Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-26-103 (2026)
Termination of Employment - Procedure; Notice.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.
(Acts 1983, No. 83-644, p. 1004, §4; Act 2004-567, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “In these consolidated appeals, we consider the notice provision of Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-103, as amended by Ala.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Stranahan, 130 So. 3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “2009) (“Archible ”), this court addressed whether a notice of termination under the former FDA was sufficient under former § 36-26-103. In that case, two employees were notified of the intent to terminate their employment with Bishop State, a community college subject to the…”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Sharp, 137 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “We cannot conclude that the former FDA required, as part of the Board’s notice to each employee terminated under a RIF policy, that the Board set forth the specific facts underlying its financial condition and the expected benefit of the implementation of the RIF policy,…”
Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “Washington (appellant) appeals his employment termination by the Bessemer Board of Education (appellee), hereinafter Board, pursuant to the procedures provided for in the Fair Dismissal Act, §§ 36-26-103 through -106, Ala.Code 1975.”
Glass v. Anniston City Bd. of Educ., 957 So. 2d 1143 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “Glass also argues that her dismissal was not in accordance with § 36-26-103 of the FDA. Specifically, she argues that the reasons stated in Dr.”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 61 So. 3d 292 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “See Ala.Code 1975, §§ 36-26-103(b) and -104(a).”
Bolton v. Mobile Cty. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 514 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1987). “"§ 36-26-103. Procedure for termination of employment.”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 46 So. 3d 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Pursuant to § 36-26-103, Ala.Code 1975, the superintendent sent written notice by letter to Long informing him of the proposed dismissal.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Frasier, 122 So. 3d 193 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “Any notice intended to comply with former § 36-26-103 must satisfy due process by being reasonably calculated to alert the affected employee of the grounds for termination upon which an employing board is relying so that the employee has a reasonable opportunity to defend…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 588 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-103(a). In appeal number 2070379, the notice of proposed termination provided to Angelo Archible contained the following “short and plain statement of the facts” purporting to show that “the termination is taken for one or more of the reasons listed in…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “If an employee properly contests the termination of his or her employment, see § 36-26-103(b), Ala.Code 1975 (setting out the procedure for contesting a termination under the FDA), the employee is entitled to a de novo hearing.”
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “Code 1975, justifiably terminated the employment of a non-probationary employee such as Christopher: “If an employee properly contests the termination of his or her employment, see § 36-26-103(b), Ala.Code 1975 (setting out the procedure for contesting a termination under the…”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-103(a) — 7 cases
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “In these consolidated appeals, we consider the notice provision of Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-103, as amended by Ala.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Stranahan, 130 So. 3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “2009) (“Archible ”), this court addressed whether a notice of termination under the former FDA was sufficient under former § 36-26-103. In that case, two employees were notified of the intent to terminate their employment with Bishop State, a community college subject to the…”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Sharp, 137 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “We cannot conclude that the former FDA required, as part of the Board’s notice to each employee terminated under a RIF policy, that the Board set forth the specific facts underlying its financial condition and the expected benefit of the implementation of the RIF policy,…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 588 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “” Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-103(a). In appeal number 2070379, the notice of proposed termination provided to Angelo Archible contained the following “short and plain statement of the facts” purporting to show that “the termination is taken for one or more of the reasons listed in…”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Frasier, 122 So. 3d 193 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “Any notice intended to comply with former § 36-26-103 must satisfy due process by being reasonably calculated to alert the affected employee of the grounds for termination upon which an employing board is relying so that the employee has a reasonable opportunity to defend…”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-103(b) — 7 cases
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 61 So. 3d 292 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “See Ala.Code 1975, §§ 36-26-103(b) and -104(a).”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “In these consolidated appeals, we consider the notice provision of Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-103, as amended by Ala.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “If an employee properly contests the termination of his or her employment, see § 36-26-103(b), Ala.Code 1975 (setting out the procedure for contesting a termination under the FDA), the employee is entitled to a de novo hearing.”
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “Code 1975, justifiably terminated the employment of a non-probationary employee such as Christopher: “If an employee properly contests the termination of his or her employment, see § 36-26-103(b), Ala.Code 1975 (setting out the procedure for contesting a termination under the…”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 46 So. 3d 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Pursuant to § 36-26-103, Ala.Code 1975, the superintendent sent written notice by letter to Long informing him of the proposed dismissal.”
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.