Ex parte Jeff Goodwin, in his official capacity as president of Northwest Shoals Community College PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Anthony Shackelford and Kimberly Y. Miller v. Jeff Goodwin, in his official capacity as president of Northwest Shoals Community College) (Franklin Circuit Court: CV-19-900164).

Rel: September 12, 2025

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern
Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts,
300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other
errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.

SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2025

_________________________

SC-2025-0116
_________________________

Ex parte Jeff Goodwin, in his official capacity as president of
Northwest Shoals Community College

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(In re: Anthony Shackelford and Kimberly Y. Miller

v.

Jeff Goodwin, in his official capacity as president of Northwest
Shoals Community College)

(Franklin Circuit Court: CV-19-900164)
SC-2025-0116

LEWIS, Justice.

Jeff Goodwin, in his official capacity as president of Northwest

Shoals Community College ("NSCC"), petitions this Court to issue a writ

of mandamus to the Franklin Circuit Court ("the trial court") directing it

to grant his motion for a summary judgment on the claims filed by

Anthony Shackelford and Kimberly Y. Miller, former professors at NSCC

("the former professors"). We grant the petition in part, deny it in part,

and issue the writ.

Procedural History

On September 20, 2019, the former professors filed a complaint

against NSCC and Glenda Colagross, in her official capacity as president

of NSCC. The complaint included the following factual allegations:

"… Shackelford was employed by [NSCC] as an
Instructor/Wellness Center Director/Intramural Sports
Program Director. He worked for [NSCC] for more than 34
years and attained non-probationary status under the terms
of the Alabama Student[s] First Act.

"… Miller was employed by [NSCC] as a Fitness Center
Wellness Program Manager. She worked for [NSCC] for more
than 24 years and attained non-probationary status under the
terms of the Alabama Student[s] First Act.

"… On August 9, 2017, the Alabama Community College
System Board met and adopted a Reduction in Force [('RIF')]
Policy … for [NSCC]. Furthermore, no other Community
2
SC-2025-0116

College adopted a [RIF] policy at the meeting on August 9,
2017. …

"… The RIF policy adopted on August 9, 2017[,] was
pursuant to the Alabama Students First Act[,] which defines
a [RIF] as 'layoffs or other personal actions that are
unavoidable reductions in the workforce beyond normal
attrition due to decreased student enrollment or shortage of
revenues as specified in section 16-1-33,[ Ala. Code 1975, and]
are not subject to review under this chapter.' The RIF policy
adopted by [NSCC] is much more stringent than the Alabama
Student[s] First Act or Alabama Code Section 16-1-33.

"… On August 22, 2017, then President of [NSCC],
Humphrey Lee, made written request to the Chancellor of the
Alabama Community College System, Jimmy Baker, to
implement a [RIF]. … [The former professors] were two of the
employees included in the RIF. The reasons listed in the
August 22, 2017[,] RIF request were persistent decline in
enrollment which has led to a loss in revenue, continued
increase in expenditures, no additional funding for increased
expenditures and that no program offered at [NSCC] requires
coursework in Health or Physical Education. …

"… At the President's Cabinet Meeting on September
11, 2017[,] Janet Jones, then comptroller for [NSCC,]
disclosed that … $385,000.00 … had been returned to the
Department of Education and that the budget for fiscal year
2017-2018 was in the system and that it had been reduced by
twenty percent. … Furthermore, … Miller has still not been
paid for all twelve … months of her employment contract.

"… Also on September 11, 2017, … Miller received notice
that her letter of appointment was ready for her signature. …
Miller's letter of appointment was an offer for twelve months
of employment …. Miller signed and returned her letter of
appointment to the Human Resources Office on September
14, 201[7]. … Shackelford received a letter of appointment on
3
SC-2025-0116

September 21, 2017[,] one day after receiving notice of the
RIF.

"… On September 20, 2017[,] [the former professors]
received notice that [their] employment would be terminated
on the basis of a [RIF] resulting from decreased student
enrollment and lack of funding. The RIF notice failed to
disclose to the [former professors that] a critical consideration
in the decision to seek a RIF was that no program offered at
the College requires coursework in Health or Physical
Education. [The former professors] were terminated effective
December 18, 2017. …

"… [The former professors] did not receive notice that
[NSCC] had even amended [its RIF] policy until September
21, 2017. Furthermore, then college president, Humphrey
Lee, sent an email to all faculty and staff notifying them of
the amended [RIF policy] that was adopted on August 9, 2017.
The email also stated that if any employee would like to see a
copy of the amended policy [they] could go to the Human
Resources Office and get a copy.

"… The September 21st email confirmed that the RIF
was not included in operating budget for the 2017-2018 fiscal
budget but due to shortfalls in the 2017 fall enrollment. …

"… On November 12, 2017, [the former professors]
became aware that [NSCC] was under investigation for fraud
involving student financial aid and pell grants. The fraud
committed by certain employees of [NSCC] ended up costing
[NSCC] well over one million … dollars. Simply stated, the
[former professors] finally learned that they were losing their
jobs so that [NSCC] could pay for the wrongs committed by
other employees. …

"… In August of 2018, … Miller received notice that
[NSCC] was not going to comply with [its] own RIF policy in
regards to tuition waiver of one year after the RIF."
4
SC-2025-0116

The former professors further alleged that the NSCC and its former

president "used inaccurate student numbers and false reasons in their

request for … said RIF" and that "[t]he critical reasoning for the RIF [--]

that no program offered at [NSCC] required coursework in Health and

Physical Education [--] is a lie."

The former professors requested that the trial court enter a

judgment (1) declaring that NSCC and its former president had failed to

comply with the Students First Act, § 16-24C-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975,

in implementing a reduction-in-force ("RIF") policy; (2) reinstating them

to their former positions; and (3) awarding them backpay, benefits, and

attorney fees. On October 17, 2020, NSCC was dismissed as a defendant.

On May 17, 2020, Colagross filed a motion for a summary judgment,

along with evidentiary materials in support thereof. Colagross argued,

among other things, that the former professors' claims were barred by

the doctrine of State, or sovereign, immunity under § 14 of the Alabama

Constitution. The former professors filed a response to the summary-

judgment motion, along with evidentiary materials in support thereof. 1

1We note that the former professors did not explicitly address the

argument that their claims were barred by State immunity. However,
5
SC-2025-0116

Colagross filed motions to strike multiple affidavits submitted by the

former professors; however, there is no indication in the materials

submitted to this Court that those motions were ruled upon.

On January 15, 2025, the trial court entered an order denying

Colagross's summary-judgment motion, stating that there was a genuine

issue of material fact as to whether Colagross's predecessor "improperly

implemented a local [RIF] policy and then wrongfully used said policy as

set forth in the 2011 Student[s] First Act to terminate the [employment

of the former professors]." On February 19, 2025, Goodwin, the current

president of NSCC, 2 filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the trial

court.

Discussion

their complaint was sufficient to put Colagross on notice that they were
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. See Ex parte Moulton, 116 So.
3d 1119, 1133 (Ala. 2013). Therefore, we conclude that the former
professors did not waive the argument that their claims for declaratory
and injunctive relief were not barred by State immunity. See id.

2"Rule 25, Ala. R. Civ. P., provides that when a public officer is a

party to an action in his official capacity, and that officer ceases to hold
office, the officer's successor is automatically substituted." Ex parte State
Dep't of Hum. Res., 950 So. 2d 1165, 1170 n.6 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004).

6
SC-2025-0116

In his petition, Goodwin first argues that the trial court erred in

denying the summary-judgment motion because, he says, he is entitled

to State immunity.

"For a writ of mandamus to issue, [the petitioner] must
show ' " ' "(1) a clear legal right to the order sought; (2) an
imperative duty upon the respondent to perform,
accompanied by a refusal to do so; (3) the lack of another
adequate remedy; and (4) the properly invoked jurisdiction of
the court." ' " ' Ex parte Utilities Bd. of Foley, 265 So. 3d 1273,
1279 (Ala. 2018) (citations omitted).

