stating that § 36-26-102, a part of the FDA, should not have been construed in pari materia with § 16-24-8, a part of the TTA, because “[t]enured teachers are afforded special protections. The ‘special’ consideration given tenured teachers is reflected in the Tenure Act’s purpose, which is ‘to promote stability in employment and to prevent a board from discharging a tenured teacher in stead of a nontenured teacher.’ ” (quoting Ex parte Alabama State Tenure Comm’n, 595 So.2d 479, 481 (Ala.1991))
How later courts described this case
- stating that § 36-26-102, a part of the FDA, should not have been construed in pari materia with § 16-24-8, a part of the TTA, because “[t]enured teachers are afforded special protections. The ‘special’ consideration given tenured teachers is reflected in the Tenure Act’s purpose, which is ‘to promote stability in employment and to prevent a board from discharging a tenured teacher in stead of a nontenured teacher.’ ” (quoting Ex parte Alabama State Tenure Comm’n, 595 So.2d 479, 481 (Ala.1991))
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
While I concur in the main opinion, including its rationale, I also agree with the observations of Justice England in his special writing. *Page 715