Legal Research on Tenure of Employment of Teachers

    )UCATION $ 16-24-? I 16-24-8 TENUNE OF EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHEBS $ 16-24-8

LG24-6 providea that a tranefer ehall be with-
out loes of statug. Ttrus, the issue of whether a
teacher had attained tenure as a teacher or
auperviaor is included in the mattera to be
heard by the employing board under $ 16-24-5.
To the extent that the opinion in Smith v.
Birmingham Bd. of Educ.,403 So. 2d 226 (Ala.
1981), holde otherwiee, it ie modified. Smith v.
Alabama Stste Tenure Comm'n,430 So. 2d 880
(A1a.1983). '

Wiedom or correctnees gf adnlniah'sfivs
acts of board cannot be challenged on
apped. - Upon appeal, the teacher cannot
challenge the wisdom or corectness of the
adminietrative acts of the board which may
have precipitated the transfer. It ie only the
truth of the etated reason which may be
attacked. State Tenure Comm'n v. Pike County
Bd. of Educ., 349 So. 2d 1173 (Ala. Civ. App.
L977).

But tranefer for polidcal or pereonal
reeBona may be held arbltrary' capricloue
and uqiust on appeal. - Ifa transfer was not
becauee of the stated "rea8on" but waa in fact
for political or personal FeaBonB or was not
reaeonably supported by the etated "r€ason,"
guch transfer could be determined to be arbi-
trar7, capricioue and uqiuat upon appeal. State
Tenure Comm'n v. Pike County Bd. of Educ.,
349So.2d 1173 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977).

Mandamue baned by lachee. - An unex-
plained delay ofalmoat 6even montha in seek-
ing writ of mandamus by the teacher is unrea-
sonable; therefore, the writ would be barred by
laches. Burke v. Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n, 380 So. 2d 901 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980).

Citcd in Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Ray, 342 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977);
Alabama Statc Tenure Comm'n v. Board of
School Comm'ra, 346 So. 2d 1162 (Ala. Civ'
App. 1977); Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Green, 409 So. 2d 850 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981);
Hood v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 418
So.2d 131 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

Ihe Teacher Tenure Act createe petman-
ency by providing that cancellation of a
teacher'e contract can be done only on the
grounds eet forth in this oection, pursuant to
the procedure eet out in $ 1624-9. Board of
School Comm'rs v. Wright, 443 So. 2d 40 (Ala.
1983).

Section 16-2,1-S ou0inee the procedure
the board of education muet follow ln
teminatiag teacher contracts. Neither
$ 16-24-9 nor any other in this chapter re'
quiree the board to make specilic findings of
fact. Pinion v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,
415 So. 2d 1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

tatus shall have the right to appeal withine employing board to the state t€nur€
rhed, to obtain a decision by the com;;-
'as in compliance with this ct apte. aii
rolitical or pereonal reasons and that su;i
f said appeal ie not taken within lS ;;;;
)oard'.s decieion ehall be final. Such "p;;i'app6al with the commission 

"rra "'.oi)peal ehall be heard not less than g0 dais
bice of appeal is filed with the commissi-;;
teacher not less than five daye,notice oi

Such teacher shall have a right to appe;
!a1e a right to present argument t" tfr.f the proceedings before tlre 

"mptorirrJuntil the time for filing notice of 
"pp""jis filed by said teacher not until 
"d.;commiesion has evidenced iLs approval of

)n of the state tenure commission ehall be
rll questions relative to said transfer and
roceedings before the said board and the
. (Acts 1953, No. 778,p.1040; Acts lggl,

r section ie the applicable appeala statute whenr the teacher ie to be t"i,i"f""r"a;- t-lie"ffi' Hff",on'""n":H""'"f m, *;i*ii,,-^{i
lgq Statc Tenure Comn'n r. B";"J';-Cijfi;.
194 F. 2d lloo (Ara. civ. App.r;;. til::i:38! So. 2d lrOs (Ata. 1980).ltie section lacks mandate found u,tthinsection l6-2tt-l0 requiring- 

-d"lf;#*;

triif ;;.ll'*:gLstffi ",xr;m*ff;
ae it deliberates on the t"an8f;;, tii" di;;
lacks the clear and compelling .*a"tJ'"i$ 16-24-10 that the boa^i-;iili ;;-t[,#
madg euflicient copiea of the.""""a *[ilf,it jiibe delivered to the commi."io;-;;'t"'il;
teacher within 20 daya bom-the d;; fi:
I::d:'g-{ru"-" st"t" i";; c;il;I:
Doand ot Uduc., Bg4 So. 2d ff00 (Ala. Civ
App.), cert. dgry"d,s84 so. rJ irin rriil. is;6j.
,_Tean"q ilghts of teacher with continu.ug eervice gtatus. _ Sections iO+l]S
$roqsh 16-24-7 provide t"*tis;;t ;-"-;i
;Eill:I;*" lTd;H*tr*Y'i,r#State.Tenure Comm'n, 4gO So. d ffifi,":gly.- app. 1e82), and; 430 so. fi ;s6 iiil.1983).

)6

llaving once attained continuing senice
.utuB aa a "teacher," all of the hearing riShte
l. to transfer provided by t}e Tenure Act
Lcome available. Smith v. Alabama State

tnure Comm'n, {30 So. 2d 877 (Ala. Civ. App.
ieez), ,fPd, 430 So' 2d 880 (Ala. 1983).

Tenure Commleelon mey not engraft fil'
Itr( nequinements of eection 1&24-10 onto
IiIs eection. - Where the State Tenure

dommiesion has impermiesibly engrafted the

20.day filing reguiremente of $ 16'24-10' a

tncellation Etatute, onto thie aection, the
circuit court wae juetified in concluding the
commiaeion had failed to comply with the
orocedural requirements of the Tenure Act.

it"Uama State Tenure Comm'n v. Board of
Educ., 884 So. 2d 1100 (Ala' Civ. App.)' cert.
derued,88,1 So. 2d 1103 (Ala. 1980).

I.ottor giving appearance of find action
treated ae "decigion of employtng board".

- I*ttar mailed by employing board to a

transferred teacher which gave the apPearance

of final action could have been treated as the
"decieion ofthe employing board" for purposes

of this. aection, and therefore the commieeion
could decide immediately whether or not the
decision had been made in compliance with
$ 16-24-6. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v'
Board of School Comm're, 332 So. 2d721 (Ala.
Civ. App.), cert. denied, 332 So. 2d 732 (Ala.
1976).

Review by the commleeion ls based on
the record, etc.

It is from evidence in the record directed
toward determining the truth and validity of
the ststcd reaBonB for transfer and whether
tley aenre reaeonable administrative purposes,
when viewed upon appeal by the tenure com-
mieeion, that it may determine whether the
action of the board ie arbitrarily unjust. Ten-
ure Comm'n v. Anniston City Bd. of Educ.,5?
Ala. App. 198,326 So.2d 760 (1976).

