Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-26-105 (2026)
Transfer of Employee - Authorized.
✓ 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Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.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, §6; Act 2004-567, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1987–2013 · leading case: Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989).
Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “" Ala.Code (1975), § 36-26-105 (emphasis added).”
Bolton v. Mobile Cty. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 514 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1987). “Bolton also requested that the procedures of §§ 36-26-105, -106 be carried out through his legal representatives, whose names were supplied in Bolton's letter.”
Colbert Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 652 So. 2d 274 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “Johnson appealed the Board's decision to a three-member employee review panel selected pursuant to § 36-26-105, Ala.Code 1975, a provision of the Fair Dismissal Act.”
Tatum v. Freeman, 893 So. 2d 1213 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “A panel of three was assembled to hear Tatum's appeal pursuant to § 36-26-105, Ala.Code 1975. The employee-review panel's hearing on Tatum's appeal was set for August 17, 2001, which all parties agree was the last day of the 60-day period that the employee-review panel had to…”
Combs v. Wade, 957 So. 2d 464 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “Combs requested and was provided with an FDA hearing before a three-member employee-review panel as provided for in § 36-26-105, Ala.Code 1975. At the FDA hearing beginning on October 12, 2001, President Wade testified that when proration was first announced, he instructed his…”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “’ Williams later sought review of his termination from employment before a three-person employee-review panel, which was permitted under Ala.Code 1975, §§ 36-26-105 and 36-26-106, as they read in 2002 before the enactment of Act No.”
Glass v. Anniston City Bd. of Educ., 957 So. 2d 1143 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006). “[1] Glass then requested a hearing pursuant § 36-26-105, Ala.Code 1975, of the Fair Dismissal Act ("FDA"), codified at § 36-26-100 et seq.”
Huntsville City Bd. of Educ. v. Stranahan, 130 So. 3d 204 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013). “On May 17, 2011, the Board approved the termination of the employment of Stra-nahan and Holmes, among others, and Stranahan and Holmes each sought review of that decision pursuant to former § 36-26-105, Ala.Code 1975. On September 14, 2011, a hearing officer received ore tenus…”
Hutchinson v. Alabama Inst. for Deaf & Blind, 578 So. 2d 1305 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). “Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-105. Therefore, the Act necessarily contemplates cooperation among the parties in expeditiously selecting the review panel.”
Hardy v. Birmingham Bd. of Educ., 954 F.2d 1546 (11th Cir. 1992). “Ala.Code §§ 36-26-105 and -106 (emphasis added).”
Clayton v. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 552 So. 2d 145 (Ala. Civ. App. 1988). “The school contended that the provision of the Fair Dismissal Act (Act) did not apply to the facts in this case and that the employees were therefore not entitled to a hearing under § 36-26-105 of the Act. The school then contended that the Act, for various reasons, was…”
Ex Parte Athens State Coll., 795 So. 2d 709 (Ala. 2000). “Bartlett, and on February 17, 1997, an employee panel, pursuant to § 36-26-105, reviewed the termination. After a hearing, the panel held that Athens State had the right to discontinue the RSVP, but that Ruth should have been reinstated as a nonteacher employee.”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-105(2) — 1 case
Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “" Ala.Code (1975), § 36-26-105 (emphasis added).”
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.