Barger v. Jefferson County Board of Education Court Opinion

    gEruES

I ireue raired by the sppellrnE
rial court err.ed in ,"iurirry [rcimbunement for the

l?prLs tui" p-p"rti. Tffi
l*t^}r:l* ue propertr
lEraken Deliel thst they mi
n fee aimple and that unOo il' test enunciated in I'erri;
'_Lond &, Imprcvement ?ro,, i
So. 6tI7 (1801), they are entiibi
runed for their expenditqri

'good faith" element is an *gnt for an- improving coteaut,
I nscover the value of imprctu
other cotenants, but tte no1
nent of law in thia regard ir rct
b v. Penons,285 AIa. 1g, Zn
)69).

eation for improvementa emct
will b€ allowed the impruvil3

only when he was vithat
of any outstanding interut

fide, believed himself to be tI.
:he property." 2&5 Ala. at 6!,
rt 812-18.

:vidence was undisput€d thrt
r Michael was apprised of ed-
hip interests prior to the cleer.
u on this property. Although
believed that they owned thc

I the clearing operations ren
n good faith, they had acturl
rt least one of the appelleo
rterest in this property. Theru
rc not entitled to reimburc
r oets of theae improvementr

rsons noted above, the ju{-
med in part, r.everaed in pert
d.

D IN PART; REVERSED IN
REMANDED.

, C.J., and BLOODWOBTR.
and EMBRY, JJ., ooncur.

Jemes C. BABGER

v.

,EFrEBSON COT]NTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION ct d.

77.5f,2.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 22, 1979.

Appeal was td<en fipm a judgment of
tbe Circuit C,ourt, Jefferson Crcunty, Wil-
[rrr C. Barber, J., denying teacher's claim

for an additional amount of back salary and

his claim for neinstatement to a teaching

position. The Supreme C,ourt, Almon, J.,

held that: (1) where teacher's certificate
expired during the period of teacher'e

mongful discharge by board of education,

trial oourt did not err in rcfusing to rein-
state him, in light of the clear statutory
mandate that the certificate is a condition
precedent to employment as an instructor,
principal or supervisor, snd (2) teacher, who
was imploperly discharged fipm his t€8eh-
ing position, was entitled to recover back
pay, including amounts earaed by him from
other employment during the period of his
improper discharge and withheld from his
beck pay award as mitigation of damages
by board of education.

Affirmed in part, revensed in part, and
rcmanded.

l. Schools Fl30
Teacher, whose teaching certificate ex-

pired during period of wrongful diacharge
by board of education and suboequent to
otder of State Tenurc Commisgion to nein-
rtate him and who did not establish that
board of education, as a matter of common
prtctice, automatically rrcquested Stst€
Boerd of Fxlucation to rcnew certificatc of
ita teachera, was not entitled to rcly on
board of education to rcnew his certificate,
eopecially in light of difficulties which had
developed between teacher and board with
rcapect to his employment.

Ala. 307

2. Schools cl{l(6)
Whene teacher's certificate had expired

during period of wrongful discharge of
board of education, trial court did not err in
refusing to rcinstate teacher, in light of
clear statutory mandate that certificate is a
condition precedent to employment as an
instructor, principal or superviaor. Code of
Ala19?5, SS 16-28-1, 16_124rl.

3. Schools c=f3;1.$ l{f(4)
After a teacher attains tenure, he or

she has an expectation of future employ-
ment gimilar to that of a public employee
under system of civil service, and may be
discharged only for just cause as specified
under statute and purcuant to procedures
established in statutc. Code of Ala.l975,
S$ 16-%-8 to 16-%-10.

{. Schoole c-l!}i1.9
Teacher tenurc lawe must of necessity

be construed as psrt and parcel of total
obligation owed by gchool board as a public
employer to individual tenured teacher.
Code of AIa.1975, SS 16-%-8 to l6-ZL-10.

5. Schoole elili!.9
Teacher tenure statut€s ehould be liber-

ally construed in favor of teachers who
constitute class designated as primary bene-
ficiaries of such statut€s. Code of A1a.1975,

SS 16-%-8 to 16-%-10.

