(a) When used in this section, the following words shall have the following meanings:
(1) BOARD. All public city and county boards of education, the Board of Trustees of the Alabama Institute for Deaf and Blind, the Alabama Youth Services Department District Board in its capacity as the Board of Education for the Youth Services Department District, the Board of Directors of the Alabama School of Fine Arts, and the Board of Trustees of the Alabama High School of Mathematics and Science.
(2) EMPLOYEES. Employees or personnel of the board, except those employees covered under the state’s Merit System and except those employees at the Alabama Industries for the Blind.
(3) LAYOFF. An unavoidable reduction in the work force beyond normal attrition due to decreased student enrollment or shortage of revenues.
(b) Each board shall adopt a written reduction-in-force policy consistent with Section 16-1-30. The policy shall include, but shall not be limited to, layoffs, recalls, and notifications of layoffs and recalls. The reduction-in-force policy of the board shall be based on objective criteria.
(Acts 1997, No. 97-622, p. 1095, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).
· cites it 9× “Nichols, the superintendent of the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners, notified Joann Christopher of his intention to recommend the termination of her employment pursuant to the reduction-in-force policy (“RIF policy”) adopted by the Mobile County Board of School…”
Franks v. Hampton, 189 So. 3d 14 (Ala. 2015).
· cites it 3× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 16-1-33 (requiring all city and county boards of education to adopt a written RIF policy regarding layoffs, recalls, and notification of the RIF).”
Madeline Nelson v. Ken Megginson, 165 So. 3d 567 (Ala. 2014).
· cites it 7× “) In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged: “Each of the Plaintiffs had a right to have been recalled to employment with the School System during the current year because the Defendants retained, and/or hired new for the current school year, teacher and non-teacher employees…”
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Weaver, 99 So. 3d 1210 (Ala. 2012).
“Here, although the defendants concede in their brief to this Court that they were required to adopt the reduction-in-force policy pursuant to § 16-1-33, Ala. Code 1975, they argue that they were not required to implement the policy and thus had no legal duty to reinstate the…”
Calhoun Cmty. Coll. v. Hudson, 200 So. 3d 1175 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Calhoun does not assert that the transfer was made in conjunction with a reduction in force authorized under § 16-1-33, Ala.Code .1975, or to comply with state or federal law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.