Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-26-104 (2026)
Termination of Employment - Hearing Officer; Hearing; Appeal.
✓ 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Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.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, §5; Act 2004-567, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012).
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “The notice provided by the superintendent to Christopher stated, among other things, that the Board planned to conduct a hearing on the proposed termination on June 16, 2010, and that, if the Board affirmed the superintendent’s termination recommendation, Christopher could elect…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Thomas, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-104(a), a part of the Fair Dismissal Act (“the FDA”), Ala.”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 46 So. 3d 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Long contested his dismissal, pursuant to § 36-26-103(b), and a hearing officer was selected to conduct a de novo hearing, pursuant to § 36-26-104(a), Ala.Code 1975. At the hearing, the parties presented oral testimony and documentary evidence.”
Clayton v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 552 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). “Section 36-26-104 of the 1975 Code of Alabama, as amended, reads as follows: "`§ 36-26-104. Notice of termination; suspension with pay; notice of intention to contest.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Williams with a hearing pursuant to § 36-26-104, Ala.Code 1975. On January 12, 2007, President Kennedy requested a declaratory ruling from the Board of Nursing as to the effect of the probationary status of Dr.”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 61 So. 3d 292 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The plain language of § 36-26-104(b) indicates that this court has the discretion to remand a case to a hearing officer to conduct another evidentiary hearing if this court finds that hearing officer’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Stranahan, 130 So. 3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “Where a termination of employment is made because of a justifiable decrease in the jobs in the system, see former § 36-26-102, the selection of any other form of discipline or sanction under former § 36-26-104(a)[, Ala.Code 1975,] would not achieve the long-term cost-savings…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See § 36-26-104(b), Ala.Code 1975. Rule 81(b), Ala.”
Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “"§ 36-26-104. Notice of termination; suspension with pay; notice of intention to contest.”
Bolton v. Mobile Cty. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 514 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1987). “"§ 36-26-104. Notice of termination; suspension with pay; notice of intention to contest.”
Lambert v. Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 199 So. 3d 761 (Ala. 2016). “”); and former § 36-26-104(b), Ala.Code 1975 (repealed) (same).”
Combs v. Wade, 957 So. 2d 464 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “" § 36-26-104(b). Because the decision of the FDA panel was rendered in this case on June 25, 2002, before the effective date of the amendment, we apply the standard of review previously applicable.”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-104(a) — 7 cases
Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Christopher, 97 So. 3d 163 (Ala. Crim. App. 2012). “The notice provided by the superintendent to Christopher stated, among other things, that the Board planned to conduct a hearing on the proposed termination on June 16, 2010, and that, if the Board affirmed the superintendent’s termination recommendation, Christopher could elect…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Thomas, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-104(a), a part of the Fair Dismissal Act (“the FDA”), Ala.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Williams with a hearing pursuant to § 36-26-104, Ala.Code 1975. On January 12, 2007, President Kennedy requested a declaratory ruling from the Board of Nursing as to the effect of the probationary status of Dr.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Stranahan, 130 So. 3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “Where a termination of employment is made because of a justifiable decrease in the jobs in the system, see former § 36-26-102, the selection of any other form of discipline or sanction under former § 36-26-104(a)[, Ala.Code 1975,] would not achieve the long-term cost-savings…”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 46 So. 3d 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Long contested his dismissal, pursuant to § 36-26-103(b), and a hearing officer was selected to conduct a de novo hearing, pursuant to § 36-26-104(a), Ala.Code 1975. At the hearing, the parties presented oral testimony and documentary evidence.”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-104(b) — 17 cases
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 46 So. 3d 6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “Long contested his dismissal, pursuant to § 36-26-103(b), and a hearing officer was selected to conduct a de novo hearing, pursuant to § 36-26-104(a), Ala.Code 1975. At the hearing, the parties presented oral testimony and documentary evidence.”
Mobile Cnty. Bd. of Sch. Commissioners v. Long, 61 So. 3d 292 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “The plain language of § 36-26-104(b) indicates that this court has the discretion to remand a case to a hearing officer to conduct another evidentiary hearing if this court finds that hearing officer’s decision to be arbitrary and capricious.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Thomas, 13 So. 3d 978 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Thomas, pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-104(a), a part of the Fair Dismissal Act (“the FDA”), Ala.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Archible, 33 So. 3d 577 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “See § 36-26-104(b), Ala.Code 1975. Rule 81(b), Ala.”
Lambert v. Escambia Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 199 So. 3d 761 (Ala. 2016). “”); and former § 36-26-104(b), Ala.Code 1975 (repealed) (same).”
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.