6. Schools c-r44(3)
Teacher was entitled to rccover as back

pay amount actually earned by him from
other employment during period of wrong-
ful discharge, and withheld from his back
pay award as mitigation of damages by
board of education. Code of A1a.1975,

SS 16-%-8 tn t6_24-10.

William M. Dawson, Jr., Birmingham, for
appellanL

Mauriee F. Bishop, Birmingham, for ap
pelleee.

ALMON, Justice.

James C. Barger appeals from a judg-
ment of the Jefferson County Oircuit Crcurt,
denying hie claim for an additionsl amount

BARGER v. JEFFERfION CTY. BD. OF ED.
Ctto e* Alr- t?t So.ld te7



308 Al8. 372 SOUTHERN REFORTEB 2d SEBIES

of back salary and his claim for rcinstate-
ment to a teaching poaition. lile affirm in
part and revenre in part

The appellant was hired by the Jefferson
C,ounty Board of F.ducation on July 18,

1969, as a Trade and Industrial Co-ordinator
and continued to be employed by the Jef-
ferton County School System until he re-
ceived notice that effective June 30, 1975,

hia employrnent would be cancelled. For
the purpose of our eonsideration of the is-
suea prcrntcd on this appeal, it is sufficient
to note that the State Tenure Commission
ultimately determined that the Jefferson
County Boad of Education did not eomply
with ttre teacher tenure laws in cancelling
the eppellant's emplo5rment. The Tenure
Crcmmission therefore rcversed the action of
the Jefferton Crcunty Board of Exlucation.

In this case, the appellant sought both
reinstatement to a teaching position and
back salary. The trial court denied the
appellant's prsyer for reinstatement but
found that he was entitled to rccover S17,-
748.41, the amount of his salary from the
date of his wrongful discharge until the
date his teaching certificate expired ($21'1,-

66268), less the amount earned in other
employment (S9,9f 4.27 ).

The appellant first contends that the trial
court erred in denying his claim for rcin-
statement. The appellant maintains that
pursuant to the State Tenurc Crcmmission's

order, he was entitled to immediate rein-
statement to his former position. During
the period between the last order of the
Tenure Commission and the judgment of
the circuit court, the appellant's teaching
certificate expired. The trial court detcr-
mined that because the teacher's certificate
had expired, it would be imprrper to compel
the school bosrd to rcinstate the teacher.

The appellant asserts that he relied upon
the Jeffercon County Board of Education to
apply for the renewal of his teaching certif-
icate. Whether under some set of circum-
stances a teacher might reasonably rely
upon a school board to renew the certifi-
cates of the teachers in its employ, we need

not decide. In the instant case, the teacher
had been discharged, albeit wrongfully, by

the Board of &lucation prior to the time for
application for renewal of his certificat€.
Despite the fact that his rpinstatement had
been ordered by the State Tenurc Commie-
sion, he had not been rcinst8t€d at the time
of hie c€rtificate'c expiration.

tU Although the appellant presentcd

evidence indicating that the Jeffenon
County Board of &lucation had unilatcrally
requested that hig ccrtificatc be renewed in
1973 when it was due to expire, he has not
established that the Boatd, as a matter of
common practice, automatically requested

that the Stste Board of Education rcnew
certificates of its teachers, instructors, and

other educaton. \f,Ie are not persuaded

that the appellant was entitled to rely on

the Board of Erlucation to tpnew his certifi-
cate in this instsnce, especially in light of
the difficulties which had developed be-

tween the appellant and the Board with
respect to his employment.

Morrcover, the record rcflects that the

St8t€ Board of Fxlucation has raised ques-

tions relative to additional rcquirements be-

fore the appellant's certificate could be re'
newed. Under these circumstsnces, it was

the appetlant's rcsponsibility to assurc his

continued certif ication.

l2l In light of the clear statutory man'
date that certification is a condition prlece-

dent to employment as an instructor, princi'
pal or supervisor, Code 1975, SS 1F23-1,
16-?A-1, the trial court did not err in re-
fusing to reinstste the appellant.

