# Hall v. City of Tuscaloosa

> Supreme Court of Alabama · September 17, 1982 · 421 So. 2d 1244

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932861

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy Herman Hall v. the City of Tuscaloosa
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Alabama
- **Decided:** September 17, 1982
- **Citations:** 421 So. 2d 1244
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Beatty
- **Judges:** Beatty, Jones, Torbert
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932861

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “a municipal ordinance that contravenes state law, as here, is invalid for that reason alone”

## Opinion text

According to the court's opinion, the purpose of civil service legislation is "to achieve the goals of stability, continuity and security in the various job classifications within a municipality." This formulation is over-broad and, if applied literally, would unduly restrict the power of municipalities to reorganize personnel for reasons of economy. The actual statutory purpose of such legislation is a narrower one: to limit political control and arbitrary discretion in public employment, making it easier to attract and retain employees on the basis of merit. See Miller v. State ex rel. Peek , 249 Ala. 14 , 29 So.2d 411 , 417 (1947). See generally, 3 McQuillen, The Law of Municipal Corporations , §§ 12.76, 12.111, 12.120 (3d ed. 1982). The City of Tuscaloosa's action in no way frustrates this purpose, since the city has demonstrated, as the court recognizes, an economic justification. "Civil service acts . . . are not intended to retain in office at public expense those whose services may be dispensed with for economy." Id. , § 12.111 at 432. Accord Miller v. State, supra.
However, even though in this instance the city acted in good faith to achieve a legitimate goal, the means it chose were not authorized by the civil service laws. The city's action amounts to the creation of a new civil service classification. Only the legislature and not this court may authorize such an action. *Page 1250
This decision should be viewed as a narrow one; it does not foreclose consideration of whether other municipal actions similarly "legislate" new civil service classifications. See Moncrief v. State , 593 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. 1980) (no bad faith where city saved money by replacing civil service custodians with independent contractor), Annot. 87 A.L.R.2d 1165 (1978), 4 McQuillen, supra , §§ 12.246-12.248d.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9932861. Public record. Not legal advice.