Question of tenure lg lncluded in mattere
heard by employtng board. - Section

$ 16-24-8. Cancellation of contracte - Grounde.

Constitudonality. - See Kilpatrick v.
Wright,437 F. Supp. 397 (M.D. Ala. l9?7).

Termination of contract by board of
educadon. - Under the Teacher Tenure Act
only t}e board of education hae authority to
terminate a teacher's contract. Pratt v. Ala-
barna State Tenure Comm'n, 394 So. 2d 18
(Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert. denied,89{ So.2d
22 (Ala. 1981).

The auperintendent may recommend termi'
nation, but he cannot terminate a tcnured
teacher. hatt v. Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n, S94 So. 2d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980),
cert. denied, 394 So. 2d 22 (Ala. f98f).

107



$ 16-24-8 EDUCATION $ 16-24-8 $ 16-24-9 TENI'RE OF EMPLOY

"Good cauto". - "Crood cauge" in a statute
of this kind ie by no means limit€d to somo
fo-rm of inefficiency or misconduct on the part
of the teacher dismiaeed, but includea any
gmund put forward by a echool committce in
good faith and which ie not arbitrary, irratio.
nal, unreaaonable, or irrelevant to the commit-
Cee'e. taek of building up and maintaining an
ellicient school syetem. Rogere v. Alabama
Stata Tenure Comm'n, 372 So. 2d 1313 (Ala.
Civ. App. 19?9).

Tlansfer and cancelladon, etc.
Thero ia a wide dillerence in a statutorily

specified ground or cause for cancellation ae in
thig section and administrative reason for
transfer as under {l 16-24-5. Tenure Comm'n v.
Anniaton City Bd. of Educ., 5? Ala. App. 198,
326 So. 2d ?60 (1976).

lnaubordlnation.
Ingubordination hae been defined ag the

refuaal to obey some order which a euperior
oflicer ie entitled to give and entitled to have
obeyed so long ae such order is reaeonably
related to the duties of the employee. Heath v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 68
(Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denied, 401 So. 2d ?2
(Ala. 1981); Jonee v. Alabama State Tenure
Comtn'n, 408 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

the willful refusal of a teacher to obey an
order given to him or her by a school principal
ie deemod to be insubordination. Heath- v.
Alabarna State Tenure Comm'n, 401 So. 2d 68
(Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denied, 401 So. 2d ?2
(Ala. 1981).

Ingubordination on the part ofa teacher may
be- evidenced by failure to comply with thl
rules of the board of education- regarding
a8sessments and evaluations. Pinion v. Ala-
bama State Tenure Comm'n, 415 So. 2d 1091
(Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

"Incompetency."
Incompetency ig a term which may be used

to mgan disqualification, inability, or incapac-
ity. Pratt v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,
394 So. 2d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert.
denied, 394 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1981); pinion v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 4lE So. 2d
1091(Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

Cridciem of echool adminietradon ae
grounde for cancellation ofcontracl - See
Ellenburg v. Hartselle City Bd. of Educ., 349
So.2d 605 (Ala. Civ. App. 19??).

Cancelladon of contract for polidcal ol
porronal rsas<rnr. - Se€ Ellenburg v.
Hartselle City Bd. of Educ., 349 So. 2d 6Os
(Ala. Civ. App. 1977).

A tenured teacher'e employment cannot be
terminated for political or personal reaaons.
!""ry ,. Pike County Bd. of 

'Educ., 
448 So. 2d

316 (Ala. 1984).
Neglect of duty. - Cancellation of contract

of aesietant principal for neglect of duty for

failure to report to a echool while a transfer
thereto was under appeal wae illegal. Alabama
State Tenure Comm'n v. Board of School
Comm'ra, 346 So. 2d Ll52 (Ala. Civ. App.),
cert. denied,346 So. 2d 1156 (Ala. 192?).

Neglect of duty by its own terms describ€g a
failure to do what one ie required by law or
contract to do. Pratt v. Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n, 394 So. 2d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980),
cert. denied, 394 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1981).

_Making sexual advancee to puella -Where a teacher had been found guilty of
making eexual advancee to some of his pupile,
the teacher could not claim that thie eec,tion,
permitting diecharge for "immorality,' and
"other good and just cause," waa Eo impermieei-
bly vague that he could not be expected to
know that his actions would fall within ite
mea{19. Kilpatrick v. Wright, 4B? F. Supp.
397 (M.D. Ala. 1977).

Juetifiable decrease in number, etc.
This aection providee that a tenured teacher

doeg not have to be reemployed where there is
a justifiable decreaee in the number of teach-
ing positions or other good and just cause.
Athene City Bd. ofEduc. v. Reeves, g8S So.2d
515 (Ala. 1980).

"Other good andjuet cauee."
Reasonable grounds for dismisaal, guch as

"false hoodg" and "willfully creating dissen-
sion" may be properly considered, within the
scope of "other good and juat cause." Ellenburg
v. Hartselle City Bd. of Educ., 949 So. 2d 6OE
(Ala Civ. App. 1977).

A teacher's failure to cooperate in the eolu-
tion of school probleme ie a legal cause within
the provision, "other good and just cause,',
Pratt v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 394
So. 2d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert. denied,
394 So. 2d 22 (Ala. 1981).

Failure to meet certificadon require-
mente for a driver education teacher isi.good
and just caus€" for cancelling teacherJe con-
tract within the meaning of thie section.
Rogers v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 3?2
So.2d 1313 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?9).

Thie aection hae no appllcadon to sur-
pension or diamiseal of nontenured
teacher. - Thie eection and eection L&24-g
authorize the cancellation of the contract of a
teacher on continuing service etatur. These
sectiona, however, do not provide authority for
cancelling the employment contract of a non-
tenured teacher. Authority to suspend or dia-
miss a nontenured teacher for, inter alia,
incompetency, is provided by $ 16-8-28. James
v. Board of School Comm'ra, 484 F. Supp. ZOE
(S.D. Ala. 1979).

Specific f,ndinge by board of educadon
preferred. - Although the board of educa.
tion'a failure to make specific findinga doee not
violate this chapter, it would be bettar practice

for auch boad to make epecilic findinga aetting
forth the grounde upon which it relied in
terminating the teacher's crontract' Pinion v'
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 415 So. 2d
1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982)'

The rule of revlew in teacher tenure
cases lr a determination of whether there was
suffrcient evidence to support the tenure com'
migsion'a decieion in terminating a tenuro
teacher's contract. A decision of the tenure
commislion which ig eupportcd by aullicient
evidence will not be revereed on apPeal unleot
it is against the preponderance of the evidence
and overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Howell v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 402
So.2d 1041 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

Ctted in Alabama State Tenuro Comm'n v.
Franklin County Bd. of Educ., 336 So. 2d L87
(Ala. Civ. App. 1976); Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n v. Ray, 342 So. 2d 21 (Ala' Civ. App.

t 16-24-9. Same - Procedure; hear

Purpoee of secdon le to eneur€ dus
pnocets. - The purpoEe of preacribing a
particular manner of giving notice with the
provision of time for setting a hearing ie to
eneure due pnocess, that is, notice of'the
specific charges brought together,with-ade'
quate opportunity for preparation for a hear'
ing. Brown v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,
349 So. 2d 56 (Ala. Civ. APP. 1977).