The teacher next contends that the trial
eourt ened in denying his claim for the full
measure of back pay.

The appellee Board of Exlucation asserts,

and the trial court held, that the appellant's
back pay award should be reduced bY

amounts actually earned from other em'
ployment of whatever kind. In support of
its contention, the Boatd places heavy rc-

liance on Benziger v. Miller, 50 Ala. 206

(18?4). \flhile the Court in Benziger held

that it was permissible to prove in mitiga'
tion of damages that the teacher received

compensation for other employment and

morc recent cases have citei Benziger wilh

BAf,

rppsrent approval, Q. g.'.
fuluution of Blount Cou

166 So.2d 120 (1964), it is
t}uit Benziger, an action
teacher's employment con
prior to the enactment o:

ur.e statutes in 1989.

131 In Alabama, a pul
has a statutory right to "
ststus" or tenure after s

tract as a teacher in the s

for thrrce consecutive year
ployed in that school syst
school year. Code 1915,

a teacher attains tenulr,
expectancy of future emp
that of a public employee
civil servi<*:, w e. g.,
Mit*hell, 294 Ala. 474, 3l
and may be discharged <

as specified under Code
pursuant to the procedu

S 16-%-9 and g 16-2[--]

t{, f] Although teachr
given contracts on an anl
ure laws must of necessi
part and parcel of the tor
by the schml board as a
the individual tenured
hunty 8rlard of &lucat
Ala. 202, ZS9 So2d 2gS
Beverly,2b? Ala. 494, S!

furd of &hcrll hmm
?.46 Ala. 662,n So2d 91
this erurt has observe(
tenure statutes should
rtrued in favor of the tr
tute the class designatr
beneficiaries of these st
utre Com'n v. Madison G
282 Ala. 658, 2lB So.zd 8
P,<luc. v. Baugh, Zn Al
(le4l).

The Court addressing
an County Boad of E
supna, held that wherc r
erly diacharged, he is enr
fiom the date of his la
rtating:

The doctrine of mit
in ordinary contrzcts



uE8

hce:ioE Fbr to the time forgnl of hir certificato.
t ti.i^b leinEtst€ment hd
f tir lhrre Tenur.e Conmir
t b.a rdrtrtcd at ttre tirne
z'r cqirrtbu.
: 6. eellsnt prcsentBd
e,:g rtrt the Jeffenon
{ it;aJot had unilaterally
ftl crrtfi.rte be renewed inra *zc to erpir.e, he has not
r ac Bcrrd, as a matter of
ca rcortically requertod
W. d Frlucation rcnerrIt-.F!, instructorS, and!. 5c se not perauaded

.a. rE entitled to rely onfr-.;.t' to Fenew his certifi-."*. ,Trrally in light of
r rijci. bed developed be
r.ier. rd the Board with
tqtL-.E:aL

- -*r{ reflects that the
! 74.--in6 hnq ysised ques-
r #j--.31 requirements be.
:-r e-ficate could be re-
' Jre c:eqtnstances, it was

==r:*:trity to assure his,-- --

. rl '-zt cear gtatutory m&n-
!--. L e condition prece-
:r. tr t' instructor, princi-
* rttu 1975, SS 16-23-I,
?.. =,=- did not err in re-
:-*.'-* eppellant.

'r- 
==*,ads that the trial

E:-q is claim for the full
a 7a:
, ?r-;f Education asserts,
'",r,r'- v. tirat the appellant'a
-c. wti! be reduced by
1.. d, fipm other em-
>z.E€ r:il. In support of
':*- bad, places heavy rc-

t4y ,. Xiller, 50 AIa. 206
: 'b r- . in Benziger held
>z,t:z to prove in mitigr-
rr'r5, .p teacher received
'- qta employment and
'-, lrp,ratrd Benzigerwitlr

rpp8rent sppnoval, e. g., Tipton v. BoE,rd of
Bluution of Blount County, ?16 Ala. 671,

165 So.2d 120 (1964), it is importent to note

firrt Benziger, an action for breach of a
tcacher's employment contract, was decided

prior to the enactment of the teacher ten-

ure statutes in 1989.

t3] In Alabama, a public achool tescher

bas a ststutory right to "continuing service

8t8tus" or tenure after serving under con-

tract as a teacher in the same school system

for t}ree consecutive years and being neem-

ployed in that school systcm the succeeding

achool year. Code 1975, S 16-%-2. After
e teacher attains tenutrc, he or she has an

expsctsncy of future employment similsr to
that of a public employee under a system of
civil service, *e e. 9., City of Mobile v.

