employee hearing in Alabama

2017In Walker v. Williams & Bouler Construction Co. , 46 Ala.App. 337 , 341, 241 So.2d 896 , 900 (Civ. 1970), this court addressed the issue whether, "after having had the benefit of the full thousand dollar exemption from withheld wages, the employee can claim the same over and over again"; this court explained: " 'When the exemption has once been claimed, the property selected by the debtor, and allotted to him, so long as he retains it, and it is undiminished in value, he is without right to a further exemption; otherwise double exemptions could be claimed and the whole of his property exhauste

2017In Walker v. Williams & Bouler Construction Co. , 46 Ala.App. 337 , 341, 241 So.2d 896 , 900 (Civ. 1970), this court addressed the issue whether, "after having had the benefit of the full thousand dollar exemption from withheld wages, the employee can claim the same over and over again"; this court explained: " 'When the exemption has once been claimed, the property selected by the debtor, and allotted to him, so long as he retains it, and it is undiminished in value, he is without right to a further exemption; otherwise double exemptions could be claimed and the whole of his property exhauste

2016(No. 02-7082, September 17, 2003) (D.C.Cir.2008) (not published in F. Supp.) (“[T]he Due Process Clause does not require individualized pre-termination hearings when discharges are occasioned by genuine redue-tions-in-force ....”); Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139, 147 (1st Cir.1989) (“Where a reorganization or other cost-cutting measure results in dismissal of an employee no hearing is due.”); Misek v. City of Chicago, 783 F.2d 98, 101 (7th Cir.1986) (“Of course, if defendants on remand could show that plaintiffs were discharged pursuant to a reorganization in fact, plaintiffs would not be enti

2016Viewing the record in the light most favorable to the employee, as we must, see Pulley, supra, we conclude that a jury could determine that the employer’s failure to send the employee to a hearing specialist earlier in his employment with the employer, its failure to -fit the employee with hearing protection and/or to test the effectiveness of the hearing protection it provided to the employee, or its failure to retrain the employee' in the use of the hearing protection it provided amounted to a breach of its duty to provide a safe workplace to the employee.

2009Walker, 853 So.2d at 228 .

2008Wilson v. Vulcan Rivet & Bolt Corp., 439 So.2d 65 (Ala.1983) (recognizing that promise to forbear from suit against an employer at its request can be substantial consideration supporting a permanent employment contract but holding that the evidence did not indicate that the employee had a claim against the employer' or that the employer had requested that the employee forbear from suit).

2008Wilson v. Vulcan Rivet & Bolt Corp., 439 So.2d 65 (Ala.1983) (recognizing that promise to forbear from suit against an employer at its request can be substantial consideration supporting a permanent employment contract but holding that the evidence did not indicate that the employee had a claim against the employer or that the employer had requested that the employee forbear from suit).

1995While this court in Gore did not address circumstances where the employee may not have immunity, the majority in Gore specifically recognized that the holding of Neighbors may have been extended, without this Court's explicitly saying so, to provide municipalities immunity from actions premised on neglect, carelessness, or unskillfulness, by Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983).

1995The majority in Gore stated: " Bahakel v. City of Birmingham, 427 So.2d 143 (Ala.1983), involved a very similar action for unlawful arrest against a municipality, a municipal magistrate, and the affiant who procured the plaintiff's arrest warrant (the claim against the affiant was not at issue on the appeal).

1980Goodrich Co. v. Parker , 282 Ala. 151 , 209 So.2d 647 (1967). *Page 632 Here, Zeigler paid the employee the standard wage for a job with the same classification as the one he had previously held.

1980Goodrich Co. v. Parker , 282 Ala. 151 , 209 So.2d 647 (1967). *Page 632 Here, Zeigler paid the employee the standard wage for a job with the same classification as the one he had previously held.

1979Riddle v. Smith , 252 Ala. 369 , 41 So.2d 288 (1949).

1979Riddle v. Smith , 252 Ala. 369 , 41 So.2d 288 (1949).

1970We think the answer to this question is found in Weis v. Levy, 69 Ala. 209 , wherein there was a contest of a claim of exemption filed by the judgment debtor with the sheriff of Monroe County to certain personal property levied on under an attachment issued out of the Circuit Court of Mobile County.

1928Plaintiff’s negligence, contributing with defendant’s negligence, in the production of the injury, does not defeat the cause of action, but only lessens the damages.” Davis v. Sorrell, 213 Ala. 191 , 104 So. 397 .

1928Plaintiff’s negligence, contributing with defendant’s negligence, in the production of the injury, does not defeat the cause of action, but only lessens the damages.” Davis v. Sorrell, 213 Ala. 191 , 104 So. 397 .

1925In Gray v. Perry Hardware Co., 111 Ala. 532 , 20 So. 368 , the employee had the privilege of drawing, not exceeding a- month’s salary, in advance.