In January of 2016, the superintendent of the Monroe County Board of Education (“the Board”) notified Carolyn J. Dailey, a non-probationary classified employee, of the Board’s intention to terminate Dailey’s employment with the Board. Dailey timely contested the proposed termination and requested a hearing pursuant to § 16-24C-6(b) of the Alabama Code. At the hearing, the Board informed Dailey that it had voted to terminate her. Dailey appealed the Board’s decision and requested an administrative hearing. Dailey asserted that she did not receive a written decision from the Board terminating her employment. The Board moved to supplement the administrative record to include a copy of the written termination. Dailey opposed the Board’s motion to supplement, and both parties submitted briefs on their positions on that issue. However, the hearing officer never ruled on the motion to supplement.   

Following the hearing, the hearing officer issued a decision affirming the Board’s termination. In a motion to clarify that decision, Dailey requested that the hearing officer clarify his decision to specify whether he found that she had received the Board’s written decision and, if he found that she had not received the Board’s written decision, to determine the effect of the Board’s failure to notify her in writing of its decision. The hearing officer denied the motion to clarify. Dailey timely appealed the hearing officer’s ruling to the Court of Civil Appeals. On appeal, Dailey argued that the law requires that the Board issue a written decision and that its failure to do so deprived her of her due-process rights under the United States Constitution. In support of her position, Dailey cited § 16-24C-6(d) of the Alabama Code, which states in pertinent part: “… the chief executive officer shall give written notice to the employee of the decision regarding the proposed termination within 10 calendar days after the vote of the Board…” 

The parties agreed that the record before the hearing officer contained no written notice of the Board’s decision. The parties disagreed, however, as to whether such notice was required. The Court stated: “The requirement that the Board provide written notice of its termination decision to an employee is a provision which relates to the essence of the thing to be done; that is, to matters of substance, and, therefore, is mandatory.” The record did not demonstrate that the Board complied with the mandatory requirement that it provide Dailey with written notice of its decision. That conclusion, however, did not end the court’s analysis. Rather, the court then considered whether the hearing officer obtained jurisdiction to conduct an administrative review of the Board’s decision in the absence of the written notice. There was no indication in the record that the Board complied with the requirement of § 16-24C-6(d) to issue a written notice of its termination decision to Dailey. Accordingly, the record contained no decision from which Dailey could appeal that would have invested the hearing officer with subject matter jurisdiction. The hearing officer was therefore instructed to enter an order dismissing the action. 

After the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals released its opinion on the original submission, the Board filed, together with an application for rehearing, a motion to supplement the record on appeal to include its written decision. The Board correctly pointed out that the written decision was referenced as having been attached as an exhibit to that part of its post-hearing brief in which it sought to supplement the administrative record. On application for re-hearing, it contended that the exhibit should have been included in the original record as an exhibit to that filing. However, neither in its motion to supplement nor in its application for rehearing did the Board explain why it did not seek to supplement the record on original submission to include that decision. Additionally, the Court found that the Board raised all of its other arguments for the first time on appeal, and as those arguments could not be considered, the Board’s appeal was dismissed.