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
I write to point out that the main opinion should not be read to hold that there are no circumstances when the language in the Teacher Tenure Act would be useful in interpreting provisions of the Fair Dismissal Act. Unlike the circumstances of this present case, where the entire department was abolished, there may be circumstances where the Teacher Tenure Act would be helpful in determining what meaning should be given to certain provisions of the Fair Dismissal Act. See Ledbetter v. Jackson County Bd. of Educ. , 508 So.2d 244 (Ala. 1987) (construing § 36-26-102 , part of the Fair Dismissal Act, and § 16-24-3 , part of the Teacher Tenure Act, together and holding that a lunchroom worker's partial termination from her employment, caused by a reduction of her work hours, triggered her right to a hearing).