ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL ...

that they had been denied due process. They were qualified under both as they were denied
property interests in their jobs when they were demoted, and their due process rights were
violated when they were not afforded a hearing prior to demotion.
Disposition: The District Court ruling was affirmed in part and remanded in part.
Citation: Alabama State Tenure Commission v. Shelby County Board of Education, 474
So.2d 723, (1985 Ala. Civ. App.).
Key Facts: The Alabama State Tenure Commission (ASTC) appealed a writ of
mandamus granted by the Shelby County Circuit Court. ASTC had deemed the reassignment of a
high school principal to the position of elementary school principal with a $4,000 loss in wages
as a “loss of status” and a violation of § 16-24-5 of Alabama Code for teacher tenure. The writ of
mandamus required ASTC to renounce its decision while the court held that the principal
suffered no loss in status. ASTC appealed.
Issues: (1) Did the reassignment of the principal constitute a “loss in status” thereby
violating § 16-24-5 of Alabama Code?
Holding: The court held that the principal began the process as a principal and ended it as
a principal; therefore, there was no loss in status despite the loss in salary.
Reasoning: The court reasoned that the primary justification for the ASTC’s stance was
the loss in salary suffered by the administrator. However, § 16-24-4 of Alabama Code outlines
that any teacher can have their salary adjusted to fit the board’s salary schedule so long as it does
not drop below the state salary minimum.
The court, citing Traweek v. Pittman (1953), further reasoned that their assumptions of
the legislative intent of § 16-24-5 of Alabama Code were that the statute was written to prevent
the loss of tenure. No loss of tenure was sustained by the principal.
81