" ' " 'While the general rule is that the denial of a motion
for summary judgment is not reviewable, the exception is that
the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on a
claim of immunity is reviewable by petition for writ of
mandamus.' " ' Ex parte City of Montgomery, 272 So. 3d 155,
159 (Ala. 2018) (citations and emphasis omitted). Whether
review of the denial of a summary-judgment motion is by
mandamus or appeal, our ' "standard of review remains the
same," ' meaning that we review legal questions de novo and
resolve all factual disputes in favor of the nonmoving party ….
Id. (citation omitted). Ultimately, if ' " there is a genuine issue
as to any material fact on the question whether the movant is
entitled to immunity, then the moving party is not entitled to
a summary judgment." ' Id. (citation omitted)."

Ex parte Pinkard, 373 So. 3d 192, 198 (Ala. 2022).

This Court has explained the doctrine of State immunity as it

relates to state officials and the exceptions thereto as follows:

"It is well settled law that the State is generally immune
from liability under § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901. It is

7
SC-2025-0116

also well settled that the State cannot be sued indirectly by
suing an officer in his or her official capacity.

" 'Sovereign immunity is a jurisdictional bar
that deprives a court of subject-matter
jurisdiction. Ex parte Dep't of Mental Health &
Mental Retardation, 837 So. 2d 808, 810-11 (Ala.
2002). The principle of sovereign immunity, set
forth in Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of
1901, is a wall that is "nearly impregnable."
Patterson v. Gladwin Corp., 835 So. 2d 137, 142
(Ala. 2002). The implications of sovereign
immunity are " 'not only that the state itself may
not be sued, but that this cannot be indirectly
accomplished by suing its officers or agents in
their official capacity, when a result favorable to
plaintiff would be directly to affect the financial
status of the state treasury.' " Patterson, 835 So.
2d at 142 (quoting State Docks Comm'n v. Barnes,
225 Ala. 403, 405, 143 So. 581, 582 (1932)).'

"Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Mental Health & Mental
Retardation, 937 So. 2d 1018, 1022-23 (Ala. 2006).

"….

"Section 14 immunity, however, is not always absolute;
there are actions against State officials that are not barred by
the general rule of sovereign immunity.

" '[C]ertain actions are not barred by § 14. There
are six general categories of actions that do not
come within the prohibition of § 14: (1) actions
brought to compel State officials to perform their
legal duties; (2) actions brought to enjoin State
officials from enforcing an unconstitutional law;
(3) actions to compel State officials to perform
ministerial acts; (4) actions brought against State
8
SC-2025-0116

officials under the Declaratory Judgments Act,
Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-220 et seq., seeking
construction of a statute and its application in a
given situation; (5) valid inverse condemnation
actions brought against State officials in their
representative capacity; and (6) actions for
injunction or damages brought against State
officials in their representative capacity and
individually where it was alleged that they had
acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their
authority, or in a mistaken interpretation of law.
See Drummond Co. v. Alabama Dep't of Transp.,
937 So. 2d 56, 58 (Ala. 2006)(quoting Ex parte
Carter, 395 So. 2d 65, 68 (Ala. 1980)); Alabama
Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So. 2d
831 (Ala. 2008) (holding that the exception for
declaratory-judgment actions applies only to
actions against State officials). As we confirmed in
Harbert, these "exceptions" to sovereign immunity
apply only to actions brought against State
officials; they do not apply to actions against the
State or against State agencies. See Alabama
Dep't of Transp., 990 So. 2d at 840-41.'

"Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Fin., 991 So. 2d 1254, 1256-57
(Ala. 2008). In Ex parte Moulton, 116 So. 3d 1119 (Ala. 2013),
this Court clarified and restated the sixth exception to § 14
immunity set forth in Drummond Co. v. Alabama Department
of Transportation, 937 So. 2d 56, 58 (Ala. 2006), by holding
that the exception applies only to the following:

" '(6)(a) actions for injunction brought against
State officials in their representative capacity
where it is alleged that they had acted
fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority,
or in a mistaken interpretation of law, Wallace v.
Board of Education of Montgomery County, 280
Ala. 635, 197 So. 2d 428 (1967), and (b) actions for
9
SC-2025-0116

damages brought against State officials in their
individual capacity where it is alleged that they
had acted fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their
authority, or in a mistaken interpretation of law,
subject to the limitation that the action not be, in
effect, one against the State. Phillips v. Thomas,
555 So. 2d 81, 83 (Ala. 1989).'

"116 So. 3d at 1141."

Ex parte Wilcox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 279 So. 3d 1135, 1140-42 (Ala. 2018).

In this case, the former professors sought the following remedies:

(1) a declaration that NSCC and its former president had failed to comply

with the Students First Act in implementing an RIF policy; (2)

reinstatement to their former positions; and (3) an award of backpay,

benefits, and attorney fees.

To the extent that the former professors seek monetary damages --

an award of backpay, benefits, and attorney fees -- their claims are

clearly barred by State immunity because those damages would affect

the state treasury. See, e.g., Wilcox, 279 So. 3d at 1142. The former

professors concede this issue in their answer to the petition and consent

to the issuance of a writ of mandamus on this point. We conclude that

the trial court erred in denying the summary-judgment motion with

respect to the claims for backpay, benefits, and attorney fees. Therefore,

10
SC-2025-0116

Goodwin has established a clear legal right to the entry of a summary

judgment on those claims.

To the extent that the former professors "seek[] a judgment

declaring [their] rights under [the Students First Act] and injunctive

relief in the form of reinstatement[,] [their claims] satisfy, at least, the

fourth and sixth exceptions recognized in Ex parte Wilcox County Board

of Education." Ex parte Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs., 401 So. 3d 276,

284 (Ala. 2024). Specifically, the claim for declaratory relief falls within

the fourth exception for "actions brought against State officials under the

Declaratory Judgments Act, Ala. Code 1975, § 6-6-220 et seq., seeking

construction of a statute and its application in a given situation." Ex

parte Alabama Dep't of Fin., 991 So. 2d 1254, 1257 (Ala. 2008). As

explained further below, the claim for injunctive relief (i.e.,

reinstatement to their former positions) falls within the sixth exception

for "actions for injunction brought against State officials in their

representative capacity where it is alleged that they had acted

fraudulently, in bad faith, beyond their authority, or in a mistaken

interpretation of law." Ex parte Moulton, 116 So. 3d 1119, 1141 (Ala.

2006).

11
SC-2025-0116

As noted previously, after considering the parties' arguments and

evidentiary materials, the trial court concluded that that there was a

genuine issue of material fact as to whether NSCC's former president

"improperly implemented a local [RIF] policy and then wrongfully used

said policy as set forth in the 2011 Student[s] First Act to terminate the

[employment of the former professors]." Indeed, the former professors

alleged that NSCC's former president "used inaccurate student numbers

and false reasons in [the] request for … said RIF" and that "[t]he critical

reasoning for the RIF [--] that no program offered at [NSCC] required

coursework in Health and Physical Education [--] is a lie." The former

professors submitted multiple affidavits in support of their allegation

that the bases for the RIF were fraudulent. Therefore, "although our

decision should not be construed as commenting on the merits of [the

former professors'] claims against [Goodwin]," we conclude that the

former professors' claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief are not

barred by principles of State immunity. Alabama Dep't of Youth Servs.,

401 So. 3d at 284-85.

Goodwin asserts that, "by seeking reinstatement, [the former

professors] are seeking to have the RIF overturned, the Health and

12
SC-2025-0116

Physical Education Departments resurrected and themselves reinstated

in now nonexistent departments." Petition at 24. He further argues that

"[s]uch requested relief directly affects N[]SCC's contract and property

rights, which is also barred by immunity." Id. at 25. However, if, as the

former professors' evidence indicates, the RIF was fraudulent, such a

challenge is not barred by State immunity. See, e.g., Ex parte Cooper,

390 So. 3d 1030, 1038 (Ala. 2023) ("[Section] 14 [of the Alabama

Constitution] does not operate to bar a properly brought action when it

is shown that the State contract being challenged is illegal or

unconstitutional.").

