John William Wilder, Jr. v. The City of Hoover, Frank V. Brocato, Allan Rice, and The Public Park and Recreation Board of the City of Hoover

── John William Wilder, Jr. v. The City of Hoover, Frank V. Brocato, Allan Rice, and The Public Park and Recreation Board of the City of Hoover ── Court: Supreme Court of Alabama Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Parker Category: General Rel: May 15, 2026 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ SC-2025-0842 _________________________ John William Wilder, Jr. v. The City of Hoover, Frank V. Brocato, Allan Rice, and The Public Park and Recreation Board of the City of Hoover Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court (CV-24-900092) PARKER, Justice. SC-2025-0842 This public-employment case turns on a distinction between two positions that have very similar names but entirely different appointing authorities. One of those positions is the City of Hoover's "Park and Recreation Director." The other is the "director of Parks and Recreation" of the City's legally distinct Public Park and Recreation Board. According to his complaint, John William Wilder, Jr., sought appointment to the city position with the backing of a majority of the Board's members. After someone else got that job, Wilder sued not only the City (and two of its officials) but also the Board. His sole legal theory, which the circuit court dismissed on various grounds, was that the city defendants had "usurped the Board's autonomy" by not allowing the Board to hire the City's Park and Recreation Director. In our view, Wilder's fundamental confusion over these distinct positions and appointing authorities reveals that he lacks standing to sue the Board and that he lacks any valid legal claim against the city defendants. We therefore affirm the circuit court's orders dismissing Wilder's lawsuit. 2 SC-2025-0842 I. This case began when Wilder was passed over for appointment as the City's Park and Recreation Director in 2021. According to Wilder's complaint, a majority of the members of the City's separately incorporated Public Park and Recreation Board supported him for the job; those members even communicated their support for Wilder at a specially called board meeting with the mayor. The mayor nevertheless appointed another candidate. In response, Wilder sued. He named as defendants the City, its mayor, its city administrator, and also the Board. He requested a judgment declaring that the city defendants had "usurped the Board's autonomy by not allowing the Board to hire the Plaintiff," as well as "damages" for loss of income and employment benefits. For legal authority, Wilder cited two sources. One was the chapter of the Alabama Code governing municipalities' incorporation of public park and recreation boards. For example, according to our Code, a park and recreation board, once properly incorporated, enjoys (among other powers) the power to hire employees "as its business may require." Ala. Code 1975, § 11-60-8(a)(15); see also Ala. Code 1975, § 11-60-7 3 SC-2025-0842 (establishing an independent governing board of directors for such a board). The other source of authority was the Board's own bylaws. According to the complaint, those bylaws vest the Board with authority to make the "[f]inal selection" of a "director of Parks and Recreation" for the Board. At the defendants' request, the circuit court dismissed Wilder's claims against all defendants. The circuit court concluded that Wilder had failed to state a