There are four requirements neceseary to
afford minimal due proceas to a teacher: (a) he
be advieed of the cause or cauaes for hie
termination in suffrcient detail to fairly enable
him to show any eror that may exiet; (b) he be
advised of the names and the nature of the
testimony of witnesseg against him; (c) at a
reaeonable time alter euch advice, he must bo
accorded a meaningful opportunity to be heard
in hie own deferup; and (d) that hearing ehould
be before a tribunal that both posseEteE some
academic erpertiee and has an apparent im-
partiality toward the charges. Jamea v. Board
of School Comrir'rs, 484 F' Supp. 706 (S.D. Ala.
1979).

Ihe Teacher Tenure Act createe p€rnan'
ency by providing that cancellation of a
teache/e contract can be done only on the
grounds eet forth in $ 1&2't-8, pureuant to the-
procedure set out in thia eection. Board of
School Comm'ra v. Wright, 443 So' 2d 40 (Ala'
1983).

Ihle secdon outllnes the proceduro the
board of educadon must follos h tsttmt'
natln8 teacher contracts. Neither this t€c-
tion nor any other in this chapter reguiree the
board to make specific frndings of fact. Pinion
v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 415 So. 2d
1091(Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

108



UCATION $ 16-24-8 $ 16-24-9 TENI.'RE OF EMPI..OYMENT OF TEACHENS $ 16-24-9

1977); Barger v. Jefrereon County Bd. ofEduc.,
372 So. 2d 307 (Ala. 1979); Alabama State
Tenure Comm'n v, Board of School Comm'rs,
378 So. 2dLL12 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979); County
Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,
392 So. 2d 842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980); Beitel v.
Board of School Comm'rs, ,119 So. 2d 242 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1982); Board of School Comm'ra v.
Wright, 443 So. 2d 36 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983);
Miller v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,451
So.2d 301 (Ala. Civ. App. 198a).

Collateral refercncee.
Uae of illegal drugs aa ground for dismiosal

of teacher or denial or cancellation of teacher'a
certificate. 47 ALRBd 754.

Public school teacher's eelf-defenee, or de-
fenee of another, aa juetification, in diemiseal
proceedings, for uee or threat of use of force
against student. ST ALMth 842.

Eract compliance with manner and fom
of notice ie uot required. - The exact
proviaions ofthie eection ae to the manner and
form of notice of the proposed cancellation do
not have to be followed. Brown v. Alabama
State Tenure Comm'n, 349 So. 2d 66 (Ala. Civ.
App.1977).

But there muet be, ln fact, notice of
specific charges and opportuni$r for hear-
lng not leas than that provided by thie aection.
Brown v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 349
So. 2d 56 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?7).

While board ia not required to continue
employment of tenured teachere who refuee
unreaeonably, without legal or just cause, to
aign a new contract of employment, auch
unreasonable refusal muet be ehown by proper
charge and hearing before the board in accord
with the proviaions ofthe Teacher Tenure Act
before cancellation. Schneider v. Mobile
County Bd. of School Comm'rs,378 So.2d 1119
(Ala. Civ. App. 1979), cert. denied,378 So. 2d
1122 (Ala. 1980).

The requirement tn thie section of
prenotice exerciee of lts authority by the
board of education le clear. Brown v. Ala'
bama State Tenure Comm'n, 349 So. 2d 56
(Ala. Civ. App. r9?7).

Requlrements of thie eection are met
when teacher hae a full hearing before the
board. - Although the notice of contract
cancellation poaaibly misplaces the burden of
proof, the atatutory duty placed on the board of
education to prove the chargea it has made
againat a teacher cannot be changed absent
pertinent legielation. Jonee v. Alabama Statc
Tenure Comm'n, 408 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App.
1981).

te failure to neport to a school white a traneferre thereto waa under appeal wae iti"g"f]Ai"tii1rt State .Tenure Coqm,n r.--B;';fr';'i'i[ffirry Comm'ra, 946 So. in ce(. denied, 346so. 11 iii3,lillrg,;; oro.,,
> - Neglect of duty bv its own'-tcili-al.'."iU", 

"t- failure to do whatine is "equired;;-ffi";n contract to do. hatt v. Alabama St 
-d i;;;;I 3?ffi"x;$ii#Jl;{l1ltl;1*'",ii6;

.- Makiag rexual advaacee to- poolf". _Wh.e1e a teacher tuJ u""" roili;til; ;I making eexual advar, th;;;;;;;il ';;fii,r,"Ir"i fll;:mf:: $'ffi "tr,Ht,l:;'#1fi19;*l, Ply vague that-h" .ooia';1;ffi;;ffi"?;
know. that hie actions woutd fall Jiiiii it
1ry_ag1q. Kilparrick v. wrisht,tt'i:'il;' 397 (M.D. Ala. l9?7)_' .Iuetifiable decreaee in ril nber. etc.
. Thie section providee tfi"t "Gioi?u.f,""do.es 

1o-t have to be reemployed ;dthil;.
a juatifiable decreaae in 'tt J "".#i;;;i:inq poaitione or other s*d ;tfu;;il:
Lt!:t City Bd. of Educ.-v. R"";;r,,s* S:;615 (Ala. 1980).

'Other good and juet cauee.',
_-lGasonable grounds for dismissal, such as*falee 

hoods,' ina,,wntiuUyl;;;;il T,#:
:l:1" q:f .b" property .on.ia""uJ,-*,itht; ;;
;:],fr *i,TA,1Sr::?,rTlf T..rSlH..Tf(AIa. Civ. app. r-9ZZl. 

-

.. A te-acher's failure to cooperate in the solu.Uon of echoot problems ir;iA;i;;il';t,itil
trte provieion, .,other 

sood a"nd j;f.;il.;
$at_t_v. Alabama StatJt"nuie i";h, fi;*. ?d 18 (Ala. Civ. App. le8oi,cert:;il,
394 So. 2d22(/.la. t9}tt.

Failu5e to meet certification reqpire-me.nta for a driver education teacher-ie-.8;and juet cause" for "".4;iiiil;;;i#. ?#
#i,* i,l!:H3 5[?:'i5,*,": ffi ;tfi 1"fiSo- 2d rSlB (Ala. Civ. App. 1979).

t hra aection hae no application to aua-peneion or diemiegat'-or-;;tifi;
teacher. - This aection 

""a *.ti*-Iii'a*_i
a^uthorize the cancellation oftne cont";;i;
:::,TI on continuing eervice etatus. These8€crtons, however, do not provide artfroritv ioicancelling tle employment contract 

"i-;-;;;:tenured teacher. Autiority t" ;;;;# ;"'l"i;:
I1T " .nonrenured teacher ir;,'i;r*ji".
rncompet€ncy, ia provided Uy g tO-A_ii. .lam"J
.": IoT.a of Schoot Comm're, iaa p. srpilitii(S.D. Ala. l9?9).

,i'fff :iiTf,:.'Jr1rf 
"$o"l[:1,,.7tion's faiture to make s:pecific frr-di;gr"l;;;;

violate this chapter, it;;iJbe be;i:;ilffi;

for such board to make apecific findings eetting
forth the grounds upon which it relied in
terminating the teacher'e contract. Pinion v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, {16 So. 2d
1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

The rule of review in teacher tenure
caees ie a determination of whether there was
suffrcient evidence to eupport the tenure com'
miseion's deciaion in terminating 8 tenure
teacher'e contract. A decision of the tenure
commiesion which ie eupported by auffrcient
evidence will not be reversed on appeal unleas
it is against the preponderance of the evidence
and overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Howell v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,402
So.2d 1041 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).

Cited in Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Franklin County Bd. of Educ., 336 So. 2d 187
(Ala. Civ. App. 19?6); Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n v.Ray, 342 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Civ. App.

$ 16-24-9. Same- Procedure; hearings.

Purpose of section ie to eneure due
process. - The purpoee of preacribing a
particular manner of giving notice with the
provision of time for setting a hearing is to
ensure due proceeB, that is, notice of the
specific charges brought together with ade-
quate opportunity for preparation for a hear'
ing. Brown v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,
349So.2d 56 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977).

There are four requirements necessary to
afford minimal due procees to a tcacher: (a) he
be advieed of the cause or caugeB for hie
termination in eulficient detail to fairly enable
him to ehow any error that may exist; (b) he be

advieed of the names and the nature of the
testimony of witnesses against him; (c) at a
reaeonable time alter euch advice, he must be
accorded a meaningful opportunity to be heard
in hia own defense; and (d) that hearing should
be before a tribunal that both posseoses some
academic expertise and has an apparent im-
partiality toward the charges. James v. Board
of School Comm'ra, 484 F. Supp. 705 (S.D. Ala.
1979).

Ihe Teacher Tenure Act creates perman-
ency by providing that cancellation of a
teacher'g contract can be done only on the
grounda set forth in $ 16-24-8, pureuant to the
procedure 8et out in this section. Board of
School Comm'rs v. Wright, 1143 So. 2d 40 (Ala.
1983).

Ihis rection outlines the procedure the
board of education mugt follow tn termi'
nating teacher contracts. Neither this Bec-

tion nor any other in thie chapter requiree the
board to make epecific findings of fact. Pinion
v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, d15 So. 2d
1091 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982).

109



$ 16-24-9 EDUCATION

11q

$ 16-24-9 $ 16-24-10 TENT'RE OF EMPLoY

_ Nelther thir lrecdon nor any other in theTeacher Ten_ure Act requtr-i tilb;"rd;make epecif,c findlngj of faci Eil;
A.Iabarna State Tenure Comm,n, gg4 So. 2d lg
!4lg:.Ciy. 4ee. 1e8o), ce*. denied, iti S": i;
22 (Ala. l98l).

Althoughthe-board of education'e failurc tomake specilic findinge doee not ,ioj;;Ih;
chapter, it would be bett€r practice for guch
Frd to make specilic nraiigr-*tiiig f;ii
cne grounds upon which it relied in terminat-
l!!8 the teacher,g contract. pinion v-. Ai;i;;;
State Tenure Comm,n, 416 so.-rd'i69iiAi;.
Civ. App. 1982).

Secdon autborizee eancellaffon of con-hact of teacher on con+inuing ,..lLih.
tus. - Section8 16-24-g and thia-sectio;;r;h*
rize- the cancellation of the .;;;;;i;i:';
teacher on continuing service statue. Tites€
sectlons, however, do not provide authoritv forcanceillng the employment contract of a 

-non-

t€nured teacher. Authority to suspend or dis-miss a nontenured teacier f.;;'irt";-"il-.
incompetency, is provided by $ 16_g-29. Ja;;J
y: Po"rd of School Comm'rq lel f,. Srpp. itii(S.D. Ala. 1929).

. Ihe cancellatlon of a teacher'e contractls the sole prerogative of the "-rf-iifiiboard of education _ Only the boird mai
determine that cause exisa'for c;;;ll";;;
and that notice to the tcacher sh;ii- b";;;
and a.hearing thereon held. Suchconstdd;;;
and d€termination ehould be recorded in the
minutee^of the board. Brown v. alabamaBtati
l:Lfro comm'n, 849 So. 2d E6 (Ala. Civ. App.
1977).

Logielature dtd not intond that teacher
{l3eferq and cencellations bo t";il;
:lite.-.Alabama State Tenure b;-;;;-;rtan[Irn County Bd. of Educ., g96 So. 2d 1gz(Ala. Civ. Apo. igzel-

But lher6ie no d'IstLncdon ag to reoulro.
fent that the teacher bo told tte ,eiaoo"for tle boarrl'e ac6on aUUa-" .t"t" lli:ure Com.m'n v. Franklin Coo"ty Ad. oiEd-o..,
336 So. 2d 187 (Ata. Civ. App. r9Zel. - ----''

Ihe employlng boerd; bf educadon mavnot - sunmerily teminate a tcnurei
p.qclen loster v. Blount County Bd. of Educ.,
340 So. 2d ?61 (Ala. 19?6).

Where a tenured teacher refusee to negotiatea ncw contract or to sign a new contract
proq?re_d by the board, the'board;;"";;;;:
manly declar'r auch teacher reaigned or her
pg.sition vacated. Schaeider v. Moiile C;;;;
Bd. of School 

-Com-'m, 
gZ8 So- ZJ iif g fHJ.

9ly. epp. 1979), cert. denied, g?g So. kl ltzL(Ala.l980).

.. But may eummarlly terralnate a proba.
uonery or nontonured tcachen Foater v.
Blount County Bd. of Educ., 940 So. Zi lSt(A1a.1976).

Sua-penslon- pendiag hearing on pno-
poeed cancelladon. 

- The only suapenaion
provided under the teacher tenure law ie a
suspension by the superintendent pending a
neanng on a propoeed cancellation. Hammond
v. Bailey, 394 So. 2d 2E (Ala. Cir. app. iSiO),
cert. denied,394 So. 2d27 Qrla.19S1):

Consideradon of evidence. _ In the ab-
sence of a statute to the contrary, a.tminlgtra-
tive boardg are not reetricted toconeideratioi
ofevidence which would be legal ir;;;rrt;;
law, but they may congider e"id"n." ofp.oUa-
tive force 

.even .though it may be t e"rr.y or
9lherwise illegal. Wright v. Marsh, g?g So. 2d
11? 14t". Civ. App.), cert. denied, BZ8 So. 2d
7a2 (Ala. 1980).

Appeal properly dismieeed where
teacher failed to file contcet nodce. _
Where teacher failed to file any notice with
city board of education that sho pt""""a to
conteat the cancellation ofher contract, board e
deciaion terminating her employm"ir 

""-"teacher in the city achool syetem wag finaland
the tenure commigeion acted property in Ae-
missingher appeal. primm v.-ataUaira StaL
T^"19" Comm'n, g6E So. 2d ?3 (AIa. Ci;. 6;:r978).

Cited in Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Board of School Comm're, gg2 So. 2d 724 (ila.
9ir. 4pp. 1976); Alabama State t"nu.e
Comm'n v. Ray, 942 So. 2d 2t (Ala. Cir.-Ai".
r9z7); chaverg v. state personnel Bd., gs? S[:2! 662 (Ala. Civ. App. 1.9?8); Alexander-v.
Alabama State Tenure Com.E,n, g5g So- 2j
1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?8); Waehinstoi
County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Teiure
Comm'n, 464 So. 2d 338 (Ala. Ci". app.l-S?8li
Smith v. Wilcox County Bd. of Educ],-S6a S;:
2d 689 (Ala. lg7g); Barger v. Jeffergon CountvB!. of Educ., 372 So. 2d gO? (Ala. l9?9i:
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n ,. SoarJ ;i
School Comm'rs, 378 So. 2d 1142 faU. Ci".
App. 1979); County Bd. of Educ. 

". 
Ahb;;

State Tenure Comm'n, 992 So. 2d 942 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1980); Beitel v. Board of S.l*i
Comm'rs, 419 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Cir. app. f98i),
Board of School Comm'rs v. Wright,,iii Sr. Z;
35 (Ala. Civ. App. 198s); MillJr i lt"U"i""
State Tenure Comm'n, 4ol So. zdgoiiAi*
91"..-4fq.. 1S8a); Dickey v. McCtammy, 46, So:
2d 1315 (Ala. 1984).

$ 16-?l-f0. Same - Finality of act
damagee for breach ot

(a) The action of the employing b
cancellation of a teache/s contract;
compliance with the provisions of this r

(b) The teacher shall have the r
commission, as hereinafter established
as to whether such action was in coml
such action was arbitrarily unjust. Sucl
15 days after the decision of the empl
with the superintendent or chairman o
within 15 days after decision of the bo

Upon notice ofappeal, the board shall t
record of proceedings to provide a c

commission and one for the teacher. '

given to the teacher, all paper fila
compliance with the provisions of thir
other evidence and the findings and
number of copies of the record shall b€
teacher within 30 days from the day o
commission shall set a date for the
teacher, or a representative of each, s

The date of such hearing shall be not k
after such notice of appeal is filed, ar
given at least five days'notice ofthe ti
considered. On said appeal the commisr
of the prmeedings before the said boar
hearing. The commission shall by a n
the action by the board and shall rendr
hearing.

(c) No actibn shall lie for the recor
employme'nt contract of a teacher in th
759; Code 1940, T. 52, $ 360; Acts 194t
1040; Acts 1981, No. 81-686, p. 1156, $

Procegs not controlled by eecdon l&%7.
In accord with bound volume. See Alabama

Stato Temrre Comm'n v. Board of Educ., 384
So. 2d 1100 (Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denie4 384
So.2d 1103 (Ala. 1980).

Thie s€ction controle only when a teache/o
contract hag been cancelled, and gection
L6-24-7 is the applicable appeala etatuto when
the teacher is to be traneferred; the two
proceduree cannot be used intorchangeably
and the one doea not control the other. Ala-



]ATION $ 16-24-9 $ 16-24-10 TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OF TEACHENS $ 16-24-10

But may eumnrarily tenrinate a proba.
donar5r or nontenured teacher. Foster v.
Blount County Bd. of Educ., 340 So. 2d ?61
(AIa. r976).

Sucpeneion pending hearing on pro.
porcd cancelladon. - The only suspeneion
provided under the teacher tenure law is a
auspension by the euperintendent pending a
hearing on a propoeed cancellation. Hammond
v. Bailey, 394 So. 2d 25 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980),
cert. denied,394 So. 2d 2? (Ala. 198f).

Consideration of evidence. - In the ab-
aenoe of a etatute to the contrary, administra-
tive boards are not restricted to coneideration
ofevidence which would be legal in a court of
law, but they may consider evidence of proba-
tive force even though it may be hearaay or
otherwiae illegal. Wright v. Marsh, B?8 So. 2d

lqq _q].. Civ. App.), cert. dpnied, 3?8 So. 2d
742 (Ala. 1980).

Apped properly diemieeed where
teacher failed to file contest notice. -Where teacher failed to file any notice with
city board of education that she planned to
conteat the cancellation ofher contract, board,s
decieion terminating her employment as a
teacher in the city echool eystem was final and
the tenure commiseion acted properly in dis-
miasing her appeal. Primm v. Alabama State
Tenure Comm'n,365 So.2d ?3 (Ala. Civ. App.
1978).

Cited in Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Board of School Comm'rs, 332 So. 2d 724 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1976); Alabama Statc Tenure
Comm'n v. Ray, 342 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Civ. App.
19zz); chavers v. state perronner Bd., 85? so.
2d 662 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?8); Alexander v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, gE8 So. 2d
1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978); Washington
County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n, 364 So. 2d 338 (Ala. Civ. App. t9Z8);
Smith v. Wilcor County Bd. of Educ., B6E So.

?d 659 (Ala. 1978); Barger v. Jeffereon County
Bd. of Educ., 372 So. 2d B0? (Ala. r9?9i;
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v. Board of
School Comm'rs, 378 So. 2d 1142 (Ala. Civ.
App. 1979); County Bd. of Educ. v. Alabama
State Tenure Comm'n, 892 So. 2d 842 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1980); Beitel v. Board of School
Comm'rr, 419 So. 2d 242 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982);
Board of School Comm'rs v. Wright, 449 So. 2d
35 (Ala. Civ. App. 1983); Miller v. Alabama
State Tenure Commh, 4S1 So. 2d 801 (Ala.
C!v. App. 1984); Dickey v. McClammy,4O2 So.
2d 1315 (Ala. 1984).

$ 16-24-10. same - Finality of action of employing board; 8ppe8l8;
- 

damages for breach of contract'

(a) The action of the employing board shall be final in its action on

cancellation of a teacher'' contract; provided, that 6uch action was in

.o^pfi""." with the provisions of this chapter and was not arbitrarily uniust'
- 

Oi fne teacheruh"U hut'" the right to appeal to the state tenure

commission, as hereinafber established, to obtain a review by the commission

as to whether Buch action was in compliance with this chapter and whether

such action was arbiirarily unjust. Such appeal shall be taken by filing within

15 days after the decision of ihe employing board a written notice of appeal

with the superintendent or chairman of said board. If eaid appeal is not taken

within 15 days after decision of the board, the board's decision shall be final'

upon notice of appeal, the board shall cause to be made suffrcient copies of the

record of proceedings to provide a copy for each of the members of the

commission and onJ for the teacher. The record shall consist of all notices

gi""" m the teachlr, all paper filed with the board by the teacher in

Io*ptiurr." with the irovisions of this 
-chapter, 

transcript of testimony and

other evidence and tire frndings and decisions of the board' The requisite

number of copies of the record shall be delivered to the commission and to the

teacher within BO davs from the day of the frling of the notice of appeal' The

commission shall sei a date for the hearing at which the board and the

teacher, or a representative of each, shall have an opportunity to be heard'

The date of such heariig shall be not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days

after such notice oi"pi"uf is filed, and the teacher and the board shall be

gir", * least five days; notice of the time and place where the appeal will be

considered. on said 
"pp""r 

the commission will consider the case on the record

oitrr" proceedings U"ior" the said board and the evidence as recorded at such

hearing. The commission shall by a majority vote determine the validity of

the action by the board and shall render its decision within five days after its

hearing.
(c) No action shall lie for the recovery of damages for the breach of any

employment contract of a teacher in the public schools. (Acts 1939, No' 499, p'

759;Code1940,T.52,$360;ActsL945,No'411'p'646;Acts1953'No'773'p'
1040; Acts 1981, No' 81'686, p' 11'56, $ 2')

Proceso not controlled by eection |6.?l-7. bama State Tenure Comm,n v. Board of Educ.,

In accord with boundior"L". s". Alabama 384 sr 2d r1o0 (Ala. civ. App.), cert' denied,

Statc Tenure Comm'n ,' B;;J of Eiluc'' 384 384 So' 2d 1103 (Ala' 1980)'

So.2d1100(Ala.Civ.App.),cert.denied,S84l.egialsturedid.notintendtounduly
so.2d 1103 (Ala. 1980), 

PP'" vslu' **--- - 
. uoiat" the commieeion' but wanted only to

This section controls only when a teacher'e irrr,rru u sp-eedy hearing. As long as there ie not

contract has been *n-#r"a, and section "iorrdu" 
d"t"y i, tt 

" 
[earing, lhe cgm1r-1.io]]

L6-24-7 ie the applicab;;;;i. rh;t" ;h"n has authority io grant re-asonable extenaions ot

the teacher is to be ti'a-nefe*ed; the trpo tt-" ; eitt er iart,'- Kev v' Alabama State

procedures cannot be orl]-lnl-i.f,.r,g""Ufv t"ir* C",,'J", eOi So' zi fga teta' Civ' App'

;.Jth";;td*s not control the other' Ala- 1981)'

111



$ 16-24-10 EDUCATION

Lt2

$ 16-24-10

. QrapaV contrect principlee do not con.trol when they conlllct wtth the intent of
t_!e tenure law. Board of School Comm'rs v.
Wright,443 So. 2d a0 (Ala. 1983).

Alaborra stato tenure commieelon lc dl.
l""PI F he-ar supervlsor'e appeal ,"g".d-
lng hts-transt'er, pursuant to a writ of manda-
mus, where the euperviaor attained continuinc
service status as a supervisor. Alabams Stad'tenure L'omm'n v. Green, 409 So. 2d gEO (Ala,
Civ. App. l98t).
. Stat€ tenure commleeton doer not havejurtediction to hear the appeal 

"f 
;;;;;;:

ured teacher whoae teaihing contract hae
been canc_elled by the employ"; ,.h;lt;,*|"
Alabama State Tenure Comm,n v. Ray, 342 So.
2d2L (Ala. Civ. App. l9?Z).

Only tenured teachere have accese to the
stato tenure commission for the settlement of
contract cancellationa. Alabama State Tenure
C^omm'n v. Ray, 842 So. 2d 21 (Ala. Ci". lipir.
t977).

^ 
Grounds for reveraal by tenure commle.

sion. - Arbitr-ari-ly uqiust action by the boardl8 one gr.ound for reversal by lhe tenure
commiseion; another ground for-reversing the
Ogq$ i" where its action ie not ,,in compliance
ylt!_t!r,e. ctrggter. " Hammon r. B.i t"t, 594 So.
2d 25 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert. aeniea, gSa
So. 2d 2? rAla. r98i).

Subsection (b) of thie section placea an
afiirmative duty upon the employint b""rd;
qpon an appeal to the commiseion, to-preoa""
the. record of proceedings before' it 

.ane 
t;

deltver copiea to the commission and to the
teacher within 20 days from the date of ihe
hearing before the board. Where the 20-dav
requirement is not met in a cancellation ca"J-it ie within the commigsion's auth;;t;
strike the tardily-filed transcript 

"na 
iei""r"

the board's decision. Wright v. Board of Schooi
Co_mm'ra, 994 So. 2d 62 aAla. Ci"- A;. iir81j:

-Where the commission allows 
"" !it"".ion

of the 20-day requirement and the b""rd i;il,to comply with the extended deadline, the
comrnia*n again hae the authority to stritrethe tardily-filed transcript and reverse the
bo""q.r decision. Merely extending the time for
clmp_ltance does not lessen the dutv of the
boqd to comply, neither does it ai.i"riJt iii"
authority of the commission to strike a tran-
script not lkq r-" compliance with the gr""t"a
91t9piqn, Wright v. Board of School Co'mm,ra,
391Q, 2d 62 (Ala. Civ. App. 1981).
-.Iudlctal revlew of 'cbmmigston'r 

deci.
elone b Unit€d to two determinatione: Iirgi.
whether procedural requirements of ttris arti-:
clo wer€ complied with, and second, whether
therc waa euffrcient evidence before tenurb
commiseion to-support its decision to uphoia oi
lelerye board of education,e conclueiona.yriglt v. Mareh, g?8 So. 2d 7gg (At* ai;:
App.), cert. denied, gZ8 So. Zd ZaZ fata.lS86i.

In a teacher tenure case the acnpe of the
court ofcivil appeals review is the eame as thai
of the circuit court in ite consideration of the
petition for writ of mandamus. County Bd. oi
Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n,lS,
So. 2d 842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980). cert. deniea
392 So. 2d 844 (Ala. t98r).