Miblrcll,294 Ala. 474, gl8 So.zd 7m (1975),

and may be discharged only for just cause

rs specified under Code 1975, S 16-2{4,
punuant to the procedures established in
$ 16-%-'9 and $ lG-%-10.

[t,5] Although teaehers in Alabama are
given contracts on an annual basis, the ten-
urc laws must of necessity be constmed as
part and par"cel of the total obligation owed
by the school board as a public employer to
the individual tenured teacher. Madison
Ciounty Boad of Education v. Wigley, W
Alu Z)2, 259 So2d 233 (19?2); Clark v.
kverly, ?57 Lla.4&1, 59 So.2d 8f0 (f952);
Bou,ld of *hool C;ommissionerc v. Hahn,
i246 Na.ffiz,n So.% 91(1945). Morrover,
this Court has observed that the teacher
tenure statutes should be liberally con-
strued in favor of the tcachers who consti-
tute the class designated as the primary
beneficiaries of these gtatutes. Statr- Ten-
ute Com'n v. Il[adison bunty Board of Ed,
82 A1a.658, 213 So.% 823 (1968); Boatd of
fuluc. v. Baugh,240 Ala. Sll, 199 So. 822
(1e41).

The Court addressing this issue in Madi-
un County Boad of Eclucation v. Wigley,
aupr:a, held that where a teacher is imprrp
erly discharged, he is entitled to back ealary
fium the date of his last salary payment,
rtating:

The doctrine of mitigation of damages
in ordinary contracts is contrary to ihe

BARGER v. JEFFERSON CTY. BD..OF ED.
Gttcrr AlstTl Sordta?

Ala. 309

Teacher Tenure atstutes. The purpase of
the law was to "ingurr to the teachers
some measune of aecurity," Bocrd of Eiu-
qtion of tilershall hunty v. Baugh, ?A0
Ala.89l, 199 So. W; "tn Becure pennan-
ency in the teaching force," Pickens
bunty Bourd of Eduution v. Keasler,
268 Ala 23.1,82 So2d 197, and the Teach-
er Tenure statutes "arc to be read into all
contrscts entercd into by the school
boards, and teachers," Board of *hool
0om'tt v. Hahn, %6 Ala. ffiz,n So.2d 91.

In State ex rcl. Brcylu v. Tangipahoa
Parish *hooI Bosd (L8.), 6 So.zd 696,
the Court of Appeals, First Cir., held that
a permanent teacher under the tenure
law who had been improperly discharged,
was only entitled to be reinstated as a
permanent teacher in an approved high
school of the parish at the salary of
($10Lm) in accordance with his grade,
ertificate and stotus. But even though
he chose not to remain idle and secured
another teaching position in another par-
ish at a slightly smaller s8lary ($92.50),

and the trial court granted him only the
difference ($8.S01 in his prior salary and
the salary he drew in the new parish, the
appellate eourt granted him the full sala-
ry ($101.00) he would have r.eceived had
he not been improperly discharged.

16l Thercfore, we find that the teacher
is entitled to necover an additional
$9914.n, such amount being the sum with-
held from his back pay award by the Board
of Exlucation. This case is affirmed in part,
revemed in part and remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings consistent
with the views exprcssed herein.

AFFIRMED IN PART: REVERSED IN
PART AND REMANDED.

BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, JONES
and EMBRY, JJ., concur.



