Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 36-26-1 (2026)

Short Title.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be cited and may be known as the Merit System Act.

(Acts 1939, No. 58, p. 68, § 2.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs. v. State Pers. Bd., 7 So. 3d 380 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs. v. State Pers. Bd., 7 So. 3d 380 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “03(3)(b) grants the director of DYS the power to dismiss an employee "in conformity with the state merit system law.”
Prewett v. Alabama Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 533 F. Supp. 2d 1160 (M.D. Ala. 2007). · cites it 4× “Thus, VA has in place a “dual classification system” for VA employees. The presence of a “dual classification system,” the requirement of Veteran status, and a good faith belief that employees were properly classified are all a “factor other than sex.”
MacK v. Alabama Dep't of Human Resources, 201 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (M.D. Ala. 2002). · cites it 2× “See also 1975 Ala.Code § 36-26-1 et seq. (detailing procedures and guidelines for the bureaucratic structure).”
Johnson-Price v. State Dep't of Human Resources, 950 So. 2d 1165 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “1982), a merit-system employee sued the state superintendent of education, in his official capacity, seeking a determination as to whether his transfer from a position as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor II to the Division of Disability Determination as a Disability…”
McLeod v. Beaty, 718 So. 2d 673 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). “Additionally, a review of the Merit System Act, § 36-26-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, reveals that instructors such as McLeod and Dinkins are not "otherwise covered" by it.”
Dep't of Mental Health & Mental Retardation v. Bendolph, 808 So. 2d 54 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Merit System Act, § 36-26-1 et seq., Ala.Code 1975, defines “appointing authority” as “[t]he officer, board, commission, person or group of persons having the power to make appointments to offices or positions of trust or employment in the state service.”
Wyatt v. Bronner, 500 F. Supp. 817 (M.D. Ala. 1980). “Alabama Code, § 36-26-1 et. seq. They were never given the examination which is required of all merit system employees.”
Prewett v. State of Alabama Dep't of Vets. Affairs, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Ala. 2006). · cites it 2× “The CVAAs, as state employees, are subject to the Alabama Merit System Act, Ala.Code § 36-26-1, et seq. The Act governs benefits and regulations concerning, among other things, the hiring process, job performance standards, promotion, transfer, demotion, layoff, dismissals,…”
Al. Dept. of Mental Health & Retardation v. State Pers. Dept., 863 So. 2d 1118 (Ala. Civ. App. 2003). “On February 12, 2001, Parker appealed his employment termination to the Personnel Board of the State of Alabama ("the Board") pursuant to the Merit System Act, § 36-26-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975; the Board held a hearing on April 26, 2001.”
Carr v. Alabama Dep't of Human Resources, 952 F. Supp. 1496 (M.D. Ala. 1996). · cites it 2× “The thirty-three plaintiffs in this action are permanent employees of the State of Alabama Department of Human Resources (“DHR”) and are employed in the classified service pursuant to the State Merit System Act, Alabama Code, §§ 36-26-1, et seq. The two defendants are the State…”
Cheatham v. Eagerton, 703 So. 2d 389 (Ala. Civ. App. 1997). “§§ 36-26-1 through -108, Ala.Code 1975. Certain state law enforcement officers receive an $8-per-working-day subsistence allowance, pursuant to § 36-21-2(a).”
Smith v. Alabama, 252 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (M.D. Ala. 2003). · cites it 2× “Under Alabama law and the State Merit System Act, the Commissioner has the option of appointing from one of two “registers” 21 of qualified employees a “pro *1329 motional” register 22 or an “open competitive” register 23 Ala.Code § 36-26-1 et seq. (1975) 24 Commissioner Pételos…”
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.