Where the Alabama gtate tenure commieeion
hae impermieeibly engrafted the requiremenG
of thig section, a cancellation etaiut€, ontog L6-24-7, the tranafer statute, the ;ircuia
court ie justified in concluding the commiesion
has failed to comply with the procedural re.
quirements of the cenure act. Ahilma State
Tenure Comm'n v. Board of Educ., gS4 So. 2d
l19g (Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denied, gS4 So. 2d
1103 (Ala. 1980).

Standardc for revereal ofconclueionr of
etate tenure commlaelon - The stato tsnuro
commiseion's conclusiong and judgment will
not be reversed on appellate r&iew as bein;
uqiust unleee it ia againat the preponder"n." o?
the evidence and the overwhelminr weicht oi
the evidence. Sumter County na. -of 

nairc. v.
Alabama Statc Tenure Comm'n, gSZ So. Zd
1137 (Ala. Civ. App. 19??); hatt v..Alabama
State Tenure Comm,n, 994 So. 2d tg (Ala.Civ.
App. 1980), cert. denied, 994 So. 2d 22 (Ala.
rggl); Jonee v. Alabama st8t€ Tenure
Comrn'n, 408 So. 2d l4E (Ala. Civ. App. 19S1).

A decieion of the tenure commigsion which is
supported by sufiicient evidence will not be
reversed ou appellate review unlees it ii
a^gainst the preponderance of the evidence and
t-he ovenyhelming weight of the evidencl.
Wright v. Marah, 378 So. 2d 799 (Ala. Civ.
App.), cert. denied, g?8 So. Zd ?12 (Ala. 19SO).

The judgment of the commission ie final anl
pay b€ reversed by the circuit court on review
by_ mandamus only if the commiasion hae
Ihiled to comply with the tenure law,e proce-
dural requirements or has rendered 

"'i"a"-ment so contrary to the weight of the evidenie
aa to be unjust. Wright v. Board of School
Comm'r6, 394 So. 2d 62 (Ala. Civ. App. l98l).

The commission will not be revers-ed unL;
it hae failed to comply with procedur"l r"q"ir"-
mentg or unlese its judgment ig so contrary to
the preponderance and weight ofthe evidence
aa to be uqiust. County Bd. of Educ. v. Ala-
bama State Tenure Comm'n, 992 So. 2d g42
(Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert. denied, 992 So.-rd
844 (Ala. 1981).

Although the judgment of the Alabama stat€
tenure commisaion is final, it may be reversed
by the circuit court on review by-mandil;; ifthe Alabama state tenure commiesion hag
either- failed to comply with the t""""e .cy,
procedural requirementa or has rendered ajudgment eo contrary to the weight of ihe
evrdence as to b€ uqiuat. Alabama State Ten-
ure Comm'n v. Board of Educ., Bg4 So. 2d 11OO

$ 16-24-11 TENI'RE OF EMPI

(Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denied,384 So. 2d lf
(AIa.1980).

If there ia eu.fhcient evidence to Eupport t
concluaion of the tenure commission, then
decieion must be affrrmed. Couaty Bd- of Edr
v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 392 So.
842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert. denied,392 !
2d 844 (Ala. 1981).

Reeponeibllity of teacher to requr
hearlng. - Upon cancellation of a tenut
teache/a contract, it is the reeponeibility oft
teacher to request the proceas of hearir
Chrieteson v. Northwest Ala. State Jun
College, 371 So. 2d 426 (Ala. Civ. App. 197

Mo6on to strike tranecript lrant
whero not 6led within 1is6 llni[sfl6a.
Where board of education failed to comply wr
statutory requirement relating to 20day lir
tation for time offrling transcript after heari
before board, when teacher appeale from cr
cellation of c&tract. stat€ tenur€ sommirai
acted properly\n granting teacherra motion
strike the tranecript. Washington County I
of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comm
364 So. 2d 338 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978).

This section, which appliea when a tenur
teache/s contract has been cancelld placea
afErmative duty upon the employing boa
when there is an appeal to the commission,
prepare copies of the record of proceedir
before it and to deliver thes€ to the commissi
within 20 daya from the date of the hearit
when this requirement ie not met in a cancel

$ f6-24-lf. Same - By tcacher.

Aesistaat auperintendent for porson
dld not have authorlt5r to accept teache
reslgnation so that termination of teacht
employment would have to be viewed ar
diemissal. Alexander v. Alabama State Tent
Comm'n,358 So. 2d1032 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?

Offer to reaign withdrawn before boe
took acdon. - Where tonured teacher cr

mitted letter of reaignation to auperintendr
of education on August 31, 1977, teacl
rescinded her letter on September 2, L977, i
letter addreesed to superintendent, teacl
waa orally notified that ghe wae no longer
employee on September 6, L977, and board
education, on September 20, L977, attemp
to rati$ superintendent'e action, tegcher I
not resigned, eince superintendent ofeducat
had no power to accept resignation from t
ured teacher, and teacher q{ithdrew her offer
reeignaiion Lfore board'of education tr
action thereon. Holman v. Alabana St
Tenure Comm'n,363 So.2d 101 (Ala. Civ. A
1978), cert. denied,36{1 8o. 2d 103 (Ala. 191



JCATION $ 16-24-10 $ 16-24-11 TENURE OF EMPLOYMENT OT TEACHERS

(Ala. Civ. App.), cert. denied,984 So. 2d lf03
(Ala. 1980).

Ifthere ie auffrcient evidence to eupport the
conclusion of the tenure commission, then its
decieion muet be affrrmed. County Bd. of Educ.
v. Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 392 So. 2d
842 (Ala. Civ. App. 1980), cert.denied,392 So.

2d 844 (Ala. 1981).
Reeponeibility of teacher to r€quett

hearlng. - Upon cancellation of a tenured
Eacher's contract, it ie the responsibility of the
tcacher to requeet the proceas of hearing.
Chrietegon v. Northweat Ala. State Junior
College, 371 So. 2d 126 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979).

Motion to etrike tranecript granted
where not filed within +lne limitation. -Where board of education failed to comply with
etatutory requirement relating to 20-day limi-
tation for time offiling tranecript after hearing
before board, when teacher appeala from can-
cellation of contract, etate tenur€ com-igsion
acted properly in granting teachey's motion to
gtrike the transcript. Waehington County Bd.
of Educ. v. Alabama State Tenure Comrn'n,
364 So.2d 338 (Ala. Civ. App. 1978).

This aection, which applies when a tenured
teacher'e contract hae been cancelled, places an
affrrmative duty upon the employing board,
when there is an appeal to the commiesion, to
prepare copies of the record of proceedings
before it and to deliver these to the commiesion
within 20 daya from the date of the hearing;
when thia requirement is not met in a cancella-

$ f6-24-lf . Same - By teacher.

Aeslstant auperintendent for pereonnel
did not have authority to accept teacher'e
resignatlon eo that termination of teacher's
employment would have to be viewed aa a
diamiesal. Alexander v. Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n, 358 So. 2d7032 (AIa. !iv. App. 1978).

