Fulton v. Department of Public Health

Supreme Court of Alabama

Fulton v. Department of Public Health

494 So. 2d 75, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3755

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJuly 25, 1986

Docket85-1045

StatusPublished

This text of 494 So. 2d 75 (Fulton v. Department of Public Health) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fulton v. Department of Public Health, 494 So. 2d 75, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3755 (Ala. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

HOUSTON, Justice.

We disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Civil Appeals, 494 So.2d 73, that “There is no requirement in Alabama of a nexus between the employee’s off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of service.” The court, citing Maddox v. Clark, 422 So.2d 791 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), correctly notes that the cause for which an employee is discharged must “interfere with the effective discharge of the employee’s duties and/or the effective discharge of the duties of the department for which he works, so as to make his continued employment harmful to the public interest.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, there is such a requirement in this state.

However, in our view, there is sufficient evidence that the petitioner’s off-duty misconduct has interfered with “the effective discharge of the duties of the department for which he works, so as to make his continued employment harmful to the public interest.” Accordingly, the writ is denied. ■

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, AL-MON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOUSTON, Justice.

We disagree with the conclusion reached by the Court of Civil Appeals, 494 So.2d 73, that “There is no requirement in Alabama of a nexus between the employee’s off-duty misconduct and the efficiency of service.” The court, citing Maddox v. Clark, 422 So.2d 791 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), correctly notes that the cause for which an employee is discharged must “interfere with the effective discharge of the employee’s duties and/or the effective discharge of the duties of the department for which he works, so as to make his continued employment harmful to the public interest.” (Emphasis added.) Therefore, there is such a requirement in this state.

However, in our view, there is sufficient evidence that the petitioner’s off-duty misconduct has interfered with “the effective discharge of the duties of the department for which he works, so as to make his continued employment harmful to the public interest.” Accordingly, the writ is denied. ■

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, AL-MON and BEATTY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

494 So. 2d 75, 1986 Ala. LEXIS 3755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fulton-v-department-of-public-health-ala-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack