e r s i t y 
o f S o u t h 
Alabama. 
S t a f f 
employees 
a r e 
employees 
who 
occupy 
s e c r e t a r i a l / c l e r i c a l , 
c r a f t s / t r a d e s , 
t e c h n i c a l , 
p r o f e s s i o n a l 
and 
s e r v i c e 
p o s i t i o n s . 
You 
s h o u l d 
become f a m i l i a r w i t h t h e s e p o l i c i e s and p r o c e d u r e s 
and 
keep 
t h i s 
handbook 
a v a i l a b l e 
f o r use as a 
r e f e r e n c e . 
"Department 
heads, 
o t h e r 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
p e r s o n n e l and f a c u l t y a r e n o t c o n s i d e r e d t o be s t a f f 
and the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s handbook may be u s e d as 
g u i d e l i n e s b u t do n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a p p l y 
t o them. 
Department heads and o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e r s o n n e l 
s h o u l d , however, be f a m i l i a r w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of 
t h i s 
handbook 
as 
t h e y 
a r e 
r e s p o n s i b l e 
f o r i t s 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 
S h o u l d i s s u e s or q u e s t i o n s 
a r i s e 
r e g a r d i n g 
t h i s 
handbook, 
the department head o r 
s u p e r v i s o r s h o u l d c o n t a c t the Human R e s o u r c e s O f f i c e 
f o r 
c l a r i f i c a t i o n . " 
The r e c e i p t f o r the handbook, s i g n e d by T e p l i c k , 
p r o v i d e s , 
i n p a r t , as f o l l o w s : 
" I f u r t h e r u n d e r s t a n d t h a t I am r e q u i r e d t o r e a d 
and become f a m i l i a r w i t h a l l 
the p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s e 
p o l i c i e s , and my s u p e r v i s o r or department head 
w i l l 
answer any q u e s t i o n s 
c o n c e r n i n g the p o l i c i e s . 
" I u n d e r s t a n d t h a t n e i t h e r t h i s handbook nor any 
p r o v i s i o n 
of 
t h i s 
handbook 
i s or 
i m p l i e s 
an 
employment c o n t r a c t or any o t h e r type of c o n t r a c t . 
I 
a l s o 
u n d e r s t a n d 
t h a t my 
employment 
i s f o r an 
i n d e f i n i t e term and may be t e r m i n a t e d a t any time a t 
the w i l l of e i t h e r the employee or the U n i v e r s i t y . " 
G a t t i s 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
"110s" may 
r e c e i v e 
a copy o f t h e 
" U n i v e r s i t y of S o u t h Alabama S t a f f Employee Handbook" t o use 
12 
1111283 
as a management t o o l because i t 
a l l o w s them t o f a m i l i a r i z e 
t h e m s e l v e s w i t h t h e r u l e s 
a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i r 
department. 
G a t t i s 
f u r t h e r 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
i f a 
s t a f f 
employee 
was 
t e r m i n a t e d o r suspended t h a t employee would have c e r t a i n due-
p r o c e s s r i g h t s under t h e s t a f f - e m p l o y e e 
handbook; however, a 
s t a f f employee has no d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s under t h e 
handbook i f 
the employee l o s e s h i s 
employment because h i s 
o r h e r p o s i t i o n 
has been e l i m i n a t e d by USA. 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t he was a l s o a f a c u l t y member a t USA 
and as such was a l s o e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s 
a p p l i c a b l e 
t o 
f a c u l t y 
members 
p u r s u a n t 
t o t h e 
f a c u l t y 
handbook. 
S t r a d a , 
the dean o f the C o l l e g e 
o f 
M e d i c i n e , 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
" r e g u l a r " 
f a c u l t y members, b o t h t e n u r e d and 
n o n - t e n u r e d , have d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s upon b e i n g d i s m i s s e d from 
t h e i r 
p o s i t i o n s , 
b u t t h a t 
" a d j u n c t " 
f a c u l t y have no due-
p r o c e s s r i g h t s upon b e i n g d i s m i s s e d . 
B o t h S t r a d a and F r a n k s 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l 
c o u l d 
h o l d 
d u a l 
s t a t u s as a 
"110," a 
s t a f f employee, and a 
f a c u l t y member. 
F r a n k s 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was b o t h a "110" and a f a c u l t y member. 
As 
d i s c u s s e d 
above, 
T e p l i c k 
s t a t e d 
t h a t 
w i t h i n the 
C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e he h e l d t h e p o s i t i o n o f " p r o f e s s o r " o f 
13 
1111283 
a n e s t h e s i o l o g y 
and 
s u r g e r y , 
of 
" p r o f e s s o r " 
of 
i n t e r n a l 
m e d i c i n e , and 
of a s s o c i a t e d e a n . 
T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
he 
was never an a d j u n c t a p p o i n t e e . 
T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n the 
academic p o s i t i o n s w i t h i n the C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e he p e r f o r m e d 
c l i n i c a l work and 
l e c t u r e d . 
T e p l i c k t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t p a r t 
of 
h i s s a l a r y was 
i n i t i a l l y p a i d by the m e d i c a l 
s c h o o l . 
T e p l i c k 
a l s o r e f e r e n c e s , 
i n s u p p o r t of h i s c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t he was 
a 
r e g u l a r f a c u l t y member, h i s d e s i g n a t i o n as a " p r o f e s s o r " 
on 
the 
"Memorand[a] of 
Reappointment" 
t o 
the 
Department 
of 
A n e s t h e s i o l o g y 
and 
S u r g e r y 
f o r 
h i s 
f i n a l 
two 
y e a r s 
of 
employment, w h i c h were s i g n e d by S t r a d a , 
i n h i s c a p a c i t y 
as 
dean of the C o l l e g e of 
M e d i c i n e . 
S t r a d a t e s t i f i e d t h a t T e p l i c k was an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r i n 
the C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e from 2001 
u n t i l 2009. S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r s h i p was unfunded and t h a t the 
C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e d i d not pay him a s a l a r y f o r h i s 
a d j u n c t 
a p p o i n t m e n t ; r a t h e r , T e p l i c k was 
" p a i d s o l e l y as the C h i e f of 
S t a f f from the h o s p i t a l s i d e of USA." 
T e p l i c k was 
e x p r e s s l y 
i n f o r m e d 
on 
O c t o b e r 
9, 
2001, 
a t 
the 
time 
of 
h i s 
i n i t i a l 
appointment as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r , t h a t the appointment 
was 
a "non-tenure a c c r u i n g appointment" t h a t d i d not i n c l u d e 
any 
14 
1111283 
" a d d i t i o n a l compensation." 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t T e p l i c k 
was 
never a r e g u l a r 
f a c u l t y member a t USA 
and 
t h a t h i s 
f a c u l t y 
p o s i t i o n was a t a l l 
times " h o n o r i f i c and v o l u n t a r y i n n a t u r e , " 
and 
as such T e p l i c k was 
not a f f o r d e d the d u e - p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s 
p u r s u a n t t o the USA 
f a c u l t y handbook. 
The 
r e c o r d b e f o r e 
t h i s 
C o u r t c o n t a i n s T e p l i c k ' s "Memorandum of Reappointment" t o the 
C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e f o r each of the y e a r s 2001 
t h r o u g h 2006. 
These memoranda s p e c i f i c a l l y 
d e s i g n a t e 
T e p l i c k as an 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r , c o n t r a r y t o T e p l i c k ' s t e s t i m o n y 
t h a t he was 
never 
d e s i g n a t e d 
as an a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r .
3 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
the "Memorandum of Reappointment" f o r each of the y e a r s 2007 
and 2008 r e f e r s t o T e p l i c k as a " p r o f e s s o r " because T e p l i c k 
came t o him and asked t h a t the word " a d j u n c t " be dropped from 
the memorandum because, he 
s a i d , T e p l i c k d i d not 
" l i k e " 
the 
word a d j u n c t . 
S t r a d a s t a t e d t h a t he a g r e e d t o drop the word 
" a d j u n c t " 
from 
the memorandum b u t 
t h a t 
i t d i d not 
change 
T e p l i c k ' s d e s i g n a t i o n as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r . 
S t r a d a 
a l s o 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k ' s 
t i t l e 
of 
a s s o c i a t e dean was 
one 
3The "Memorand[a] of Reappointment" from 2001 t h r o u g h 2004 
a c t u a l l y 
r e f e r t o T e p l i c k as b e i n g 
a 
" c l i n i c a l 
p r o f e s s o r " ; 
however, S t r a d a 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t 
" c l i n i c a l p r o f e s s o r " was 
the 
term f o r m e r l y used by USA 
t o d e s c r i b e " a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . " 
15 
1111283 
c r e a t e d 
by 
K r i e s b e r g 
f o r T e p l i c k 
and 
t h a t 
the 
t i t l e 
was 
h o n o r i f i c i n n a t u r e and no s a l a r y was 
a s s o c i a t e d w i t h i t . 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t , as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r , 
T e p l i c k 
was 
never 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
p r o m o t i o n 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n ; 
was 
never 
r e q u i r e d t o p u b l i s h s c h o l a r l y a r t i c l e s ; and was never r e q u i r e d 
t o be 
e v a l u a t e d 
i n h i s p r o f e s s o r i a l d u t i e s . 
S t r a d a 
a l s o 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t the e l i m i n a t i o n of the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
had no e f f e c t on T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r s h i p and t h a t 
the 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r s h i p 
was 
not 
r e s c i n d e d 
when 
T e p l i c k ' s 
employment as 
c h i e f of 
s t a f f ended i n March 2009. 
S t r a d a 
s t a t e d t h a t T e p l i c k never i n q u i r e d about the 
s t a t u s of 
h i s 
a d j u n c t appointment f o l l o w i n g the e l i m i n a t i o n of the c h i e f - o f -
s t a f f p o s i t i o n . T e p l i c k h i m s e l f s t a t e d t h a t he was aware t h a t 
he h e l d the a d j u n c t appointment t h r o u g h August 2009. 
C. T e p l i c k ' s Post-Employment 
N e g o t i a t i o n s 
On June 9, 2009, a f t e r the p o s i t i o n as c h i e f of s t a f f 
was 
e l i m i n a t e d , S t r a d a r e c e i v e d a r e q u e s t from the chairman of the 
Department of M e d i c i n e r e q u e s t i n g t h a t T e p l i c k be a p p o i n t e d as 
an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r i n t h a t department. 
T e p l i c k responded t o 
the chairman, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a r e q u e s t f o r appointment 
was 
not 
r e q u i r e d 
a t 
t h a t 
time 
because 
T e p l i c k 
r e t a i n e d 
h i s 
16 
1111283 
p r e v i o u s 
appointment, 
w h i c h 
was 
not 
a f f e c t e d 
by 
the 
e l i m i n a t i o n 
of 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n , t h r o u g h August 
2009. 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n August 2009 l e t t e r s were s e n t 
t o the v a r i o u s departments r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e y i d e n t i f y t h o s e 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r s 
t h e y w i s h e d t o r e a p p o i n t 
f o r the 
coming 
s c h o o l 
y e a r . 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t the 
s u r g e r y 
department 
chose 
not 
t o 
r e a p p o i n t 
T e p l i c k 
as 
an 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
S t r a d a 
f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t the chairman of the Department 
of M e d i c i n e f a i l e d t o r e s p o n d a t a l l t o the i n q u i r i e s as 
t o 
whether t h a t department was 
g o i n g t o r e a p p o i n t 
T e p l i c k as 
an 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
F o l l o w i n g 
the 
e l i m i n a t i o n of 
the 
p o s i t i o n as 
c h i e f 
of 
s t a f f , T e p l i c k e x p l o r e d o t h e r j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n the 
USA 
system. I n 
the summer of 2009, T e p l i c k was 
i n 
n e g o t i a t i o n s 
w i t h F r a n k s t o a c c e p t a p o s i t i o n i n the C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e ' s 
s i m u l a t i o n program. 
On August 7, 2009, F r a n k s e x t e n d e d 
by 
l e t t e r 
an 
o f f e r 
t o 
T e p l i c k 
of 
a 12-month 
c o n t r a c t 
f o r 
a 
p o s i t i o n 
i n the 
C o l l e g e 
of M e d i c i n e w i t h 
a s a l a r y " i n 
the 
range 
of 
$40-50,000, 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
f u r t h e r 
d i s c u s s i o n s 
and 
n e g o t i a t i o n s . " 
The 
o f f e r would have 
r e q u i r e d 
T e p l i c k 
t o 
e x e c u t e 
a 
r e l e a s e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t 
he 
would 
not 
f i l e 
a 
17 
1111283 
c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t USA a r i s i n g o u t o f t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n . 
T h i s 
l e t t e r was p r e c e d e d by a 
m e e t i n g on August 6, 2009, between T e p l i c k and F r a n k s , i n 
w h i c h a "heated" argument o c c u r r e d between t h e two over t h e 
new p o s i t i o n i n t h e C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e b e i n g 
o f f e r e d t o 
T e p l i c k . 
T e p l i c k 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t he d i d 
n o t respond t o 
t h e 
o f f e r i n the August 7, 2009, 
l e t t e r , 
s t a t i n g 
t h a t i t 
was 
" u n a c c e p t a b l e , " " i n s u l t i n g , " and " a b s u r d . " 
D. 
P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y o f Case 
On F e b r u a r y 5, 2010, T e p l i c k 
f i l e d h i s f i r s t amended 
c o m p l a i n t
4 a s s e r t i n g 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n b o t h 
t h e i r o f f i c i a l and i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 
T e p l i c k a l l e g e d i n 
count I o f 
t h e 
c o m p l a i n t t h a t t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s had v i o l a t e d h i s 
d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s by t e r m i n a t i n g him w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g him 
c e r t a i n due p r o c e s s he a l l e g e s he was e n t i t l e d t o as b o t h a 
s t a f f member and a f a c u l t y member and t h a t , i n 
v i o l a t i n g 
h i s 
d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s , t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s a c t e d i n 
bad f a i t h and/or 
beyond t h e i r a u t h o r i t y and/or under a m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of t h e law. 
As t o count I , T e p l i c k 
sought damages f o r 
4 T e p l i c k o r i g i n a l l y sued USA, b u t , 
i n 
response t o 
a m o t i o n 
t o 
d i s m i s s , 
he amended h i s c o m p l a i n t t o a s s e r t 
c l a i m s 
o n l y 
a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . 
18 
1111283 
e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , p u n i t i v e damages, 
backpay, 
r e i n s t a t e m e n t 
or " f r o n t pay" 
i n l i e u o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t , an a t t o r n e y f e e , and 
any o t h e r l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f t o 
w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d . 
T e p l i c k a s s e r t e d i n count I I 
o f t h e c o m p l a i n t a f r a u d 
c l a i m 
a g a i n s t 
Hammack 
a r i s i n g 
o u t 
o f 
t h e 
a l l e g e d 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o him by Hammack t h a t T e p l i c k ' s p o s i t i o n as 
c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e . " 
As t o count I I , T e p l i c k sought 
b o t h compensatory and p u n i t i v e damages, an a t t o r n e y f e e , 
and 
any o t h e r l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f t o 
w h i c h he was e n t i t l e d . 
T e p l i c k a s s e r t e d i n 
count I I I o f 
t h e 
c o m p l a i n t a c l a i m o f 
" m a l i c e " a g a i n s t S t r a d a , 
a l l e g i n g t h a t S t r a d a 
i n t e n t i o n a l l y 
w i t h h e l d an appointment as an a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r 
from him, 
r e s u l t i n g i n h i s b e i n g harmed. 
As t o count I I I , 
T e p l i c k 
sought b o t h compensatory and p u n i t i v e damages, an a t t o r n e y 
f e e , and any o t h e r l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e r e l i e f t o w h i c h he was 
e n t i t l e d . 
The p e t i t i o n e r s answered t h e c o m p l a i n t , 
r a i s i n g , among 
o t h e r d e f e n s e s , t h e d e f e n s e s o f S t a t e immunity under A r t . I , 
§ 14, 
A l a . 
Const. 1901, 
and S t a t e - a g e n t immunity s e t 
f o r t h i n 
Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2000), and adopted by 
t h i s C o u r t i n 
Ex p a r t B u t t s , 775 So. 2d 173 ( A l a . 2000). 
19 
1111283 
On J a n u a r y 17, 2012, the p e t i t i o n e r s moved the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t f o r a summary judgment, a r g u i n g 
t h a t a l l the c l a i m s 
a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them were b a r r e d by S t a t e immunity and S t a t e -
agent immunity. On March 7, 2012, T e p l i c k f i l e d h i s response 
i n o p p o s i t i o n t o the p e t i t i o n e r s ' summary-judgment m o t i o n . On 
May 22, 2012, the t r i a l 
c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r d e n y i n g the 
p e t i t i o n e r s ' motion f o r 
a summary judgment w i t h o u t making any 
f i n d i n g s 
o f 
f a c t o r c o n c l u s i o n s 
o f law. 
T h i s 
p e t i t i o n 
f o l l o w e d . 
S t a n d a r d o f Review 
T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : 
"'While the g e n e r a l r u l e i s t h a t the d e n i a l o f 
a motion f o r 
summary judgment i s 
n o t r e v i e w a b l e , the 
e x c e p t i o n i s t h a t the d e n i a l o f a motion grounded on  
a c l a i m o f immunity i s r e v i e w a b l e by p e t i t i o n f o r 
w r i t o f mandamus. Ex p a r t e P u r v i s , 689 So. 2d 794 
( A l a . 
1996) .... 
"'Summary judgment i s a p p r o p r i a t e 
o n l y 
when 
" t h e r e i s no genuine i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l 
f a c t 
and ... the moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment 
as a m a t t e r o f law." 
R u l e 5 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) , A l a . R. C i v . 
P., 
Young v. La Q u i n t a Inns, I n c . , 
682 So. 2d 402 ( A l a . 
1996). A 
c o u r t 
c o n s i d e r i n g a motion f o r summary 
judgment 
w i l l 
v i e w the r e c o r d i n t h e l i g h t most 
f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmoving p a r t y , H u r s t v. Alabama  
Power Co., 675 So. 2d 397 ( A l a . 
1996), Fuqua v.  
I n g e r s o l l - R a n d Co., 591 So. 2d 486 ( A l a . 1991); 
w i l l 
a c c o r d the nonmoving p a r t y a l l r e a s o n a b l e 
f a v o r a b l e 
i n f e r e n c e s from t h e e v i d e n c e , Fuqua, s u p r a , A l d r i d g e  
v. V a l l e y S t e e l C o n s t r . , I n c . , 
603 So. 2d 981 ( A l a . 
20 
1111283 
1992); 
and 
w i l l 
r e s o l v e 
a l l r e a s o n a b l e 
doubts 
a g a i n s t t h e moving p a r t y , 
H u r s t , 
s u p r a , Ex 
p a r t e 
B r i s l i n , 719 So. 2d 185 ( A l a . 1998). 
"'An 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t 
r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a 
m o t i o n f o r summary judgment 
w i l l , 
de novo, 
a p p l y 
t h e s e same s t a n d a r d s a p p l i c a b l e i n 
t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t . 
Fuqua, 
s u p r a , 
B r i s l i n , 
s u p r a . 
L i k e w i s e , 
t h e 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t 
w i l l 
c o n s i d e r 
o n l y 
t h a t 
f a c t u a l 
m a t e r i a l a v a i l a b l e o f r e c o r d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r 
i t s 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e c i d i n g t h e m o t i o n . 
Dynasty  
Corp. v. A l p h a R e s i n s Corp., 577 So. 2d 1278 ( A l a . 
1991) , B o l a n d v. F o r t Rucker N a t ' l Bank, 599 So. 2d 
595 
( A l a . 1992), Rowe v. I s b e l l , 599 So. 2d 35 ( A l a . 
1992) .'" 
Ex p a r t e T u r n e r , 840 So. 2d 132, 135 ( A l a . 2002) ( q u o t i n g Ex 
p a r t e R i z k , 791 So. 2d 911, 912-13 
( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) ) . A w r i t o f 
mandamus i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy a v a i l a b l e o n l y when t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r can d e m o n s t r a t e : "'(1) 
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; (2) an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o 
p e r f o r m , accompanied by a r e f u s a l t o do s o ; (3) t h e l a c k o f 
a n o t h e r 
adequate 
remedy; 
and 
(4) t h e 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 o f t h e c o u r t . ' " 
Ex p a r t e N a l l , 879 So. 2d 541, 
543 
( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e BOC Group, I n c . , 823 So. 2d 
1270, 1272 ( A l a . 
2 0 0 1 ) ) . 
D i s c u s s i o n  
A. O f f i c i a l - C a p a c i t y C l a i m s 
21 
1111283 
The 
p e t i t i o n e r s argued i n t h e i r motion 
f o r a summary 
judgment, and t h e y argue a g a i n i n t h i s p e t i t i o n , t h a t t h e y are 
a b s o l u t e l y immune from the c l a i m s 
a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them 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 under the S t a t e immunity 
a f f o r d e d 
them by § 14. 
" ' 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 of 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. of Educ., 88 
So. 3d 837, 
842 
( 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, 332 
( A l a . 2011), t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
" 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 of 
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)." 
22 
1111283 
In 
Alabama 
Department 
of 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 
v. 
H a r b e r t 
 
I n t e r n a t i o n a l , I n c . , 990 So. 2d 831, 839-840 ( A l a . 2008), t h i s 
C o u r t s t a t e d : 
"To 
d e t e r m i n e whether 
an 
a c t i o n 
a g a i n s t 
a 
S t a t e 
o f f i c e r 
i s , i n f a c t , 
one 
a g a i n s t 
the 
S t a t e , 
t h i s 
C o u r t 
c o n s i d e r s 
"'whether 
"a 
r e s u l t 
f a v o r a b l e 
t o 
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 , " 
M i t c h e l l  
[v. 
D a v i s , 
598 
So. 
2d 
801, 
806 
( A l a . 
1 9 9 2 ) ] , whether the d e f e n d a n t i s s i m p l y a 
" c o n d u i t " t h r o u g h w h i c h the p l a i n t i f f seeks 
r e c o v e r y of damages from the S t a t e , Barnes  
v. Dale, 
530 
So. 
2d 770, 
784 
( A l a . 1988), 
and whether "a judgment a g a i n s t the 
o f f i c e r 
would d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the f i n a n c i a l s t a t u s 
of 
the 
S t a t e 
t r e a s u r y , " Lyons 
[v. 
R i  
Road C o n s t r . , 
Inc.] , 858 
So. 
2d 
[257] 
a t 
"Haley [v. Barbour C o u n t y ] , 
885 So. 2d [783] 
a t 
788 
[ ( A l a . 
2 0 0 4 ) ] . 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
' [ i ] n 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
whether an a c t i o n a g a i n s t a s t a t e o f f i c e r i s b a r r e d 
by § 14, the C o u r t c o n s i d e r s the n a t u r e of the 
s u i t 
or the 
r e l i e f demanded, not 
the 
c h a r a c t e r 
of 
the 
o f f i c e 
of 
the 
p e r s o n 
a g a i n s t whom 
the 
s u i t 
i s 
b r o u g h t . ' 
Ex 
p a r t e 
C a r t e r , 
395 
So. 
2d 
65, 
67-68 
( A l a . 
1980)." 
T h i s C o u r t a l s o n o t e d i n H a r b e r t t h a t the immunity 
a f f o r d e d 
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 i s 
not 
u n l i m i t e d : 
23 
1111283 
" ' [ S e c t i o n 14] immunity from s u i t does n o t 
e x t e n d , i n a l l i n s t a n c e s , t o o f f i c e r s o f 
the 
S t a t e 
a c t i n g 
i n 
t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
c a p a c i t y . U n z i c k e r v. S t a t e , 346 So. 2d 
931 
( A l a . 
1977). I n l i m i t e d c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h e 
w r i t o f 
mandamus w i l l l i e 
t o r e q u i r e a c t i o n 
of 
s t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s . 
T h i s 
i s t r u e 
where 
d i s c r e t i o n 
i s e x h a u s t e d and t h a t 
which 
remains t o be done i s a m i n i s t e r i a l a c t . 
See 
H a r d i n v. F u l l i l o v e 
E x c a v a t i n g 
Co., 
I n c . , 353 So. 2d 779 ( A l a . 1977); Tennessee  
& Coosa R.R. Co. v. Moore, 36 A l a . 371 
(1860). A c t i o n may be e n j o i n e d i f i l l e g a l , 
f r a u d u l e n t , u n a u t h o r i z e d , done i n bad f a i t h 
or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f law. 
W a l l a c e v. B o a r d o f E d u c a t i o n o f Montgomery 
 
Co., 280 A l a . 635, 197 So. 2d 428 (1967). 
I f judgment o r d i s c r e t i o n i s abused, and 
e x e r c i s e d i n an a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s 
manner, 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 t h e r e o f . The w r i t w i l l n o t 
l i e 
t o d i r e c t t h e manner o f e x e r c i s i n g 
d i s c r e t i o n 
and n e i t h e r 
w i l l 
i t l i e t o 
compel t h e performance o f a d u t y i n a 
c e r t a i n manner where t h e performance o f 
t h a t d u t y r e s t s upon an a s c e r t a i n m e n t o f 
f a c t s , o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c o n d i t i o n s , t o 
be d e t e r m i n e d by an o f f i c e r i n 
h i s judgment 
or 
d i s c r e t i o n . See Barnes v. S t a t e , 274 
A l a . 
705, 151 So. 2d 619 (1963).' 
" M c D o w e l l - P u r c e l l , 
I n c . v. Bass, 370 So. 2d 942, 
944 
( A l a . 
1979). 
"Moreover, 
c e r t a i n causes o f a c t i o n a r e n o t 
b a r r e d by § 14: 
"'"There a r e 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 w h i c h 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 n o t 
come w i t h i n t h e 
p r o h i b i t i o n o f 
§ 
14: 
(1) 
a c t i o n s 
b r o u g h t 
t o 
compel 
S t a t e 
24 
1111283 
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 
f r o 
m 
e n f o r c i 
n g 
a n 
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 
of 
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 
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 t h o s e ' 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 
( A l a . 2004) 
( q u o t i n g 
25 
1111283 
S h o a l s Cmty. C o l l . 
v. C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 
1311, 
1314 
( A l a . C i v . App. 
1995)) 
(emphasis 
added i n 
J o n e s ) . " 
990 So. 2d a t 839-40. 
T e p l i c k concedes t h a t h i s c l a i m s a g a i n s t the p e t i t i o n e r 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 
s e e k i n g monetary 
damages, 
i n c l u d i n g backpay, 
" f r o n t " 
pay, 
and 
an 
a t t o r n e y 
f e e , are 
b a r r e d by § 14. 
However, T e p l i c k argues t h a t he a l s o sought 
i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f 
from 
the 
p e t i t i o n e r 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 i n the form o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t t o the p o s i t i o n of 
c h i e f of s t a f f . 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t h i s r e q u e s t e d e q u i t a b l e 
r e l i e f 
i s e x c e p t e d from the b a r o f 
S t a t e 
immunity. 
See 
H a r b e r t , 990 So. 2d a t 840. 
The 
p e t i t i o n e r s 
argue 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k 
f a i l e d 
t o p l e a d a 
c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f i n h i s c o m p l a i n t . 
We note 
t h a t 
p l e a d i n g s are t o be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d i n o r d e r t o e f f e c t the 
purpose o f the Alabama R u l e s of C i v i l P r o c e d u r e and t h a t e v e r y 
r e a s o n a b l e intendment and p r e s u m p t i o n must be made i n f a v o r of 
the 
p l e a d e r . 
See 
R u l e 
8, 
A l a . R. 
C i v . 
P.; 
Ex 
p a r t e  
I n t e r n a t i o n a l R e f i n i n g & Mfg. Co., 972 So. 2d 784, 789 ( A l a . 
2007). 
T e p l i c k ' s cause o f a c t i o n i n count I of the c o m p l a i n t 
i s based on an a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n o f h i s d u e - p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s . 