Ofrer to reaign withdrawn before board
took action. - Where tenured teacher sub-
mitted letter of resignation to auperintendent
of education on August 31, 1977, teacher
rescinded her letter on SeptBmber 2, L977, in a
letter addreeeed to euperintendent, teacher
was orally notified that ehe wae no longer an
employee on September 6, 1977, and board of
education, on September 20, 1977, attempted
to ratify auperintendent's action, teacher had
not reeigned, aince auperintendent of education
had no power to accept reaignation from ten-
ured teacher, and teacher wifhdrew her offer of
reaignation before board of education took
action thereon. Holman v. Alabama Statc
Tenure Comm'n, 363 So. 2d 101 (Ala. Civ. App.
1978), cert. denied, 363 So. 2d 103 (Ala. 1978).

$ 16-24-11

tion case, it ie within the commiasion'a author-
ity to etrike the tardily filed tranacript and to
reverse the board'a decision. Alabama State
Tenure Comm'n v. Board of Educ., 884 So. 2d
1100 (AIa. Civ. App.), cert. denied,384 So. 2d
1103 (Ala. 1980).

Cited in Alabama State Tenure Comm,n v.
Mountain Brook Bd. of Educ., 343 So. 2d 822
(Ala. 1976); Sumter County Bd. of Educ. v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 352 So. 2d
1133 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977); Payne v. Overton,
352 So. 2d 1139 (Ala. Civ. App. 1977); Barger
v. Jefferaon County Bd. of Educ., 372 So. 2d
307 (Ala. 1979); Alabama State Tenure
Comm'n v. Oneonta City Bd. of Educ., 376 So.
2d L97 (Ala. Civ. App. 19?9); Schneider v.
Mobile County Bd. of School Comm'rs, 3?8 So.
2d 1119 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979); Alabama State
Tenure Comm'n v. Board of School Comm're,
378 So. 2d tL42 (Ala. Civ. App. 1979); Pratt v.
Alabama State Tenure Comm'n, 394 So. 2d 18
(Ala. Civ. App. 1980); Alabama State Fed'n of
Teachere v. James,490 F. Supp. 152 (M.D. Ala.
1980); Gee v. Alabama Statc Tenure Comm'n,
419 So. 2d227 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982); Beitel v.
Board of School Comm'ra, 419 So. 2d 242 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1982); Tuscaloosa City Bd. of Educ.
v. Roberts,440 So. 2d 1058 (Ala. 1983); Board
of School Comm're v. Wright, 443 So. 2d 35
(Ala. Civ. App. 1983); Dickey v. McClammy,
452 So. 2d 1315 (Ala. 1984); noberts v. Ingram,
460 So. 2d 1314 (Ala. Civ. App. 1984).

Where tcnured tcacher refuses to negoti-
ate a new contract or to aign a new contract
proflered by the board, the board cannot sum-
marily declare euch teacher reeigned or her
position vacated. Schneider v. Mobile County
Bd. of School Comm'rs, 378 So. 2d 1119 (Ala.
Civ. App. 1979), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d lL22
(AIa.1980).

Expectancy of employment. - Section
L6-24-L2, when coneidered pari materia with
this section, and the underlying intcnt of the
chapter give an untenured teacher whoge em-
ployment wae terminated before the end of the
school year an expectancy of employment to
the end of the echool term. Hayes v. Mobile
County Bd. of School Comm'rs, 405 So. 2d 366
(Ala.198r).

Citcd in Alabama State Tenure Comm'n v.
Ray,342 So. 2d 2l (Ala. Civ. App. 197?).

Collateral referenceg. - Termination of
teacher's tenure etatus by resignation. 9
ALR4th 729.

,; h a-teacher tenure caee the ecope of thei. :;',f.",'i,;lliffi :f ,;;*$:.#*,tT
petition for writ of mandamua. C;;; ft.;;. Frl.. v. Alabama St"t" r"rrr" C"ii,iisi- So. 2d 842 (Ala. Civ.

: 39_?_So.2d 844 (Ala. ,'{nR. 
1980)' cert. denied,

i . W-h"o the Alabama Btat€ tenure commiaeion, llr -rlp"r-iseibly eugraft,ed i-i;*d;;"r:. 
9f-lhl. aection, L caicellation ;t1;;;, I 16-24-?, the tranerer statute, the circuit' court_ie juetilied in ."n.fuaini tf,l ;;;;"i;;
H_ rylg to 

-compty *ith th'e 
-;;d;i;':

qurt?Eents of the tenure 
".t. lit"U"_r B't"L-

T-"1^"ry. Comm'n v. Board 
"rna..l, fri-dfi

ll333,f $,rd,App.), 
cert. aenied,58, S:r;

. 
Standarde for rcvergal of conclueione ofrtate tenure conmlesion. _ fl;r't";;-r#;

commiesion's conclusi

g#gii#rr;#l*H#ffiH{
the evidence and th*e o """,fr"ming;;il;;ithe-evidence. Sumter County Aa. ""f Ed"r;. ,.Lt:!*l State Tenure C.r;1,'iiz"E[] zi

iiil $t*,,!,;;*r#1,#ir jrfl ::ffi:App- 198_0), cert. denied, sil S;. ;d'2;i;il.l98l); Jones v. Alabama St"t" -i"liiepr'1,408 so.2d r45 (Ai; cllipp.'i6iiirlA decision of the tenure.o._ir.ioi-*fii-.[i,
eupportld by aufficient 

""ia"n""-*iif"##Tr9rcS.. on appellate rcview 
""r;;.; ;againat the preponderance of the #;il;T

fri*il"rlix*ffi q ff 
,gl:,",1,#,hi#

org):::Lo"nied-, 3?8 sr. za ziiiriii.isitl.'rheJudgment 
of the commierion i, nnair"fimay_be reversed by the.i";;il;; #;:ril;

:rxaffi1*-rl:i#-ffir"'T#
T"TtT"i,,,ti""y'ti'ti"#,'d;:i:1""'J, jljf;

1ff"{#i*'t}:ih[.:Ird*ltith_as-failed to compty *ith pil;;;"".di;::

fi ::i:Hi;;fl t#ifl,;ilu:,*:fly.tl. t" F unjust. County ff.;i-il;-..;.'iil:
bama grate Tenure co"rn-,n, 

-ggz-$ 
. iaTti

$l"iolllifg1;1e8b), cert. ai,.ila, girz il.Ii
._l!l!rugh the judgment of the Alabama etatetcnure commission is final, it -"i U"l"""-#"iby tJre.circuit court on 

""ri"r, Uitli;;;;j;ih.e Alabama state tenure comrnisaion has:itlrer. failed to comply *ith ;i,;;;;; 
"J::35t-T."t requirements 

"" h"; ;;l;;Jj';uogment eo contrary to the weighi- 
"iif,"il%:ffi?#fl:;'i*t::as*n*;

113