3?2 SOUTHERN REPORTEB 2d SERIES

back salary which he alleged that the Sum'

Levon PUCKETT t"i Co"*i Board of F'ducation wrongfully

y. refus€d to PaY him' SIe reveme'

suMrER couNrr B.ARD oF *L"flH"ffil:L: 
t"t"ll"Ttffi'T

EDUCATION et al' i'ri"r Coonty, had his contract cancelled'

774g. I,; subsequently determined that the

supreme court or Arabama' ;*f:::'ii:"r:fr#t*fitTll;
June 22' le?e' 

r,:'*m"xT:;iffi:trJlTJ;
Appear was taken rrom a judryenf 1r *:*j#rffi i*'iii#ffrr-1ffi

ffi[:::T,?J#,i;m*:T1i:]!:l l; Jii i 
^oai,a'sumter 

ctv Bd or H v:

additional amount of back salary. The su- iri;;" state Tenurc comm'n' 352 so'2d

preme c,ourt, Almon, 1., i"ra ih"t .,h"r" **J*|,,f'; H[:lt-H;; 

"#:"qiix*:"1";rmx'ffi1H:H#rr "r"""t,v 
judgmeat .."r.ing an additionar

ed to his rormer po.iti*, ."r,*r board was i-f'JJ"t[ HJ"fu,JL;i"r*X*#
*,,"Tll* fd*rffi, iT::l' ;111H "*r"r*"1, 

(constr,ction work) during the

that he was not t"""ting ii ",,n'p'*ti* "r xffiiL::":r#:f;Tlttff*t:Yt'l[
i*':'fl '*t"#"'Tfliff "i'H"';il::f;X;:i*;'nf ;ffi 'ff "'il}i.,[:t
earned by teacher werc cprrectly applied by 

The trial court detcrmin"a tn"t Puckett

school board to mitigatc his damages' 
was not entitled to further recovery of

Reversed and remanded. ;;";-;-; the school board because the

**"i "*""a 
by Puckett in other emd91'

Schools c-f44(3) rn"ii*"* correctly applied to mitigate hia

Where cancellation of teacher's con- damages' We cannot agree'

tract was arbitrary "na 
un*""."nted and In Baryer v' Jeffenon Cty' Bd' of F'cl''

teacher was reinstatJ;hi' former posi- tM!.. ;; +' 'nll] 
3?2 so'zd 307 (Ala'

tion, trial cou"t e,,"6 in determining that i9?g), " 
similsr-cas€' this Court held that

wages earned lV t"""t ", 
in other employ- ,"t "i- " 

tenured teacher is wrongfully dts'

ment during ti." gr"t i" was not t"r"t ing ila"d ie is entitrca to the full amount or

were conectly applied by school b"'d ? ilb*k 
'atary 

with no deduction for other

mitigate his damages in computing back compensation earned'

ffiilil;;J:" _ ,"11;1.;11#Jlthe 
triar court is re-

W. Troy Massey, Montgomery' for appel- BEVERSED AND REMANDED'

lant. ar nonwoRTH. FAULKNEB, JONES

Perry Hubbard of Hubbard' Waldrop BLOODWORTH'

Tanner & deGraffenried, Tuscaloo.", foi and EMBRY, JJ', concur'

I

i

i

i
l

Godfrey STR(

v.

Micheel M. MARCII
Harkine, J. C. Cc

IVingo, and Gu5

78-95.

Suprcme Court ol

June 22, 1l

Appeal from Circuit
County; Thomas Huey, J

Robert B. Roden of Jo
den, Birmingham, for ap

John H. Morrnow and I
Birmingham, for appella

ALMON, Justice.

In this ease the Plainl
viduals in a personal inj
the nine defendants werr

ess and the trial court ,

plaint as to five of the r

The record does not r

tion of this case with r
defendant. The trial co
Rule 54(b) ARCP order
aught appearing, this ac

against the sixth defenc

Accordingly, this apE
hereby is dismissed.

APPEAL DISMISSEI

TORBERT, C. J., AN

FAULKNER and EMB

appellees.

ALMON, Justice.

Levon Puckett appeals fiom a judgment

of the Sumter County Circuit Court' deny-

ing his claim for an additional amount of 37:' b.zH