26 
1111283 
However, he does r e q u e s t c e r t a i n i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n 
t h e form 
of r e i n s t a t e m e n t t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f . 
A l t h o u g h 
count 
I o f the c o m p l a i n t 
i s n o t a model 
p l e a d i n g , i t 
s u f f i c i e n t l y a p p r i s e s t h e p e t i t i o n e r s o f T e p l i c k ' s 
r e q u e s t e d 
i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f . 
C o n s i d e r i n g 
t h e l i b e r a l 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
p l e a d i n g s 
a r e t o be 
g i v e n , 
we 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k ' s 
c o m p l a i n t 
a d e q u a t e l y 
s t a t e s a c l a i m f o r 
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . 
The p e t i t i o n e r s n e x t argue t h a t T e p l i c k d i d 
n o t r e s p o n d 
to t h e arguments i n t h e i r motion f o r 
a summary judgment t h a t 
h i s 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t them 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 a r e 
b a r r e d 
by t h e d o c t r i n e 
o f 
S t a t e 
immunity. 
Thus, t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s c o n t e n d t h a t T e p l i c k has w a i v e d any argument i n 
t h a t r e g a r d and t h a t t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them 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 s h o u l d be d i s m i s s e d . 
T h i s 
C o u r t has 
s t a t e d : 
" [ T ] h i s C o u r t 
w i l l 
a f f i r m t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t on any 
v a l i d 
l e g a l 
ground 
p r e s e n t e d 
by 
t h e 
r e c o r d , 
r e g a r d l e s s o f whether t h a t ground was c o n s i d e r e d , o r 
even i f i t 
was r e j e c t e d , by t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t . Ex  
p a r t e R y a l s , 773 So. 2d 1011 ( A l a . 2000), c i t i n g Ex  
p a r t e 
W i g i n t o n , 
743 So. 2d 1071 ( A l a . 1999), and 
Smith v. E q u i f a x S e r v s . , I n c . , 537 So. 2d 463 ( A l a . 
1988). 
T h i s 
r u l e 
f a i l s i n a p p l i c a t i o n o n l y where 
d u e - p r o c e s s c o n s t r a i n t s r e q u i r e some n o t i c e a t 
t h e 
t r i a l 
l e v e l , w h i c h was o m i t t e d , o f the b a s i s 
t h a t 
would o t h e r w i s e 
s u p p o r t an a f f i r m a n c e , such as when 
a 
t o t a l l y 
o m i t t e d 
a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e 
might, i f 
27 
1111283 
a v a i l a b l e 
f o r 
c o n s i d e r a t i o n , 
s u f f i c e t o 
a f f i r m 
a 
judgment, A m e r i q u e s t Mortgage Co. 
v. 
B e n t l e y , 
851 
So. 
2d 458 
( A l a . 2002), or where a summary-judgment 
movant has 
not 
a s s e r t e d 
b e f o r e 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
a 
f a i l u r e of the nonmovant's e v i d e n c e on an element of 
a c l a i m or defense and t h e r e f o r e has not s h i f t e d the 
burden of p r o d u c i n g s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t 
of t h a t element, R e c t o r v. B e t t e r Houses, I n c . , 
820 
So. 
2d 75, 80 
( A l a . 2001) 
( q u o t i n g C e l o t e x Corp. v.  
C a t r e t t , 
477 
U.S. 
317, 
323, 
106 
S.Ct. 
2548, 91 
L. 
Ed.2d 265 
(1986), 
and 
Kennedy v. Western 
S i z z l i n 
 
Corp., 857 
So. 
2d 71 
( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ) . " 
L i b e r t y N a t ' l L i f e I n s . Co. 
v. U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama 
H e a l t h 
S e r v s . 
Found., 
P.C., 
881 
So. 
2d 
1013, 
1020 
( A l a . 
2003). 
A l t h o u g h T e p l i c k f a i l e d t o o f f e r any argument i n o p p o s i t i o n t o 
the p e t i t i o n e r s ' S t a t e - i m m u n i t y argument i n t h e i r m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment, T e p l i c k ' s r e q u e s t e d i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n 
count I of the c o m p l a i n t was 
s u f f i c i e n t t o put the p e t i t i o n e r s 
on n o t i c e t h a t he was 
s e e k i n g 
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f so as not 
t o 
bar a p p l i c a t i o n of the r u l e t h a t t h i s C o u r t w i l l a f f i r m the 
judgment 
of 
the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t 
"on 
any 
v a l i d 
l e g a l 
ground 
p r e s e n t e d by the r e c o r d , r e g a r d l e s s of whether t h a t ground 
was 
c o n s i d e r e d , 
or even i f i t was 
r e j e c t e d , by the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t . " 
881 So. 2d a t 1020. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t T e p l i c k 
has 
not w a i v e d the argument t h a t h i s c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f 
i s e x c e p t e d from the bar of S t a t e immunity. 
28 
1111283 
I f 
T e p l i c k ' s c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f 
i s t o s u r v i v e 
the bar 
of S t a t e immunity, we must d e t e r m i n e whether 
t h a t 
c l a i m f a l l s w i t h i n one of the r e c o g n i z e d " e x c e p t i o n s " t o S t a t e 
immunity s e t 
f o r t h above. 
To 
the 
e x t e n t 
t h a t T e p l i c k 
has 
r e q u e s t e d 
r e i n s t a t e m e n t 
t o the 
p o s i t i o n of 
c h i e f of 
s t a f f 
based on h i s c l a i m s t h a t h i s employment was t e r m i n a t e d 
w i t h o u t 
h i s 
b e i n g p r o v i d e d 
c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s and 
t h a t 
the 
a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n of h i s d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s was done i n bad 
f a i t h 
and/or 
beyond 
a u t h o r i t y 
and/or 
under 
a 
m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law, T e p l i c k has c o n c e i v a b l y a s s e r t e d a 
c l a i m under the 
f i r s t 
and 
s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n s " 
t o the b a r 
of 
S t a t e immunity as s e t f o r t h i n H a r b e r t , 
990 So. 2d a t 
840. 
1. 
F i r s t " E x c e p t i o n " t o S t a t e Immunity 
The 
f i r s t 
" e x c e p t i o n " p r o v i d e s t h a t " 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 " are 
not 
b a r r e d by the d o c t r i n e of S t a t e immunity. H a r b e r t , 
990 So. 
2d 
a t 840. 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s were r e q u i r e d 
to p r o v i d e him w i t h due 
p r o c e s s upon the e l i m i n a t i o n of h i s 
p o s i t i o n as c h i e f of 
s t a f f and 
t h a t they 
f a i l e d t o do 
s o .
5 
5 A l t h o u g h 
T e p l i c k c l a i m s t h a t he was 
e n t i t l e d t o a 
due-
p r o c e s s 
h e a r i n g upon the e l i m i n a t i o n of h i s p o s i t i o n a t 
USA, 
n o t h i n g 
i n 
the 
r e c o r d 
b e f o r e 
us 
i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k 
a c t u a l l y r e q u e s t e d 
a d u e - p r o c e s s h e a r i n g . An employee b e a r s 
29 
1111283 
T e p l i c k has 
no d u e - p r o c e s s c l a i m u n l e s s 
he 
had 
a 
p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t i n c o n t i n u e d employment w i t h USA. 
B o a r d of Regents 
of S t a t e C o l l s . v. Roth, 408 
U.S. 
564 
(1972). 
"'[A] 
s t a t e 
employee who 
under s t a t e law, or r u l e s p r o m u l g a t e d by s t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s , has a l e g i t i m a t e c l a i m of e n t i t l e m e n t t o c o n t i n u e d 
employment absent s u f f i c i e n t cause f o r d i s m i s s a l may demand 
the p r o c e d u r a l p r o t e c t i o n s of due 
p r o c e s s . ' " 
S t a l l w o r t h v. 
C i t y of E v e r g r e e n , 
680 
So. 2d 229, 
233 
( A l a . 1996) 
( q u o t i n g 
Gross v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 
565, 
573 
(1975)). 
In 
Roth, 
s u p r a , 
the 
Supreme 
C o u r t 
of 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s 
d i s c u s s e d 
what 
c o n s t i t u t e s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t : 
"To have a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n a b e n e f i t , a p e r s o n 
c l e a r l y must have more than 
an 
a b s t r a c t need 
or 
d e s i r e f o r 
i t . 
He must have more than a 
u n i l a t e r a l 
e x p e c t a t i o n 
of 
i t . He 
must, 
i n s t e a d , 
have 
a 
l e g i t i m a t e 
c l a i m 
of 
e n t i t l e m e n t 
t o 
i t . I t i s 
a 
purpose of the a n c i e n t 
i n s t i t u t i o n 
of p r o p e r t y 
t o 
p r o t e c t those c l a i m s upon w h i c h p e o p l e 
r e l y i n t h e i r 
d a i l y 
l i v e s , 
r e l i a n c e t h a t must not be 
a r b i t r a r i l y 
undermined. I t i s a purpose of the 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l 
r i g h t t o a h e a r i n g t o p r o v i d e an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a 
p e r s o n t o v i n d i c a t e those c l a i m s . 
" P r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s , of c o u r s e , are not c r e a t e d 
by 
the C o n s t i t u t i o n . R a t h e r , 
they 
are c r e a t e d 
and 
the 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 
f o r 
a c t u a l l y 
r e q u e s t i n g 
a 
d u e - p r o c e s s 
h e a r i n g . 
P e r r y v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 
593 
(1972); C h r i s t e s o n  
v. N o r t h w e s t Alabama S t a t e J r . C o l l . , 
371 
So. 
2d 426 
( A l a . 
C i v . App. 
1979) . 
30 
1111283 
t h e i r d i m e n s i o n s a r e d e f i n e d by e x i s t i n g 
r u l e s o r 
u n d e r s t a n d i n g s t h a t stem from an independent 
s o u r c e 
such as s t a t e 
l a w - - r u l e s o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g s 
t h a t 
s e c u r e c e r t a i n b e n e f i t s and t h a t s u p p o r t c l a i m s o f 
e n t i t l e m e n t t o those b e n e f i t s . " 
408 U.S. a t 577. On t h e o t h e r hand, Alabama r e c o g n i z e s an 
employer's 
r i g h t t o t e r m i n a t e an a t - w i l l employee f o r 
any 
r e a s o n . 
Tyson Foods, I n c . v. McCollum, 881 So. 2d 976 ( A l a . 
2003). 
E m p l o y m e n t - a t - w i l l i s 
n o t a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t 
t h a t 
r e q u i r e s due p r o c e s s upon 
t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e employment. 
W i l l i a m s v. Walker, 526 So. 2d 576 ( A l a . 1988); 
B o y e t t v. 
Troy S t a t e U n i v . a t Montgomery, 971 F. Supp. 1403 (M.D. A l a . 
1997). 
a. S t a f f - E m p l o y e e S t a t u s 
T e p l i c k 
argues 
t h a t he was 
e n t i t l e d t o due p r o c e s s 
f o l l o w i n g the e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n 
because, he a r g u e s , he was a s t a f f employee and, as a s t a f f 
employee, was e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n due p r o c e s s p u r s u a n t t o t h e 
s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook. 
The p e t i t i o n e r s made a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t T e p l i c k 
was an a t - w i l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employee o f USA. 
K r i e s b e r g ' s 
l e t t e r o f May 29, 2001, e x p r e s s l y n o t i f i e d T e p l i c k t h a t t h e 
" C h i e f 
o f 
S t a f f 
would 
be 
a 
member 
o f 
t h e 
S e n i o r 
31 
1111283 
A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . " 
G a t t i s , d i r e c t o r o f 
Human Resources f o r USA, 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k 
was 
d e s i g n a t e d 
as a 
"110," 
a 
d e s i g n a t i o n g i v e n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employees, and t h a t 
T e p l i c k 
was a t a l l t i m e s an a t - w i l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e employee o f USA. 
G a t t i s 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t i t 
i s v e r y a p p a r e n t t o an i n d i v i d u a l 
d e s i g n a t e d as a "110" t h a t he o r she 
i s 
d i f f e r e n t from a s t a f f 
employee because o f 
t h e 
j o b 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and s i g n i f i c a n t l y 
h i g h e r s a l a r y g i v e n t o t h a t i n d i v i d u a l . 
G a t t i s f u r t h e r s t a t e d 
t h a t because 
T e p l i c k was d e s i g n a t e d 
a "110," he was n o t 
e n t i t l e d t o any due p r o c e s s a f f o r d e d by t h e s t a f f - e m p l o y e e 
handbook upon s e p a r a t i o n from h i s employment a t USA. 
T e p l i c k r e f u t e d h i s d e s i g n a t i o n as a "110" a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
employee by p r e s e n t i n g 
e v i d e n c e 
t h a t he l a c k e d any 
r e a l 
a u t h o r i t y over anyone and t h a t he d i d 
n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y 
t o h i r e o r f i r e 
i n d i v i d u a l s . 
He a l s o p o i n t e d t o Hammack's 
d e s c r i p t i o n o f the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n as b e i n g o f " s t a f f 
o r i e n t a t i o n ... [ t ] h e y have no one t h a t 
r e a l l y 
r e p o r t s t o 
them." 
T e p l i c k a l s o n o t e d t h a t was d e s i g n a t e d as " s t a f f " on 
s e v e r a l p e r s o n n e l - a c t i o n 
forms and t h a t he s i g n e d f o r 
and 
r e c e i v e d 
a 
" U n i v e r s i t y o f South 
Alabama 
S t a f f 
Employee 
32 
1111283 
Handbook" t h a t employees d e s i g n a t e d 
as 
"110s" g e n e r a l l y do 
not 
r e c e i v e . 
Hammack's 
s t a t e m e n t 
d e s c r i b i n g 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n as " s t a f f 
o r i e n t a t i o n ... t h e y have no one 
t h a t 
r e a l l y r e p o r t s t o them" was made i n 
t h e c o n t e x t o f d e s c r i b i n g 
the c h i e f o f s t a f f ' s f u n c t i o n s . 
T e p l i c k ' s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f 
of 
s t a f f was s i m i l a r t o a s t a f f p o s i t i o n i n t h a t he had no 
s u p e r v i s o r y 
a u t h o r i t y and no one r e p o r t e d 
d i r e c t l y t o him. 
However, h i s 
d u t i e s s e r v i n g as a l i a i s o n between USA and 
t h e 
m e d i c a l s t a f f ; 
a s s i s t i n g w i t h d i s c h a r g e 
p l a n n i n g ; 
a s s i s t i n g 
w i t h 
q u a l i t y - a s s u r a n c e 
e f f o r t s ; 
w o r k i n g 
w i t h 
t h i r d - p a r t y 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and p a y o r s , such as B l u e C r o s s - B l u e S h i e l d ; and 
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v a r i o u s committees r e l a t i v e t o c o s t c o n t r o l 
and c l i n i c a l care were c e r t a i n l y a d m i n i s t r a t i v e i n 
n a t u r e . 
As 
f o r T e p l i c k ' s 
c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t he r e c e i v e d a s t a f f - e m p l o y e e 
handbook, G a t t i s e x p l a i n e d t h a t "110s" may r e c e i v e a copy o f 
the s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook t o use as a management t o o l t o 
f a m i l i a r i z e 
t h e m s e l v e s 
w i t h t h e r u l e s 
a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e i r 
department. 
G a t t i s 
f u r t h e r 
e x p l a i n e d 
t h a t 
a l t h o u g h 
some 
p e r s o n n e l - a c t i o n forms l i s t e d T e p l i c k as " s t a f f exempt," those 
l i s t i n g s were t h e r e s u l t o f a c l e r i c a l 
e r r o r and a m i s t a k e 
33 
1111283 
because T e p l i c k was 
never a s t a f f employee of USA. 
T e p l i c k 
o f f e r e d n o t h i n g 
t o d i s p u t e 
t h i s t e s t i m o n y from G a t t i s . 
We note t h a t S e c t i o n 3.3.6 
of the s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook 
d e f i n e s 
" l a y o f f " as a " s e p a r a t i o n 
of employment due 
t o 
... 
a b o l i s h m e n t 
of 
a p o s i t i o n or 
p o s i t i o n s 
n e c e s s i t a t e d 
by 
a 
s h o r t a g e of funds ... 
or a m a t e r i a l change i n the d u t i e s 
of 
the p o s i t i o n . " 
P u r s u a n t t o § 6.1 
of the handbook, 
" l a y o f f s " 
are not s u b j e c t t o the f i l i n g of a g r i e v a n c e and/or an 
a p p e a l . 
G a t t i s 
a f f i r m e d 
t h i s 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of 
the 
s t a f f - e m p l o y e e 
handbook i n h i s t e s t i m o n y , s t a t i n g t h a t a s t a f f employee 
has 
no d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s under the handbook i f the employee l o s e s 
h i s or her employment because h i s or her p o s i t i o n has 
been 
e l i m i n a t e d by USA. 
T h e r e f o r e , assuming the e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d 
T e p l i c k ' s 
c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t 
he 
was 
a 
s t a f f employee of 
USA, 
T e p l i c k would 
s t i l l not be e n t i t l e d t o a d u e - p r o c e s s 
h e a r i n g 
under the terms of the s t a f f - e m p l o y e e handbook.
6 
The overwhelming e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t T e p l i c k was 
not 
a 
s t a f f employee of USA 
but 
was 
an 
a t - w i l l 
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 
6See D u f f y v. S a r a u l t , 892 F.2d 
139 
(1st C i r . 1989) 
( n o t i n g 
t h a t , where r e o r g a n i z a t i o n or c o s t - s a v i n g measures r e s u l t i n 
the 
t e r m i n a t i o n 
of 
a p u b l i c employee's employment as 
the 
r e s u l t 
of 
the 
e l i m i n a t i o n 
of 
the 
employee's 
p o s i t i o n , 
no 
h e a r i n g 
i s r e q u i r e d t o s a t i s f y due 
p r o c e s s ) . 
34 
1111283 
employee o f 
USA and 
was not e n t i t l e d t o 
t h e 
d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s 
a f f o r d e d 
t h e 
s t a f f 
employees 
under 
t h e 
s t a f f - e m p l o y e e 
handbook. 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we c o n c l u d e t h a t T e p l i c k has no 
due-
p r o c e s s r i g h t s based on h i s c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t he was a s t a f f 
employee o f USA. 
b. Faculty-Member 
S t a t u s 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t he e n j o y e d d u a l s t a t u s as a s t a f f 
employee and as a f a c u l t y member. 
T e p l i c k argues t h a t as a 
f a c u l t y member o f 
USA, he was e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n d u e - p r o c e s s 
r i g h t s 
t h a t a r e a f f o r d e d 
f a c u l t y members under t h e f a c u l t y 
handbook. 
The 
p e t i t i o n e r s made a p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t 
T e p l i c k 
was n o t a r e g u l a r f a c u l t y member o f USA and, t h e r e f o r e , was 
not 
e n t i t l e d t o the due p r o c e s s a f f o r d e d 
f a c u l t y members 
i n 
the f a c u l t y handbook. 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t T e p l i c k was an 
a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r i n 
t h e C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e from 2001 u n t i l 
2009; t h a t T e p l i c k ' s a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r s h i p was unfunded; t h a t 
the 
C o l l e g e o f M e d i c i n e d i d 
n o t pay him a s a l a r y f o r h i s 
a d j u n c t appointment; and t h a t 
T e p l i c k was " p a i d s o l e l y as 
t h e 
C h i e f o f S t a f f from t h e 
h o s p i t a l s i d e o f 
USA." 
S t r a d a 
f u r t h e r 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t T e p l i c k was never a r e g u l a r f a c u l t y member a t 
35 
1111283 
USA and t h a t h i s f a c u l t y p o s i t i o n was a t a l l times " h o n o r i f i c 
and v o l u n t a r y i n n a t u r e . " 
T e p l i c k was e x p r e s s l y i n f o r m e d upon 
h i s 
i n i t i a l 
appointment as an a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r 
t h a t the 
appointment d i d 
n o t i n c l u d e any a d d i t i o n a l compensation. 
The 
p e t i t i o n e r s 
a l s o 
p r e s e n t e d 
T e p l i c k ' s 
"Memorand[a] 
of 
Reappointment" t o t h e C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e f o r t h e y e a r s 2001 
t h r o u g h 2006, w h i c h 
s p e c i f i c a l l y 
d e s i g n a t e d 
T e p l i c k as an 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
These "Memorand[a] 
of Reappointment" 
d i r e c t l y 
r e f u t e 
T e p l i c k ' s 
t e s t i m o n y 
t h a t 
he 
was 
never 
d e s i g n a t e d 
an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r . 
F i n a l l y , 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t T e p l i c k was 
never s u b j e c t t o p r o m o t i o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n as 
a f a c u l t y member and was never r e q u i r e d t o be e v a l u a t e d i n h i s 
p r o f e s s o r i a l d u t i e s as were r e g u l a r f a c u l t y members. 
T e p l i c k p r e s e n t e d 
e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he h e l d the 
p o s i t i o n s 
of 
" p r o f e s s o r " 
of 
a n e s t h e s i o l o g y 
and 
s u r g e r y ; 
" p r o f e s s o r " o f i n t e r n a l m e d i c i n e ; and a s s o c i a t e dean w i t h i n 
the C o l l e g e of M e d i c i n e . 
T e p l i c k s t a t e d t h a t he 
r e g u l a r l y 
l e c t u r e d and p e r f o r m e d c l i n i c a l work as p a r t of h i s f a c u l t y 
d u t i e s 
w i t h i n 
the 
C o l l e g e 
of 
M e d i c i n e . 
T e p l i c k 
a l s o 
r e f e r e n c e d , i n s u p p o r t of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t he was a r e g u l a r 
f a c u l t y member, h i s d e s i g n a t i o n 
as a 
" p r o f e s s o r " 
on the 
36 
1111283 
"Memorand[a] 
of 
Reappointment" 
t o 
the 
Department 
of 
A n e s t h e s i o l o g y 
and 
S u r g e r y 
f o r h i s 
f i n a l 
two 
y e a r s 
of 
employment a t USA and the f a c t t h a t t h e r e was no r e f e r e n c e t o 
him on t h o s e memoranda as b e i n g an a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
We note t h a t T e p l i c k ' s f a c u l t y d u t i e s of l e c t u r i n g and 
p e r f o r m i n g 
c l i n i c a l work were e n t i r e l y 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h i s 
d e s i g n a t i o n by USA as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r . 
As f o r T e p l i c k ' s 
"Memorand[a] of Reappointment" f o r the y e a r s 2007 and 2008, 
w h i c h 
r e f e r t o him as " p r o f e s s o r " as opposed t o 
" a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r , " 
S t r a d a 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k came t o him and 
asked t h a t the word " a d j u n c t " be dropped from the memorandum 
because T e p l i c k d i d n o t " l i k e " the word " a d j u n c t . " 
S t r a d a 
s t a t e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h he a g r e e d t o drop the word 
" a d j u n c t " 
from the "Memorand[a] of Reappointment," d o i n g 
so d i d not 
change T e p l i c k ' s d e s i g n a t i o n as an a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
A l l 
p r e v i o u s 
"Memorand[a] 
of Reappointment" 
c l e a r l y 
d e s i g n a t e 
T e p l i c k 
as an 
a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
A d d i t i o n a l l y , 
T e p l i c k 
r e c e i v e d no compensation from USA, o t h e r than h i s compensation 
as c h i e f of s t a f f , f o l l o w i n g h i s 
d e s i g n a t i o n as " p r o f e s s o r " i n 
the "Memorand[a] of Appointment" f o r 
the y e a r s 2007 and 2008. 
37 
1111283 
A g a i n , t h e overwhelming e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t T e p l i c k 
was n o t 
a r e g u l a r f a c u l t y member o f USA and t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , 
he was n o t e n t i t l e d t o 
t h e 
d u e - p r o c e s s r i g h t s a f f o r d e d r e g u l a r 
f a c u l t y members p u r s u a n t t o t h e f a c u l t y handbook. 
c. A l l e g e d O f f e r o f Permanent Employment 
T e p l i c k 
contends 
t h a t 
Hammack's 
a l l e g e d 
s t a t e m e n t 
r e g a r d i n g 
" s e c u r e " employment a l t e r e d h i s a t - w i l l s t a t u s and 
c r e a t e d a p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t i n h i s c o n t i n u e d 
employment a t 
USA. 
T h i s C o u r t has s t a t e d : 
" I t has l o n g 
been t h e law i n Alabama 
t h a t 
employment i s 
t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l by e i t h e r p a r t y f o r 
any r e a s o n u n l e s s 
t h e r e i s 
an e x p r e s s and s p e c i f i c 
c o n t r a c t f o r l i f e t i m e employment o r employment 
f o r 
a 
s p e c i f i c 
d u r a t i o n . 
' [ A ] b s e n t 
an agreement on a 
d e f i n i t e term, any employment i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be 
" a t - w i l l , " and may be t e r m i n a t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y , 
w i t h o r w i t h o u t 
cause o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n . ' 
C l a r k v.  
A m e r i c a ' s F i r s t C r e d i t U n i o n , 585 So. 2d 1367, 
1369 
( A l a . 
1991). F u r t h e r m o r e , employees i n 
Alabama bear 
a 
heavy burden o f p r o o f 
t o e s t a b l i s h 
t h a t an 
employment r e l a t i o n s h i p 
i s 
o t h e r than 'at w i l l . ' The 
law 
c o n s i d e r s 
l i f e t i m e 
o r permanent 
employment 
c o n t r a c t s t o 
be e x t r a o r d i n a r y and n o t l i g h t l y t o 
be 
i m p l i e d . 
Alabama M i l l s , I n c . 
v. Smith, 237 A l a . 
296, 301, 186 So. 699, 704 
(1939)." 
Howard v. W o l f f Broad. Corp., 
611 So. 2d 307, 310-11 
( A l a . 1992). 
I n o r d e r t o overcome t h e 
p r e s u m p t i o n o f an 
" a t -
w i l l " employment s t a t u s , one must d e m o n s t r a t e : 
38 
1111283 
II I 
o 
(1) t h a t t h e r e was a c l e a r and u n e q u i v o c a l 
o f f e r 
f 
l i f e t i m e employment o r employment o f d e f i n i t e 
d u r a t i o n , Bates v. J i m W a l t e r R e s o u r c e s , I n c . , 
418 
So. 2d 903 ( A l a . 
1982); (2) t h a t t h e h i r i n g agent 
had 
a u t h o r i t y t o b i n d t h e p r i n c i p a l t o a permanent 
employment c o n t r a c t , Alabama M i l l s , I n c . 
v. Smith, 
237 A l a . 
296, 186 So. 699 (1939); and (3) t h a t t h e 
employee p r o v i d e d 
s u b s t a n t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e 
c o n t r a c t s e p a r a t e from t h e s e r v i c e s t o 
be r e n d e r e d , 
U n i t e d 
S e c u r i t y L i f e I n s . Co. v. Gregory, 281 
A l a . 
264, 201 So. 2d 853 (1967).'" 
W r i g h t v. Dothan C h r y s l e r Plymouth Dodge, I n c . , 
658 So. 2d 
428, 
430 ( A l a . 
1995) 
( q u o t i n g 
Hoffman-La Roche, I n c . v. 
C a m p b e l l , 512 So. 2d 725, 728 ( A l a . 
1 9 8 7 ) ) . 
T e p l i c k argues t h a t Hammack's a l l e g e d s t a t e m e n t t o 
him 
t h a t h i s 
j o b "was s e c u r e " and t h a t Hammack "would n o t h i r e 
a n o t h e r C h i e f o f S t a f f a f t e r [ T e p l i c k ] 
l e f t " 
c o n s t i t u t e s an 
o f f e r o f permanent employment so as t o g i v e him a 
p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t i n h i s employment a t USA. 
We note t h e f o l l o w i n g 
t e s t i m o n y from T e p l i c k r e g a r d i n g Hammack's a l l e g e d o f f e r o f 
s e c u r e employment: 
"Q. [Counsel f o r 
p e t i t i o n e r s : ] D i d 
anyone 
t e l l 
you 
t h a t 
your j o b was a b s o l u t e l y 
i n v i o l a t e 
from 
b e i n g 
e l i m i n a t e d ? 
"A. Yes. 
"Q. Who was t h a t ? 
"A. Mr. Hammack. 
39 
1111283 
"Q. When d i d 
he t e l l you t h a t ? 
"A. S h o r t l y a f t e r he took over as 
my s u p e r v i s o r 
a f t e r K r i e s b e r g l e f t he t o l d me t h a t t h e 
p o s i t i o n o f 
c h i e f o f s t a f f was one t h a t he d i d n ' t 
t h i n k was 
needed i n t h i s 
i n s t i t u t i o n b u t t h a t my j o b was 
s e c u r e . 
He would n o t h i r e a n o t h e r c h i e f o f s t a f f 
a f t e r I l e f t . 
"  
"Q. D i d 
he say 
a n y t h i n g beyond t h a t ? F o r 
example 
how l o n g you would have t h e job? D i d 
he d i s c u s s an 
amount o f time? 
"A. H i s i n d i c a t i o n was u n t i l I chose t o l e a v e . 
"Q. D i d 
he say u n t i l you choose t o l e a v e ? 
"A. No. 
"  
"Q. I b e l i e v e when you t a l k e d about e x a c t l y what 
he 
s a i d I b e l i e v e you d i d n ' t s a y he s a i d 
a n y t h i n g 
about u n t i l you chose t o l e a v e ? 
"A. No. What he s a i d i s a f t e r you l e a v e we 
w i l l 
not 
h i r e — 
I don't remember t h e e x a c t words, t h e 
i m p l i c a t i o n was t h a t t h e 
j o b 
would p e r s i s t u n t i l I 
l e f t — 
chose t o l e a v e . 
"Q. He never l o o k e d a t you and s a i d you 
a r e 
g o i n g t o have t h i s j o b 
u n t i l t h e time you d e c i d e t o 
go? 
"A. No. He c e r t a i n l y i m p l i e d 
i t . 
"Q. How? 
"A. I n 
the 
c o n v e r s a t i o n by s a y i n g t h e 
j o b 
would, 
w i l l p e r s i s t u n t i l you l e a v e a f t e r w h i c h we w i l l n o t 
40 
1111283 
h i r e a n o t h e r c h i e f of s t a f f . My a s s u m p t i o n from the 
c o n v e r s a t i o n , the i m p l i c a t i o n t o me was t h a t the j o b 
would c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t u n t i l I chose t o l e a v e . 
"Q. No one e v e r t o l d you t h a t ? 
"A. Not i n t h o s e words. 
"  
"Q. To j u s t be t o t a l l y c l e a r , the words 
' u n t i l 
you chose t o l e a v e , ' no one e v e r s a i d those words t o 
you? 
"A. 
Not 
as 
I 
r e c a l l . 
There was 
a 
s t r o n g 
i m p l i c a t i o n . 
"  
"Q. D i d you 
t e l l anyone t h e r e 
t h a t you had a 
r e a s o n t o b e l i e v e you had a permanent e n t i t l e m e n t ? 
"A. Anyone where? 
"Q. A t USA? 
D i d you go t o anyone and say I 
t h o u g h t I was g o i n g t o have t h i s j o b f o r e v e r or as 
l o n g as I wanted? 
"A. I don't r e c a l l . 
"Q. You a r e n o t s t a t i n g t h a t anyone e v e r made 
you such a b r o a d p r o m i s e ? 
"A. Not i n t h o s e words, no. 
"Q. Or i n any words c l o s e t o t h a t ? 
"A. C l o s e enough t h a t I drew the i n f e r e n c e . 
"  
"Q. You don't have any c o n t r a c t t h a t would have 
41 
1111283 
g u a r a n t e e d your employment w i t h USA beyond March 
2009 i n 
any c a p a c i t y ? 
"A. No." 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r e was no 
" c l e a r 
and u n e q u i v o c a l 
o f f e r 
o f 
l i f e t i m e 
employment o r 
employment o f d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n " as r e q u i r e d t o overcome 
t h e 
e m p l o y e e - a t - w i l l s t a t u s . 658 So. 
2d 
a t 
430. T e p l i c k a d m i t t e d 
d u r i n g h i s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y t h a t Hammack made no d e f i n i t e 
o f f e r o f employment f o r 
a d e f i n i t e 
t i m e ; 
r a t h e r , 
T e p l i c k 
t e s t i f i e d t h a t based on h i s 
c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h Hammack t h e r e 
was 
o n l y an " i m p l i c a t i o n " o f c o n t i n u e d 
employment f o r a 
d e f i n i t e t i m e . We f u r t h e r note t h a t t h e a l l e g e d " o f f e r " was 
made, n o t d u r i n g t h e course 
o f n e g o t i a t i n g an employment 
c o n t r a c t , b u t f o l l o w i n g a r e a l i g n m e n t o f management a t USA. 
In 
C h a s t a i n v. K e l l y - S p r i n g f i e l d T i r e Co., 733 F.2d 
1479, 
1480 
(11th 
C i r . 1984), t h e c o u r t 
h e l d 
t h a t t h e words -¬
s i m i l a r t o t h e ones a l l e g e d t o have been spoken i n t h i s case 
— 
" j o b s [were] s e c u r e ; t h a t we would c o n t i n u e on l i k e we 
had 
been," made i n t h e c o n t e x t o f a merger and n o t d u r i n g the 
n e g o t i a t i o n o f an employment c o n t r a c t , d i d 
n o t c o n s t i t u t e an 
o f f e r o f permanent employment b u t an o f f e r o f employment 
t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l . 
42 
1111283 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
because 
T e p l i c k 
has 
f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e o f a " c l e a r and u n e q u i v o c a l 
o f f e r o f 
l i f e t i m e employment o r employment o f d e f i n i t e d u r a t i o n , " he 
has 
f a i l e d t o overcome t h e 
p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t he was an a t - w i l l 
employee. 
In sum, T e p l i c k argued t h a t he had a p r o t e c t e d p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t i n 
h i s c o n t i n u e d employment as c h i e f o f s t a f f a t 
USA 
e n t i t l i n g him t o 
due p r o c e s s based on h i s a l l e g e d s t a t u s as a 
s t a f f member and a f a c u l t y member and on t h e a l l e g e d p r o m i s e 
of 
permanent employment. 
T e p l i c k 
has f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t he was a s t a f f member o r 
a f a c u l t y member o r t h a t an o f f e r o f permanent employment was 
made t o him. 
T h e r e f o r e , T e p l i c k has 
f a i l e d t o demonstrate 
t h a t he had a p r o t e c t e d p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n h i s c o n t i n u e d 
employment a t USA. 
Because T e p l i c k 
f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h 
t h a t 
he had a 
p r o t e c t e d 
p r o p e r t y 
i n t e r e s t 
i n h i s c o n t i n u e d 
employment as c h i e f o f s t a f f a t 
USA, t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s owed him 
no 
l e g a l 
d u t y 
t o p r o v i d e 
him w i t h 
due p r o c e s s 
b e f o r e 
e l i m i n a t i n g h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f . 
L i k e w i s e , t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s owe T e p l i c k no l e g a l d u t y t o r e i n s t a t e him t o t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n 
based on t h e i r 
a l l e g e d 
f a i l u r e t o 
43 
1111283 
p r o v i d e him w i t h due p r o c e s s . 
Because t h e p e t i t i o n e r s owed 
T e p l i c k no l e g a l d u t y , h i s a c t i o n cannot be one "brought 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 , " 
H a r b e r t , 990 So. 2d a t 840, so as t o come w i t h i n t h e f i r s t 
" e x c e p t i o n " t o t h e 
b a r o f S t a t e immunity. 
2. 
S i x t h " E x c e p t i o n " t o S t a t e Immunity 
The S i x t h 
" e x c e p t i o n " t o t h e b a r o f S t a t e immunity i s 
c u r r e n t l y 
s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : " [ A ] c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n o r 
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 they 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 o r 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 o f l a w . " H a r b e r t , 
990 So. 2d a t 840 ( q u o t i n g Drummond, 937 So. 2d a t 58, q u o t i n g 
i n t u r n Ex p a r t e C a r t e r , 39 So. 2d 65, 68 ( A l a . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . 
I n 
a d d r e s s i n g the a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h i s " e x c e p t i o n " t o t h i s case, 
we take t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o c l a r i f y t h e " e x c e p t i o n , " because as 
f o r m u l a t e d i n H a r b e r t and o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , t h e " e x c e p t i o n " 
i s m i s l e a d i n g and c o n t r a d i c t o r y 
t o l o n g - e s t a b l i s h e d p r i n c i p l e s 
of law r e l a t i v e t o S t a t e immunity under § 14. 
In Ex p a r t e Thomas, [Ms. 1111294, October 26, 2012] 
So. 
3d 
( A l a . 
2012), a group o f c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
44 
1111283 
employed by t h e 
Alabama Department o f C o r r e c t i o n s ("ADOC") 
sued ADOC and i t s then commissioner R i c h a r d A l l e n 
a l l e g i n g 
t h a t ADOC was v i o l a t i n g i t s own r e g u l a t i o n s and S t a t e law i n 
the manner i n which i t : (1) 
compensated c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s 
f o r 
o v e r t i m e ; 
(2) r e s t r i c t e d t h e 
way c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s 
were a l l o w e d t o 
use e a r n e d l e a v e ; and (3) p a i d c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s the d a i l y s u b s i s t e n c e a l l o w a n c e p r o v i d e d by law. The 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s sought, among o t h e r t h i n g s , i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f , as w e l l as money damages, t o i n c l u d e backpay 
w i t h 
i n t e r e s t , p u n i t i v e damages, and l i t i g a t i o n c o s t s and 
expenses, 
i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s . 
ADOC and A l l e n moved t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o d i s m i s s t h e 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s f o r money damages, a r g u i n g t h a t 
ADOC and A l l e n were e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e immunity under § 14. 
B e f o r e t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t 
r u l e d on t h a t m o t i o n , however, the 
c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
f i l e d an amended c o m p l a i n t 
a d d i n g t h e 
Alabama C o r r e c t i o n s I n s t i t u t i o n F i n a n c e A u t h o r i t y ("ACIFA") 
as 
a d e f e n d a n t and 
a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s a g a i n s t A l l e n i n h i s c a p a c i t y 
as v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f 
ACIFA. The t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an o r d e r 
d e n y i n g ADOC and 
A l l e n ' s motion t o 
d i s m i s s . 
T h e r e a f t e r , ADOC, 
45 
1111283 
ACIFA, and 
A l l e n f i l e d an answer t o 
t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' 
amended 
c o m p l a i n t . 
ADOC, ACIFA, and Kim Thomas, who succeeded A l l e n as 
commissioner o f 
ADOC and v i c e p r e s i d e n t o f ACIFA on J a n u a r y 
17, 2011, 
moved t h e t r i a l 
c o u r t t o e n t e r a p a r t i a l summary 
judgment i n t h e i r 
f a v o r , 
a r g u i n g 
t h a t t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s s e e k i n g money damages from ADOC were b a r r e d 
by t h e 
d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e immunity and t h a t t h e 
c l a i m s a g a i n s t 
ACIFA had 
no f a c t u a l o r l e g a l b a s i s . 
F o l l o w i n g a h e a r i n g on 
the m o t i o n f o r 
a summary judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d an 
o r d e r d e n y i n g the m o t i o n w i t h o u t s t a t i n g i t s r a t i o n a l e . ADOC, 
ACIFA, and Thomas 
p e t i t i o n e d 
t h i s 
C o u r t f o r a w r i t o f 
mandamus. 
ADOC and Thomas 
a r g u e d i n t h e i r 
p e t i t i o n 
t h a t the 
c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s ' c l a i m s a g a i n s t them f o r 
money damages, 
i n c l u d i n g 
backpay, were 
b a r r e d by t h e d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e 
immunity 
under § 14. 
However, 
r e l y i n g 
upon t h e s i x t h 
" e x c e p t i o n " 
s t a t e d above, t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s a r g u e d 
t h a t ADOC and 
Thomas were n o t e n t i t l e d t o 
S t a t e immunity as t o 
the damages c l a i m because, they 
s a i d , Thomas's a c t i o n s had 
been and c o n t i n u e d t o 
be w i l l f u l , 
m a l i c i o u s , f r a u d u l e n t , i n 
46 
1111283 
bad 
f a i t h , and based on a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of the 
law. 
T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : 
" T h i s 
C o u r t 
d i d 
r e c o g n i z e 
i n Drummond 
[Co. 
v. 
 
Alabama Depatment of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , 937 
So. 
2d 
56 
( A l a . 
2001),] 
t h a t 
' " 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 they 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"' are not p r o h i b i t e d by § 14. 
Drummond, 937 So. 2d a t 58 
( 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 . 1 9 8 0 ) ) . However, i n Alabama 
Department 
of 
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 
H a r b e r t 
I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 
I n c . , 
990 
So. 
2d 
831, 
840 
( A l a . 
2008), 
we 
f u r t h e r e x p l a i n e d 
the 
' e x c e p t i o n s ' 
t o 
S t a t e 
immunity 
d i s c u s s e d 
i n Drummond, 
and 
our 
h o l d i n g i n H a r b e r t 
I n t e r n a t i o n a l makes c l e a r t h a t 
the 
' e x c e p t i o n ' the c o r r e c t i o n a l o f f i c e r s now 
seek 
to 
r e l y upon i s not a p p l i c a b l e i n t h i s 
case: 
"'These a c t i o n s [ a g a i n s t the S t a t e t h a t are 
not b a r r e d by § 14 and t h a t are 
d i s c u s s e d 
i n Drummond] 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 
these 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 
( A l a . 
2004) 
( q u o t i n g 
S h o a l s 
Cmty. 
C o l l . 
v. 
 
C o l a g r o s s , 674 So. 2d 1311, 
1314 
( A l a . C i v . 
App. 
1995)) (emphasis added i n J o n e s ) . ' " 
47 
1111283 
Ex p a r t e Thomas, 
So. 
3d 
a t 
. 
