Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 36-26-115 (2026)
Direct Appeal by Certain Employees Denied Hearing Before Local Board of Education.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Repealed by Act 2011-270, p. 494, §14, effective July 1, 2011.
(Act 2004-567, p. 1340, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 2008–2015 · leading case: South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008).
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “1 See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
Franks v. Jordan, 55 So. 3d 1218 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010). “See § 36-26-115, Ala. Code 1975. The ALJ assigned to hear Jordan’s appeal ordered the parties to file briefs regarding whether Central Alabama had complied with the due-process requirements of the FDA.”
State Bd. of Educ. v. Mullins, 31 So. 3d 91 (Ala. 2009). “See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
Holland v. Pearson, 20 So. 3d 120 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Holland filed a direct appeal to the chief administrative law judge of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Division of Administrative Law Judges, Office of the Attorney General, purportedly pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-115, a part of the Fair Dismissal Act (“the FDA”),…”
So. Ala. Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “[1] See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
Bishop State Cmty. Coll. v. Williams, 4 So. 3d 1152 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “Williams filed a direct appeal to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) in the Attorney General’s Office of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975, alleging that BSCC was attempting to terminate his employment without providing him with due process…”
Colbert Cnty. Nw. Alabama Health Care Auth. v. RegionalCare Hosp. Partners, Inc., 195 So. 3d 948 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “2d at 571 , the doctrine of stare decisis generally will not apply to an *955 ALJ’s decision under § 36-26-115[, Ala. Code 1975].” South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v.”
Cent. Alabama Cmty. Coll. v. Robinson, 53 So. 3d 917 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “Each of the employees filed an appeal, pursuant to § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975, a part of the Fair Dismissal Act, § 36-26-100 et seq.”
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 28 So. 3d 16 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009). “1 See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
S. Union State v. Salatto, 2091201 (ala.civ.app. 10-7-2011), 96 So. 3d 108 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “The administrative proceedings initiated by Salatto in an effort to cause rescission of her discharge were initiated under Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-115, providing for direct appeals to administrative law judges in the event a hearing due under the FDA has been denied; thus, both…”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-115(1) — 2 cases
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “1 See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
So. Ala. Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “[1] See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-115(2) — 2 cases
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “1 See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
So. Ala. Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “[1] See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
— Ala. Code § 36-26-115(3) — 2 cases
South Alabama Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “1 See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
So. Ala. Skills Training Consortium v. Ford, 997 So. 2d 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008). “[1] See § 36-26-115, Ala.Code 1975. The employees alleged that their respective employers had violated the FDA, specifically §§ 36-26-102 through -104, Ala.”
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.