holding that deputy sheriffs were “in the service of the county,” rather than “in the service of the state,” for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under AlaCode §§ 36-21-4 or - 4.1, distinguishing Whitten and Mack, supra
How later courts described this case
- holding that deputy sheriffs were “in the service of the county,” rather than “in the service of the state,” for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under AlaCode §§ 36-21-4 or - 4.1, distinguishing Whitten and Mack, supra
- “[A]ll deputy sheriffs in this state are considered employees of the sheriff in whose county the deputy serves.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge,
concurring specially.
I concur with the main opinion based on the precedent from this court and our supreme court’s analysis of issues regarding the overtime pay of deputy sheriffs pursuant to § 36-21-4.1, Ala.Code 1975. See Hale v. Randolph County Comm’n, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), and Geneva County Comm’n v. Tice, 578 So.2d 1070 (Ala.1991). I write specially to note that the legislature could resolve this issue by clarifying whether it intended § 36-21-4 or § 36-21-4.1, Ala.Code 1975, to govern the overtime pay of deputy sheriffs.
PITTMAN, J., concurs.