T h i s 
C o u r t 
c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
because t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
were 
s e e k i n g 
money damages from t h e S t a t e , t h e 
r e l i e d - u p o n " e x c e p t i o n " i n 
Drummond d i d 
n o t 
a p p l y , and t h e i r 
c l a i m s f o r 
money damages a g a i n s t Thomas were b a r r e d by § 
14. 
F u r t h e r , t h i s C o u r t n o t e d t h a t ADOC would s t i l l be e n t i t l e d t o 
S t a t e 
immunity even i f 
t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s ' 
c l a i m s 
a g a i n s t Thomas were p e r m i t t e d by Drummond because 
" ' t h e s e 
" e x c e p t i o n s " t o [ S t a t e ] immunity a p p l y o n l y t o 
a c t i o n s 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 ; they do n o t 
a p p l y t o a c t i o n s a g a i n s t 
the S t a t e o r a g a i n s t S t a t e a g e n c i e s . ' " Ex p a r t e Thomas, 
So. 
3d a t 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e Alabama Dep't o f F i n . , 991 
So. 
2d 
1254, 1257 ( A l a . 2 0 0 8 ) ) . 
J u s t i c e Shaw, c o n c u r r i n g 
s p e c i a l l y i n 
Ex p a r t e Thomas, 
p o i n t e d o u t 
t h e 
c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n 
t h e 
s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n " we now 
seek t o r e s o l v e : 
" I 
note 
t h a t , 
a l t h o u g h 
t h e ' e x c e p t i o n ' i n 
Drummond t h e c o r r e c t i o n a l 
o f f i c e r s 
seek t o a p p l y 
s t a t e s 
t h a t 
' a c t i o n s 
f o r ... damages' may be 
p u r s u e d , 
such 
' a c t i o n s ' 
r e f e r 
t o o n l y 
c e r t a i n 
1 - ; ™- ; - ! - ^ ^ 
- , ^ 4 - - ; ^ ^ ^ 
i - , ^ - , - ; ^ ^ 4 - 
a A—.4-^ 
^ - P - P - ; ^ - ; 
l i m i t e d 
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 
i n d i v i d u a l l y 
...,' because 
a c t i o n s 
f o r damages 
a g a i n s t 
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 ' o r 
o f f i c i a l c a p a c i t i e s a r e 
a c t u a l l y a c t i o n s s e e k i n g t o 
r e c o v e r money from t h e 
S t a t e and a r e , t h u s , 
b a r r e d . 
Burgoon v. Alabama Dep't o f 
Human Res., 835 So. 
2d 
48 
1111283 
131, 
133 ( A l a . 
2002) 
('A 
s u i t 
a g a i n s t a 
S t a t e 
agency, o r a g a i n s t S t a t e agents 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 , i s a s u i t 
a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . ' ) . Even 
those 
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 
i n 
t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , however, may s t i l l be b a r r e d 
by § 14, P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 81, 
83 ( A l a . 
1989) 
('State 
o f f i c e r s 
and employees, 
i n 
t h e i r 
[ i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , ] ... a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune 
from s u i t when the 
a c t i o n i s , 
i n 
e f f e c t , one a g a i n s t 
the S t a t e . ' ) , o r by S t a t e - a g e n t 
immunity under Ex  
p a r t e Cranman, 792 So. 2d 392 ( A l a . 2000)." 
Ex p a r t e Thomas, 
So. 3d a t 
. 
Indeed, i t i s 
w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a c t i o n s f o r 
damages 
a g a i n s t 
S t a t e 
agents i n t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l o r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e 
c a p a c i t i e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d a c t i o n s t o r e c o v e r money from t h e 
S t a t e and 
a r e 
b a r r e d by S t a t e immunity under § 14. H a r r i s v. 
Owens, [Ms. 1110421, September 21, 2012] 
So. 3d 
( A l a . 
2 
012); 
Ex p a r t e 
Montgomery 
Cnty. 
Bd. o f Educ., 
s u p r a ; 
Vandenberg v. Aramark Educ. S e r v s . , I n c . , 
s u p r a ; Ex p a r t e 
D a n g e r f i e l d , 49 So. 3d 675 ( A l a . 2010); 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); 
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 M o b i l e Cnty. Dep't o f Human Res., 815 
So. 2d 527 ( A l a . 2001); 
Ex p a r t e B u t t s , s u p r a ; 
Ex p a r t e 
Alabama Dep't o f F o r e n s i c S c i s . , 709 So. 2d 455 ( A l a . 1997); 
Ex p a r t e F r a n k l i n Cnty. Dep't o f 
Human Res., 674 So. 2d 
1277, 
49 
1111283 
1279 
( A l a . 1996); and Alabama S t a t e Docks v. Saxon, 631 So. 
2d 
943, 
946 
( A l a . 1994). 
A c c o r d i n g l y , t o the e x t e n t the 
s i x t h 
" e x c e p t i o n " can be r e a d as a l l o w i n g " a c t i o n s f o r ... damages 
[to 
be] 
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 , " i t i s an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t of the 
law as i t p e r t a i n s t o S t a t e immunity under § 
14. 
The 
s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n , " as c u r r e n t l y s e t f o r t h i n H a r b e r t 
and o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s , can a l s o be r e a d as a l l o w i n g " a c t i o n s 
f o r i n j u n c t i o n ... 
[to be] 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 they 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." 
H a r b e r t , 
990 
So. 
2d a t 840. 
To the e x t e n t t h a t the 
s i x t h 
" e x c e p t i o n " as i t i s now 
f o r m u l a t e d 
can be r e a d as a l l o w i n g 
a c t i o n s 
f o r 
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f 
a g a i n s t 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l s 
or 
agents 
i n 
t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t y , 
i t i s an 
i n c o r r e c t 
s t a t e m e n t of the law because "a 
s u i t f o r i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f 
a g a i n s t a S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l i n h i s or her 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t y 
would be m e a n i n g l e s s . 
T h i s i s so 
because S t a t e o f f i c i a l s 
a c t 
f o r 
and 
r e p r e s e n t 
the 
S t a t e 
o n l y 
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 . " Ex p a r t e D i c k s o n , 46 So. 3d 468, 474 
( A l a . 2010). 
50 
1111283 
The 
s i x t h 
" e x c e p t i o n , " 
as c u r r e n t l y f o r m u l a t e d , 
a l s o 
a l l o w s 
" a c t i o n s f o r damages [ t o be] 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 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 they 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 o r 
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 
o f law." H a r b e r t , 990 So. 2d a t 
840. 
" T h i s C o u r t has r e c o g n i z e d 
t h a t a s t a t e o f f i c e r o r employee 
may n o t escape i n d i v i d u a l t o r t l i a b i l i t y by ' " a r g u i n g t h a t 
h i s 
mere s t a t u s as a s t a t e o f f i c i a l c l o a k s him w i t h t h e s t a t e ' s 
c o n s t i t u t i o n a l immunity."'" 
P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 So. 2d 
81, 83 ( A l a . 1989) ( q u o t i n g Barnes v. Dale, 530 So. 2d 770, 
781 
( A l a . 
1988), 
q u o t i n g i n t u r n 
T o r t 
L i a b i l i t y 
o f S t a t e  
O f f i c i a l s i n 
Alabama, 35 A l a . L. Rev. 153 (1984)). 
" C l e a r l y , 
a s t a t e o f f i c e r o r employee i s 
n o t p r o t e c t e d by § 14 when he 
a c t s w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , i l l e g a l l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n 
bad 
f a i t h , 
beyond 
h i s 
a u t h o r i t y , 
o r 
under 
a 
m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e l a w . " 
P h i l l i p s , 
555 So. 2d a t 83. 
However, 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 o r agents i n t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s a r e 
n o t w i t h o u t l i m i t s . 
" S t a t e o f f i c e r s 
and employees, 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 and i n d i v i d u a l l y , 
a l s o a r e a b s o l u t e l y immune from s u i t when the a c t i o n i s , 
i n 
e f f e c t , one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . " 
P h i l l i p s , 555 So. 2d a t 83. 
51 
1111283 
In a d d i t i o n , as d i s c u s s e d 
i n f u r t h e r d e t a i l below, a 
S t a t e 
o f f i c i a l 
or agent may 
be 
e n t i t l e d 
t o S t a t e - a g e n t 
immunity 
p u r s u a n t t o Ex p a r t e Cranman, 792 
So. 
2d 392 
( A l a . 2000), 
as 
t o 
a c t i o n s 
a s s e r t e d 
a g a i n s t 
him 
or 
her 
i n 
h i s 
or 
her 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t y . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , based on the f o r e g o i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , 
t h i s 
C o u r t today r e s t a t e s the s i x t h " e x c e p t i o n " t o the bar of S t a t e 
immunity under § 14 as f o l l o w s : 
(6)(a) a c t i o n s f o r i n j u n c t i o n 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 where i t 
i s 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, 
197 
So. 
2d 
428 
(1967), and 
(b) a c t i o n s f o r 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 i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y where 
i t i s 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, 
s u b j e c t 
t o 
the 
l i m i t a t i o n 
t h a t the a c t i o n not be, 
i n e f f e c t , one 
a g a i n s t 
the 
S t a t e . 
P h i l l i p s v. Thomas, 555 
So. 
2d 81, 83 
( A l a . 
1989). 
The " e x c e p t i o n " as r e s t a t e d i n (6)(a) above i s a p p l i c a b l e 
t o the 
c i r c u m s t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e ; T e p l i c k has 
r e q u e s t e d 
i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f i n the form of r e i n s t a t e m e n t 
t o the p o s i t i o n 
of c h i e f of s t a f f based on h i s a s s e r t i o n t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s 
a c t e d 
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 m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the law when t h e y e l i m i n a t e d the p o s i t i o n of 
52 
1111283 
c h i e f 
o f 
s t a f f , 
r e s u l t i n g 
i n the 
t e r m i n a t i o n 
o f h i s 
employment, w i t h o u t f i r s t p r o v i d i n g him w i t h the due p r o c e s s 
t o 
which he c l a i m s he i s e n t i t l e d . 
As d i s c u s s e d 
above, 
T e p l i c k was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any due p r o c e s s a t the time the 
p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f was 
e l i m i n a t e d 
because he has 
f a i l e d t o show t h a t he had a p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i n the c h i e f -
o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . 
Because T e p l i c k was n o t e n t i t l e d t o any 
due p r o c e s s , we cannot c o n c l u d e t h a t the p e t i t i o n e r s a c t e d i n 
bad 
f a i t h , 
beyond 
t h e i r 
a u t h o r i t y , 
o r 
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 o f law when t h e y e l i m i n a t e d the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n w i t h o u t p r o v i d i n g 
him w i t h due p r o c e s s . 
W a l l a c e , 
s u p r a . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , because we have c o n c l u d e d 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k ' s 
c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e 
r e l i e f does n o t f a l l w i t h i n one o f t h e 
r e c o g n i z e d " e x c e p t i o n s " t o the 
b a r o f 
S t a t e immunity under § 
14, the p e t i t i o n e r s a r e e n t i t l e d t o a summary judgment as t o 
T e p l i c k ' s 
c l a i m f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them 
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 . 
B. I n d i v i d u a l 
C l a i m s 
1. Due-Process C l a i m 
53 
1111283 
T e p l i c k ' s 
due-process c l a i m 
a g a i n s t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i s 
based on t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f h i s 
employment by USA as a r e s u l t 
of t h e e l i m i n a t i o n 
o f the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
w i t h o u t 
a f f o r d i n g him c e r t a i n due p r o c e s s t o w h i c h he c l a i m s he was 
e n t i t l e d . 
There can be no d i s p u t e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s were 
a c t i n g 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 i n d e c i d i n g t o e l i m i n a t e 
the 
p o s i t i o n 
o f 
c h i e f 
o f 
s t a f f 
b a s e d on 
f i n a n c i a l and 
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l 
c o n c e r n s , which r e s u l t e d i n 
t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f 
T e p l i c k ' s 
employment. Thus, any c l a i m s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t t h e 
p e t i t i o n e r s 
i n t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l 
c a p a c i t i e s 
s e e k i n g money 
damages a r e b a r r e d by S t a t e immunity under § 14 where the 
c l a i m i s i n e f f e c t one a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e . 
P h i l l i p s , 
s u p r a ; 
M i l t o n 
v. 
Espey, 
356 So. 2d 1201 
( A l a . 1978) . 
"The 
p r o h i b i t i o n o f s e c t i o n 14 cannot be c i r c u m v e n t e d by s u i n g t h e 
o f f i c i a l o r agent i n d i v i d u a l l y . " 
M i l t o n , 356 So. 2d a t 
1202. 
F u r t h e r , as d i s c u s s e d above, t h e p e t i t i o n e r s d i d 
not a c t 
i n 
bad 
f a i t h , 
beyond 
t h e i r 
a u t h o r i t y , 
o r 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 
o f law i n e l i m i n a t i n g 
t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n so as t o remove them from t h e p r o t e c t i v e 
c l o a k o f 
S t a t e immunity and make them i n d i v i d u a l l y l i a b l e t o T e p l i c k . 
P h i l l i p s , s u p r a . 
A l s o , t o 
t h e 
e x t e n t T e p l i c k seeks i n j u n c t i v e 
54 
1111283 
r e l i e f i n t h e form o f r e i n s t a t e m e n t 
t o t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n from t h e p e t i t i o n e r s i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s , 
t h a t c l a i m i s 
m e a n i n g l e s s because t h e p e t i t i o n e r s can a c t 
on 
b e h a l f 
o f USA 
o n l y 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 and a r e 
w i t h o u t t h e n e c e s s a r y 
a u t h o r i t y t o p r o v i d e 
t h e r e q u e s t e d 
r e l i e f i n t h e i r 
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 
Ex p a r t e 
D i c k s o n , 
s u p r a . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n e r s a r e 
e n t i t l e d 
t o a summary judgment on t h e d u e - p r o c e s s 
c l a i m 
a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t them i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s . 
2. F r a u d 
C l a i m 
T e p l i c k 
a s s e r t e d 
a 
f r a u d 
c l a i m 
i n count I I o f t h e 
c o m p l a i n t a r i s i n g out 
o f 
t h e a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by Hammack 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k ' s 
p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was 
" s e c u r e . " 
Hammack argues t h a t he i s immune from s u i t as t o T e p l i c k ' s 
f r a u d c l a i m a g a i n s t him i n 
h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y p u r s u a n t t o 
the 
d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e - a g e n t immunity s e t f o r t h i n Ex p a r t e 
Cranman, s u p r a . 
T h i s C o u r t i n Cranman s t a t e d t h e t e s t f o r 
S t a t e - a g e n t immunity as f o l l o w s : 
"A 
S t a t e 
agent 
s h a l l 
be immune 
from 
c i v i l 
l i a b i l i t y i n h i s 
o r h e r p e r s o n a l 
c a p a c i t y when t h e 
conduct made t h e b a s i s o f t h e c l a i m 
a g a i n s t t h e 
agent i s 
based upon t h e agent's 
"(1) f o r m u l a t i n g p l a n s , p o l i c i e s , o r d e s i g n s ; o r 
55 
1111283 
"(2) 
e x e r c i s i n g h i s o r h e r judgment 
i n t h e 
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n 
o f 
a 
department 
o r 
agency 
o f 
government, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , examples 
such as: 
" 
( 
a) 
m a k i 
ng 
admi n i 
s 
t r a t i ve 
a d j u d i c a t i o n s ; 
"(b) 
a l l o c a t i n g r e s o u r c e s ; 
"(c) n e g o t i a t i n g 
c o n t r a c t s ; 
"(d) 
h i r i n g , 
f i r i n g , 
t r a n s f e r r i n g , 
a s s i g n i n g , o r s u p e r v i s i n g p e r s o n n e l ; o r 
"(3) d i s c h a r g i n g d u t i e s imposed on a department 
or agency by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n , i n s o f a r 
as t h e s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n p r e s c r i b e s t h e 
manner f o r p e r f o r m i n g t h e d u t i e s and t h e S t a t e agent 
p e r f o r m s t h e d u t i e s i n t h a t manner; o r 
"(4) 
e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n 
t h e enforcement o f 
the c r i m i n a l laws o f t h e S t a t e , i n c l u d i n g , b u t 
n o t 
l i m i t e d t o , law-enforcement o f f i c e r s ' 
a r r e s t i n g o r 
a t t e m p t i n g t o a r r e s t p e r s o n s ; o r 
"(5) 
e x e r c i s i n g judgment i n t h e d i s c h a r g e o f 
d u t i e s imposed by s t a t u t e , r u l e , o r r e g u l a t i o n i n 
r e l e a s i n g p r i s o n e r s , c o u n s e l i n g o r r e l e a s i n g p e r s o n s 
of unsound mind, o r e d u c a t i n g 
s t u d e n t s . 
" N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g 
a n y t h i n g t o 
t h e c o n t r a r y i n t h e 
f o r e g o i n g s t a t e m e n t o f t h e r u l e , a S t a t e agent s h a l l  
not be immune from 
c i v i l 
l i a b i l i t y i n h i s o r h e r 
p e r s o n a l 
c a p a c i t y 
"(1) when t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o r laws o f the U n i t e d 
S t a t e s , o r the C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h i s S t a t e , o r l a w s , 
r u l e s , 
o r r e g u l a t i o n s 
o f 
t h i s 
S t a t e 
e n a c t e d o r 
p r o m u l g a t e d 
f o r t h e purpose 
o f 
r e g u l a t i n g t h e 
a c t i v i t i e s 
o f 
a 
g o v e r n m e n t a l 
agency 
r e q u i r e 
o t h e r w i s e ; o r 
56 
1111283 
"(2) 
when 
the 
S t a t e 
agent 
a c t s 
w i l l f u l l y , 
m a l i c i o u s l y , f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad 
f a i t h , beyond h i s 
or her a u t h o r i t y , or under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 
of the 
law." 
Cranman, 792 
So. 
2d a t 
405. 
A d d i t i o n a l l y : 
" ' T h i s C o u r t has e s t a b l i s h e d a " b u r d e n - s h i f t i n g " 
p r o c e s s 
when 
a 
p a r t y 
r a i s e s 
the 
d e f e n s e 
of 
S t a t e - a g e n t immunity.' 
Ex p a r t e E s t a t e of R e y n o l d s , 
946 
So. 
2d 
450, 
452 
( A l a . 2006) . A 
S t a t e 
agent 
a s s e r t i n g S t a t e - a g e n t immunity 'bears the burden of 
d e m o n s t r a t i n g t h a t the p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m s a r i s e from 
a 
f u n c t i o n 
t h a t would 
e n t i t l e 
the 
S t a t e 
agent 
t o 
immunity.' 
946 
So. 
2d 
a t 
452. 
S h o u l d 
the 
S t a t e 
agent make such a showing, the burden then s h i f t s 
t o 
the p l a i n t i f f t o show t h a t one of the two 
c a t e g o r i e s 
of e x c e p t i o n s 
t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity r e c o g n i z e d 
i n 
Cranman i s a p p l i c a b l e . The 
e x c e p t i o n 
b e i n g 
argued 
here 
i s 
t h a t 
'the 
S t a t e 
agent 
a c t e d 
w i l l f u l l y , 
m a l i c i o u s l y , 
f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n bad 
f a i t h , 
or beyond 
h i s or her a u t h o r i t y . ' 946 So. 2d a t 452. 
One 
of 
the 
ways i n which 
a 
p l a i n t i f f 
can 
show t h a t 
a 
S t a t e 
agent 
a c t e d 
beyond 
h i s 
or 
her 
a u t h o r i t y 
i s 
by 
p r o f f e r i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t the S t a t e agent f a i l e d 
'"to 
d i s c h a r g e 
d u t i e s 
p u r s u a n t 
t o 
d e t a i l e d 
r u l e s 
or 
r e g u l a t i o n s , such as those s t a t e d on a c h e c k l i s t . " ' 
Giambrone v. Douglas, 874 
So. 
2d 
1046, 
1052 
( A l a . 
2003) 
( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e B u t t s , 775 
So. 
2d 
[173] 
a t 
178 
[ ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ] ) . " 
Ex p a r t e Kennedy, 992 
So. 
2d 1276, 
1282-83 ( A l a . 2008). 
I t i s c l e a r t h a t Hammack was engaged i n a f u n c t i o n 
t h a t 
would 
e n t i t l e 
him 
t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity p u r s u a n t 
t o 
the 
second c a t e g o r y of e x c e p t i o n i n Ex p a r t e Cranman. Hammack was 
e x e r c i s i n g h i s judgment i n h i s a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u t i e s as t o 
USA 
57 
1111283 
p e r s o n n e l when he a l l e g e d l y made t h e s t a t e m e n t upon w h i c h 
T e p l i c k bases h i s 
f r a u d c l a i m . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
i t 
was incumbent 
upon T e p l i c k t o demonstrate t h a t one o f the 
two e x c e p t i o n s t o 
S t a t e - a g e n t 
immunity 
r e c o g n i z e d 
i n Ex p a r t e 
Cranman was 
a p p l i c a b l e . T e p l i c k argues t h a t Hammack a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y 
i n 
r e p r e s e n t i n g t o 
him t h a t h i s employment was s e c u r e and t h a t , 
t h e r e f o r e , Hammack was n o t e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity 
under Ex p a r t e Cranman. 
I n t h i s case, t h e a l l e g e d 
f r a u d u l e n t 
conduct by Hammack made the 
b a s i s o f T e p l i c k ' s f r a u d c l a i m 
i s 
the same a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t conduct t h a t forms t h e b a s i s o f 
T e p l i c k ' s argument t h a t Hammack's conduct removed him from 
t h e 
p r o t e c t i o n o f S t a t e - a g e n t immunity. 
T e p l i c k argues t h a t Hammack i s p r e c l u d e d 
from 
c l a i m i n g 
S t a t e - a g e n t immunity under Ex p a r t e Cranman because, he s a y s , 
Hammack a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y i n a s s u r i n g him t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n 
as c h i e f o f s t a f f was s e c u r e and then s u b s e q u e n t l y e l i m i n a t i n g 
t h a t p o s i t i o n . 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r K r i e s b e r g 
r e t i r e d i n 
the f a l l o f 2004, he i n q u i r e d o f 
Hammack as t o t h e 
s t a t u s o f 
t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n and 
Hammack i n f o r m e d 
him 
of h i s 
p h i l o s o p h i c a l o p p o s i t i o n t o 
t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
but a s s u r e d T e p l i c k t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e " b u t 
t h a t he 
58 
1111283 
"would n o t h i r e a n o t h e r C h i e f o f S t a f f a f t e r [ T e p l i c k ] 
l e f t . " 
A l t h o u g h 
T e p l i c k admits 
t h a t 
t h e s e e x p r e s s words were n o t 
spoken t o him, he s t a t e s 
t h a t , 
t h r o u g h Hammack's 
"words, 
manner o f s p e a k i n g , and [the] c o n t e x t " o f the c o n v e r s a t i o n , he 
drew t h e i n f e r e n c e 
t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was 
s e c u r e u n t i l he chose t o l e a v e . 
T e p l i c k contends t h a t because 
of t h i s a s s u r a n c e by Hammack, he c o n t i n u e d h i s 
employment w i t h 
USA as t h e c h i e f o f 
s t a f f ; 
he d i d n o t l o o k 
f o r o t h e r 
employment a t a time when he was younger and 
more e m p l o y a b l e ; 
and he d i d 
n o t m a i n t a i n 
c e r t a i n c l i n i c a l 
c e r t i f i c a t i o n s 
t h a t 
would have made him more e m p l o y a b l e . 
The a c t a l l e g e d by T e p l i c k t o 
be f r a u d u l e n t — Hammack's 
a s s u r a n c e o f T e p l i c k ' s f u t u r e permanent employment as c h i e f o f 
s t a f f and 
h i s subsequent e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h a t p o s i t i o n — i s i n 
the n a t u r e o f p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d . See N a t i o n a l Sec. I n s . 
Co. v. 
Donaldson, 664 So. 2d 871 ( A l a . 1995) . T h i s C o u r t 
d i s c u s s e d 
p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d i n S o u t h l a n d Bank v. A & A D r y w a l l 
S u p p l y 
Co., 21 So. 3d 1196, 1210 ( A l a . 
2008): 
"'A c l a i m o f p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d i s 
"one 
based upon 
a p r o m i s e t o a c t 
o r n o t t o a c t 
i n 
t h e f u t u r e . " ' Ex  
p a r t e M i c h e l i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , I n c . , 
795 So. 2d 674, 
678 ( A l a . 2001) ( q u o t i n g P a d g e t t v. Hughes, 535 So. 
2d 140, 142 ( A l a . 
1 9 8 8 ) ) . 
59 
1111283 
"'"The elements o f f r a u d a r e (1) a 
f a l s e 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
(2) o f a 
m a t e r i a l 
e x i s t i n g f a c t (3) r e a s o n a b l y 
r e l i e d upon by 
the p l a i n t i f f (4) who s u f f e r e d damage as a 
p r o 
x i 
ma t e 
c 
o 
ns 
e 
que 
n c 
e 
o 
f 
t h e 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . 
To 
p r e v a i l 
on 
a 
p r o m i s s o r y f r a u d c l a i m ... 
, two a d d i t i o n a l 
elements must be s a t i s f i e d : (5) p r o o f 
t h a t 
a t t h e time o f t h e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h e 
d e f e n d a n t had t h e i n t e n t i o n n o t t o p e r f o r m 
the a c t p r o m i s e d , and (6) p r o o f 
t h a t t h e 
d e f e n d a n t had an i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e . " ' 
" M i c h e l i n 
N o r t h 
A m e r i c a , 
795 So. 2d a t 678-79 
( q u o t i n g P a d g e t t , 535 So. 2d a t 142)." 
A h e a v i e r burden i s p l a c e d upon a p l a i n t i f f i n 
a 
p r o m i s s o r y -
f r a u d case than i n an o r d i n a r y 
f r a u d case. 
H e i s z v. G a l t 
Indus., I n c . , 
93 So. 3d 918 ( A l a . 2012). 
"'[A] r e c k l e s s 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
cannot c o n s t i t u t e f r a u d where t h e a l l e g e d 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
r e l a t e s t o some f u t u r e e v e n t . Where t h e 
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 
r e l a t e s t o some f u t u r e e v e n t , i t 
must be 
shown t h a t t h e p e r s o n making t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n i n t e n d e d n o t 
t o do t h e a c t 
p r o m i s e d a t t h e time the m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n was 
made.'" 
H i l l c r e s t C t r . , 
I n c . v. Rone, 711 So. 2d 901, 906 
( A l a . 1997) ( q u o t i n g R u s s e l l v i l l e Prod. C r e d i t Ass'n v. F r o s t , 
484 So. 2d 1084, 1087 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ) . 
The f a c t t h a t t h e c h i e f -
o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d 
a p p r o x i m a t e l y 
f o u r 
y e a r s 
a f t e r Hammack a l l e g e d l y a s s u r e d T e p l i c k t h a t h i s 
p o s i t i o n was 
60 
1111283 
s e c u r e i s 
i n s u f f i c i e n t a l o n e t o e s t a b l i s h a p r e s e n t i n t e n t on 
the p a r t o f Hammack t o d e c e i v e o r n o t 
t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d 
when he a l l e g e d l y made t h e 
s t a t e m e n t . 
" ' [ F ] a i l u r e t o p e r f o r m 
a l o n e i s 
n o t s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o show a p r e s e n t i n t e n t n o t 
t o p e r f o r m . ' " 
H e i s z , 93 So. 3d a t 925 ( q u o t i n g Gadsden Paper  
& Supply Co. v. Washburn, 
554 So. 2d 983, 987 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . 
T e p l i c k 
p o i n t s t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n s between 
Hammack, 
F r a n k s , and S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g the 
e l i m i n a t i o n o f 
t h e c h i e f - o f -
s t a f f p o s i t i o n as e v i d e n c e o f Hammack's i n t e n t , a t the time 
Hammack a l l e g e d l y 
r e p r e s e n t e d t o him t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n as 
c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e , " t o d e c e i v e him 
and 
n o t 
t o p e r f o r m 
as p r o m i s e d . 
