Alabama’s Supreme Court has reversed a circuit court, which had ruled that Alabama State University (ASU) wrongfully terminated athletic director Stacy Danley.
In a majority decision, the justices found that the legal principles of sovereign and state-agent immunities should have been applied in the case when it was before the lower court.
Danley, a former football star at Auburn University and AD at Division II Tuskegee Institute, was named AD at ASU in 2010. Three years later, he was fired after it was determined by a retired judge retained by the university that he:
failed to ensure eligibility forms were completed on time and submitted to the appropriate agency;
failed to ensure accountability in the athletics department’s staff, namely supervising and performing staff evaluations;
acted in an “unprofessional, disrespectful and hostile” manner toward (a supervisor) at a meeting in early June; and
displayed an “unwillingness to compromise and collaborate with colleagues.”
Danley sued, claiming he was denied due process because there was no evidence to support the claims and because the retired judge had ties to the university. A circuit court agreed and awarded Danley $140,000.
ASU appealed, focusing primarily on the monetary award. At the time, the school noted that from the beginning “ASU has affirmatively asserted its sovereign immunity guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alabama and the U.S. Constitution as an institution of higher education in Alabama as defenses in this lawsuit.”
“In fact, this same (circuit court) in a ruling entered earlier in the litigation concluded that ‘the court is convinced that sovereign immunity prohibits an award of back pay or money damages against the State or any official thereof.’ ASU, like other public universities and colleges in Alabama are agencies of the State of Alabama, and as such, is absolutely immune from liability for monetary damages pursuant to Article I, Section 14, of the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
The high court agreed, finding that the lower court erred in awarding Danley damages because ASU enjoys sovereign immunity as a state entity. It also found that the individual defendants were entitled to “state-agent protection” when performing duties that are typically in line with their job functions.
In a dissent, Chief Justice Roy Moore countered that immunity does not apply to court actions “brought to force state agencies to uphold their legal duties.” Elaborating, he said ASU had a legal duty once it signed Danley to a contract, and it failed to honor the terms of the contract.
“If we hold that breach of contract claims against the state generally are barred, then what reason would people have to contract with the state?” Moore wrote.
Alabama State University et al. v. Stacy Danley