Goodwin also argues that the former professors were employees at-

will whose employment was terminated pursuant to the RIF and,

therefore, that they have no right to review of the terminations of their

employment. He further argues that the former professors' request for

reinstatement is now moot because NSCC's Health and Physical

Education Department has been closed. However, the former professors'

complaint challenges the RIF that led to that department's closure.

Therefore, the mootness issue must be considered in relation to the

merits of the former professors' claims. However, this Court "will not

13
SC-2025-0116

consider secondary arguments that a summary judgment was

appropriate on … grounds [other than immunity] or review the trial

court's conclusions on other issues." Ex parte Smith, 327 So. 3d 184, 187

(Ala. 2020).

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court properly

denied the summary-judgment motion with respect to the former

professors' claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. See id.

Accordingly, Goodwin has not established a clear legal right to the entry

of a summary judgment with respect to those claims. See id.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, we grant Goodwin's petition in part and

direct the trial court to enter a summary judgment in his favor to the

extent that the former professors seek an award of backpay, benefits, and

attorney fees. The petition is denied in all other respects.

PETITION GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; WRIT

ISSUED.

Stewart, C.J., and Wise, Sellers, Mendheim, and McCool, JJ.,
concur.

Shaw, J., concurs in the result, with opinion, which Cook, J., joins.

Bryan, J., concurs in the result.
14
SC-2025-0116

SHAW, Justice (concurring in the result).

I respectfully concur in the result.

The main opinion, as I read it, does not hold that Ala. Const. 2022,

Art. I, § 14, would not bar a claim to require that a now-closed

department of Northwest Shoals Community College be reconstituted,

even if it had been improperly shuttered. Such injunctive relief against

a state official would, in effect, amount to action against the State.

" 'Section 14 prohibits actions against state officers in their
official capacities when those actions are, in effect, actions
against the State.' Haley v. Barbour County, 885 So. 2d 783,
788 (Ala. 2004). To determine whether an action against a
State officer is, in fact, one against the State, this Court
considers

" 'whether "a result favorable to the plaintiff would
directly affect a contract or property right of the
State," Mitchell [v. Davis, 598 So. 2d 801, 806 (Ala.
1992)], whether the defendant is simply a
"conduit" through which the plaintiff seeks
recovery of damages from the State, Barnes v.
Dale, 530 So. 2d 770, 784 (Ala. 1988), and whether
"a judgment against the officer would directly
affect the financial status of the State treasury,"
Lyons [v. River Road Constr., Inc.], 858 So. 2d
[257] at 261 [(Ala. 2003)].'

"Haley, 885 So. 2d at 788."

15
SC-2025-0116

Alabama Dep't of Transp. v. Harbert Int'l, Inc., 990 So. 2d 831, 839 (Ala.

2008) (emphasis added).

In Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth Services, 401 So. 3d 276

(Ala. 2024), a former employee of a state agency who alleged that his

employment had been improperly terminated commenced an action

against a state official seeking injunctive relief requiring that he be

reinstated to his former employment. Prior caselaw had allowed such

claims to proceed under certain "exceptions" to § 14. 401 So. 3d at 284-

85. Whether it was feasible to reinstate that employee without otherwise

directly affecting the financial status of the state treasury was not an

issue addressed in that case.

Under the authority of Ex parte Alabama Department of Youth

Services, certain claims of the plaintiffs in this case are not barred on

their face by § 14. The plaintiffs contend that they seek reinstatement

"to their 'prior employment positions' -- that is, instructor positions -- and

not necessarily to the precise jobs or assignments they previously held."

Answer at 21. If their underlying claims have merit, whether the relief

they seek -- reinstatement as employees of Northwest Shoals Community

16
SC-2025-0116

College -- can nevertheless not be afforded without violating § 14 is an

issue I cannot yet determine.

Cook, J., concurs.

17