Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-26-106 (2026)
Transfer of Employee - Notice of Action.
✓ 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Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.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, §7; Act 2004-567, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases, 1987–2008 · leading case: Colbert Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 652 So. 2d 274 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994).
Colbert Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Johnson, 652 So. 2d 274 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994). “On September 23, 1993, the panel conducted a de novo hearing pursuant to § 36-26-106, Ala. Code 1975. Thereafter, the panel held, by a two-to-one majority, that the termination of Johnson's employment was not warranted and that the Board should reinstate him immediately.”
Bolton v. Mobile Cty. Bd. of Sch. Com'rs, 514 So. 2d 820 (Ala. 1987). “"§ 36-26-106. Hearing process. "Upon the employee review panel's selection to hear a case, the panel shall within 10 days establish a date, place, and time for the hearing to be conducted.”
Washington v. Bessemer Bd. of Educ., 547 So. 2d 888 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “"§ 36-26-106. Hearing process. "Upon the employee review panel's selection to hear a case, the panel shall within 10 days establish a date, place, and time for the hearing to be conducted.”
Tatum v. Freeman, 893 So. 2d 1213 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “See § 36-26-106, *1216 Ala.Code 1975. On the scheduled day of the hearing, only two of the three employee-review-panel members appeared for the hearing.”
Birmingham Bd. of Educ. v. Holifield, 604 So. 2d 422 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991). “Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-106, a part of the Fair Dismissal Act, provides for a hearing process which includes a de novo hearing before an employee review panel.”
Hutchinson v. Alabama Inst. for Deaf & Blind, 578 So. 2d 1305 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). “Ala. Code 1975, § 36-26-106. The process of selecting a panel for reviewing the employee’s termination must be initiated by the employer.”
Combs v. Wade, 957 So. 2d 464 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005). “the President's decision to terminate [Combs] for the reason given of proration, and there are no facts before this Court to show that the panel's decision was not based on substantial evidence before it, nor to show the panel acted in an arbitrary manner, nor to show the panel…”
Athens State Coll. v. Ruth, 795 So. 2d 703 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). “" § 36-26-106. At the hearing before the Panel, Athens State argued that it believed that the in-kind services it supplied to the RSVP program violated the 1990 attorney general's opinion and that it was required to terminate the program and Ruth's employment.”
Jones v. Kennedy, 890 So. 2d 975 (Ala. 2004). “Specifically, *Page 980 "the facts of each case will have to be considered in determining whether the parties would be bound by the 60-day requirement of § 36-26-106." Ex parte Holifield , 604 So.”
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “At the time, § 36-26-106 provided: “The decision of the panel shall be final and binding upon the parties.”
Hawkins v. McCain, 549 So. 2d 1345 (Ala. Civ. App. 1989). “However, no hearing on that appeal was held within the 60-day time period as required by § 36-26-106. McCain then filed a petition in circuit court requesting that the Board be ordered to immediately restore her to her previous position.”
Birmingham Bd. of Educ. v. Holifield, 604 So. 2d 418 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). “However, we find its first argument to be dispositive. The board contends that the review panel lost jurisdiction to hear the ease because of its failure to convene within the sixty-day time period required by the act, specifically § 36-26-106.”
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.