T e p l i c k contends 
t h a t as e a r l y as J u l y 
2007 
Hammack was a s k i n g Franks and S t r a d a t o f i n d ways t o "absorb" 
the d u t i e s o f t h e c h i e f o f s t a f f and t h a t he was n o t i n f o r m e d 
of t h e 
d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e 
p o s i t i o n u n t i l October 2008. 
T e p l i c k ' s argument i n t h i s r e g a r d i m p l i e s t h a t Hammack had 
d e c i d e d 
t o e l i m i n a t e the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n 
b e f o r e 
Hammack's d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Franks and S t r a d a and t h a t 
h i s 
d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Franks and S t r a d a were s i m p l y on how " t o 
make 
i t 
work." 
T h i s argument, w h i c h i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e 
e v i d e n c e , i s f l a w e d . 
61 
1111283 
Hammack's a l l e g e d r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o T e p l i c k o f " s e c u r e " 
employment 
o c c u r r e d 
s h o r t l y a f t e r K r i e s b e r g 
announced h i s 
r e t i r e m e n t i n 
t h e f a l l o f 2004. However, the 
r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s 
t h a t the 
e a r l i e s t any d i s c u s s i o n s began among 
Hammack, F r a n k s , 
and 
S t r a d a 
r e g a r d i n g t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n was i n J u l y 2007, some two and o n e - h a l f y e a r s a f t e r 
Hammack had a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d t o T e p l i c k i n 
t h e f a l l o f 
2004 t h a t h i s 
employment was s e c u r e . 
F r a n k s 
t e s t i f i e d 
t h a t 
t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s among him, Hammack, and S t r a d a c o n c e r n e d 
the 
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f 
e l i m i n a t i n g 
the 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n 
and 
t h a t , 
d e s p i t e 
Hammack's 
p h i l o s o p h i c a l 
o p p o s i t i o n 
t o t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n , 
Hammack had 
n o t d e c i d e d t o e l i m i n a t e t h e 
p o s i t i o n a t 
t h e time 
t h e s e d i s c u s s i o n s began. 
Hammack t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t 
make the d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n 
u n t i l t h e f a l l o f 2008.
7 
Hammack i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k i n 
October 
7 S t r a d a a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h Hammack 
c e n t e r e d on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and f i n a n c i a l a s p e c t s o f 
t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . 
However, when asked i f 
Hammack had 
a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t o 
e l i m i n a t e t h e 
p o s i t i o n when t h e d i s c u s s i o n s 
began, S t r a d a 
r e p l i e d " I t h i n k s o . " G i v e n the t e s t i m o n y o f 
Hammack and F r a n k s , however, t h i s t e s t i m o n y by S t r a d a does 
n o t 
c o n s t i t u t e s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f 
a l a c k o f p r e s e n t i n t e n t on 
the p a r t o f 
Hammack n o t 
t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d i n 
t h e f a l l o f 
2004. See 
West v. Founders L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 547 
So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 
1989) ( d e f i n i n g " s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e " 
62 
1111283 
2008 t h a t t h e 
p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f was b e i n g 
e l i m i n a t e d . 
T e p l i c k was o f f i c i a l l y 
n o t i f i e d by l e t t e r i n December 
2008 
t h a t t h e c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n would be e l i m i n a t e d as o f 
March 31, 2009. 
T e p l i c k c o n t i n u e d i n 
h i s 
employment as 
the 
c h i e f o f s t a f f u n t i l t h a t p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d on March 
31, 
2009. 
There i s 
s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d i s c u s s i o n s 
among Hammack, F r a n k s , and S t r a d a r e g a r d i n g t h e 
e l i m i n a t i o n 
o f 
the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n d i d 
n o t 
b e g i n u n t i l J u l y 2007 and 
t h a t the d e c i s i o n t o e l i m i n a t e t h e p o s i t i o n was n o t 
made by 
Hammack u n t i l t h e f a l l o f 2008. 
T h e r e f o r e , 
t h e d i s c u s s i o n s 
b e g i n n i n g i n J u l y 2007 do n o t e v i d e n c e a p r e s e n t i n t e n t on 
Hammack's 
p a r t 
i n t h e 
f a l l 
o f 2004, when he 
a l l e g e d l y 
r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o T e p l i c k 
t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e , " t o 
d e c e i v e T e p l i c k o r 
n o t 
t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d by e l i m i n a t i n g 
the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n . 
S o u t h l a n d Bank, 
s u p r a . 
T e p l i c k a l s o p o i n t s t o 
t h e removal by Hammack o f s e v e r a l 
of h i s j o b d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s as c h i e f o f s t a f f 
as 
" e v i d e n c e o f such w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t 
f a i r - m i n d e d 
p e r s o n s i n 
t h e e x e r c i s e o f i m p a r t i a l judgment can r e a s o n a b l y 
i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t sought t o be p r o v e d " ) . 
63 
1111283 
s h o r t l y 
a f t e r 
K r i e s b e r g 
r e t i r e d 
as 
f u r t h e r 
e v i d e n c e o f 
Hammack's p r e s e n t i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e him 
and 
n o t 
t o p e r f o r m as 
p r o m i s e d a t 
t h e 
time Hammack a l l e g e d l y r e p r e s e n t e d t o 
him t h a t 
h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was " s e c u r e . " 
Hammack a d m i t t e d 
t h a t he was opposed t o the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n based on 
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and m a n a g e r i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s and t h a t he 
had 
i n f o r m e d T e p l i c k o f t h a t f a c t . 
A l t h o u g h Hammack removed some 
of 
T e p l i c k ' s 
d u t i e s 
and 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 
s h o r t l y 
a f t e r 
K r i e s b e r g 
r e t i r e d and T e p l i c k began r e p o r t i n g t o 
Hammack, i t 
was n o t u n t i l J u l y 2007 t h a t Hammack f i r s t began d i s c u s s i n g 
w i t h 
F r a n k s and S t r a d a t h e f e a s i b i l i t y o f e l i m i n a t i n g t h e 
c h i e f - o f - s t a f f p o s i t i o n . 
The removal o f some o f T e p l i c k ' s 
d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s by Hammack s h o r t l y a f t e r T e p l i c k 
began r e p o r t i n g t o him was w h o l l y 
c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Hammack's 
d u t i e s 
as 
t h e 
h o s p i t a l 
a d m i n i s t r a t o r 
and h i s known 
p h i l o s o p h i c a l o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e p o s i t i o n o f c h i e f o f s t a f f . 
Hammack e x p l a i n e d t h a t some o f T e p l i c k ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and 
d u t i e s 
were 
r e a s s i g n e d 
a t t h a t 
time f o r t h e purpose o f 
c r e a t i n g 
" b r o a d e r 
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , 
p e r s p e c t i v e 
and 
a c c o u n t a b i l i t y " because T e p l i c k , as t h e 
c h i e f o f s t a f f , had 
no 
one 
r e p o r t i n g d i r e c t l y t o 
him. F u r t h e r , T e p l i c k c o n t i n u e d t o 
64 
1111283 
s e r v e as the 
c h i e f o f s t a f f f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o u r y e a r s a f t e r 
Hammack removed some o f h i s d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; t h e 
p o s i t i o n was e l i m i n a t e d i n 
t h e f a l l o f 2008. A c c o r d i n g l y , we 
cannot 
c o n c l u d e 
t h a t Hammack's removal o f some o f T e p l i c k ' s 
j o b d u t i e s and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s s h o r t l y a f t e r T e p l i c k began 
r e p o r t i n g t o 
him e v i d e n c e s an i n t e n t on t h e 
p a r t o f 
Hammack 
t o 
d e c e i v e 
T e p l i c k , o r n o t t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d , 
when he 
a l l e g e d l y 
r e p r e s e n t e d 
t o T e p l i c k 
t h a t 
h i s p o s i t i o n was 
" s e c u r e . " S o u t h l a n d Bank, s u p r a . 
Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k has 
f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a q u e s t i o n o f 
f a c t as t o whether Hammack a c t e d f r a u d u l e n t l y i n e l i m i n a t i n g 
the c h i e f - o f - s t a f f 
p o s i t i o n so as t o remove Hammack from t h e 
u m b r e l l a o f p r o t e c t i o n a f f o r d e d by t h e 
d o c t r i n e o f S t a t e - a g e n t 
immunity. 
T e p l i c k 
f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t 
s u b s t a n t i a l 
e v i d e n c e 
i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Hammack had a p r e s e n t i n t e n t t o d e c e i v e him 
and n o t t o p e r f o r m as p r o m i s e d 
a t the time he a l l e g e d l y 
a s s u r e d 
T e p l i c k 
t h a t h i s p o s i t i o n as c h i e f o f s t a f f was 
" s e c u r e . " 
We note f u r t h e r t h a t T e p l i c k acknowledged i n h i s 
d e p o s i t i o n t h a t he i s n o t 
c l a i m i n g t h a t anyone l i e d t o 
him and 
a d m i t t e d t h a t he has 
no p r o o f t h a t anyone s t a t e d something t o 
65 
1111283 
him 
t h e y knew t o be u n t r u e . 
See S o u t h l a n d 
Bank, 
s u p r a , 
( h o l d i n g t h a t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made r e c k l e s s l y o r 
i n n o c e n t l y 
w i l l n o t s u s t a i n an a c t i o n a l l e g i n g p r o m i s s o r y 
f r a u d ) ; and 
S e g r e s t v. L e w i s , 
907 So. 2d 452 ( A l a . 
C i v . 
App. 2005) 
( h o l d i n g t h a t i n n o c e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s do n o t f a l l w i t h i n 
the e x c e p t i o n t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity a p p l i c a b l e when S t a t e 
agents a c t w i l l f u l l y , m a l i c i o u s l y , 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 , o r under a m i s t a k e n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 
the 
l a w ) . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
because 
T e p l i c k has 
f a i l e d t o 
e s t a b l i s h by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t h a t Hammack i n t e n t i o n a l l y 
m i s l e d o r d e c e i v e d him a t t h e time Hammack a l l e g e d l y 
a s s u r e d 
him h i s p o s i t i o n was " s e c u r e , " Hammack i s e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e -
agent immunity as t o t h e f r a u d c l a i m a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t him i n 
h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y . 
3. " M a l i c e " C l a i m 
T e p l i c k a s s e r t e d i n 
count I I I o f 
t h e 
c o m p l a i n t a c l a i m o f 
" m a l i c e "
8 a g a i n s t S t r a d a , a l l e g i n g t h a t S t r a d a 
i n t e n t i o n a l l y 
w i t h h e l d an appointment as an a d j u n c t p r o f e s s o r from him, 
r e s u l t i n g i n 
T e p l i c k ' s b e i n g damaged. 
S t r a d a was e n t i t l e d t o 
8 T h e r e i s 
no cause o f a c t i o n i n t h i s S t a t e f o r 
" m a l i c e . " 
The term 
" m a l i c e " i s g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e d as a measurable 
degree o f conduct t y p i c a l l y used t o a s s e s s damages. See § 6¬
11-20, A l a . 
Code 
1975. 
66 
1111283 
S t a t e - a g e n t immunity w i t h 
r e g a r d t o any a c t i o n he took i n 
a p p o i n t i n g o r n o t a p p o i n t i n g T e p l i c k t o a p o s i t i o n as a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r . 
T h e r e f o r e , 
the burden 
s h i f t e d t o T e p l i c k t o 
demonstrate 
t h a t 
S t r a d a 
a c t e d 
w i l l f u l l y , 
m a l i c i o u s l y , 
f r a u d u l e n t l y , i n 
bad f a i t h , beyond h i s 
a u t h o r i t y , o r under a 
m i s t a k e n 
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e law i n w i t h h o l d i n g 
the 
appointment as a d j u n c t 
p r o f e s s o r 
from 
T e p l i c k . 
Ex 
p a r t e  
Kennedy, s u p r a . 
T e p l i c k 
f a i l e d t o p r e s e n t any argument o r 
e v i d e n c e i n o p p o s i t i o n 
t o S t r a d a ' s m o t i o n f o r a summary 
judgment as t o 
t h e " m a l i c e " c l a i m based on S t r a d a ' s 
c o n t e n t i o n 
t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o S t a t e - a g e n t i m m u n i t y .
9 
A c c o r d i n g l y , 
t o t h e e x t e n t 
t h a t 
T e p l i c k has a l l e g e d a c o g n i z a b l e 
c l a i m 
a g a i n s t S t r a d a i n 
h i s i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t y , S t r a d a was e n t i t l e d 
t o S t a t e - a g e n t immunity as t o t h a t 
c l a i m . 
C o n c l u s i o n 
The p e t i t i o n e r s have d e m o n s t r a t e d a c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o 
the 
r e l i e f t h e y have r e q u e s t e d . 
A c c o r d i n g l y , we g r a n t t h e 
p e t i t i o n f o r 
a w r i t o f mandamus and d i r e c t t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o 
9 T e p l i c k has n o t r a i s e d an argument 
r e l a t i v e t o t h e 
" m a l i c e " count i n 
h i s 
b r i e f i n response t o the p e t i t i o n f o r 
the w r i t o f mandamus. 
Thus, t o the e x t e n t 
t h a t T e p l i c k has 
a s s e r t e d a c l a i m o f " m a l i c e , " he has abandoned t h a t c l a i m . See 
Tucker v. C u l l m a n - J e f f e r s o n 
C o u n t i e s Gas D i s t . , 864 So. 2d 
317, 319 ( A l a . 2003) . 
67 
1111283 
e n t e r a summary judgment i n f a v o r o f the p e t i t i o n e r s on a l l 
c l a i m s 
a s s e r t e d 
a g a i n s t 
them i n b o t h 
t h e i r 
o f f i c i a l 
and 
i n d i v i d u a l c a p a c i t i e s based on the d o c t r i n e s o f S t a t e immunity 
and S t a t e - a g e n t immunity. 
PETITION GRANTED; WRIT ISSUED. 
P a r k e r , Shaw, Main, Wise, and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . 
Murdock, J . , d i s s e n t s . 
68