In re: Tameka Fitzpatrick v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County and City of Birmingham

── In re: Tameka Fitzpatrick v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County and City of Birmingham ── Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama Date: May 29, 2026 Author: Christy Edwards Category: General Rel: May 29, 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 published in Southern Reporter. ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2025-2026 _________________________ CL-2025-1001 _________________________ Ex parte Tameka Fitzpatrick PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (In re: Tameka Fitzpatrick v. Personnel Board of Jefferson County and City of Birmingham) (Jefferson Circuit Court: CV-23-904554) EDWARDS, Judge. Tameka Fitzpatrick seeks review of a judgment of a three-judge panel of the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the circuit court"), which dismissed her appeal from a decision of the Jefferson County Personnel Board ("the CL-2025-1001 JCPB") terminating her employment as an administrative analyst with the City of Birmingham ("the city"). In May 2021, Fitzpatrick was hired as an administrative analyst in the city's planning, engineering, and permits department. On November 29, 2022, the city notified Fitzpatrick that her employment was being terminated. 1 Fitzpatrick appealed the termination of her employment to 1The city leveled six charges against Fitzpatrick, which resulted in the termination of her employment. Those charges included: "Charge One, [Fitzpatrick] did not dispute sending disrespectful, rude, and aggressive emails to [her] supervisor and [d]irector. "Charge Two, [Fitzpatrick] did not provide documentation proving that [she] completed ... assignments, and that [she] responded to directives from [her] [d]irector. "Charge Three, [Fitzpatrick] did not dispute that [she] [was] untruthful on [her] submitted telework report. Additionally, during [her] hearing [she] continued to state that [she] personally communicat[ed] with Mayor Woodfin on [her] personal devices and on [her] personal time. "Charge Four, [Fitzpatrick] failed to demonstrate that [she] provided adequate notice to [her] supervisor according to the [c]ity and [planning, engineering, and permits] department policy. [Fitzpatrick] did not provide any evidence to contradict the 4 [absent without leaves]. "Charge Five, [Fitzpatrick's] written and verbal response to the charges stated that [she] [was] neither sleep[ing] nor snoring. 2 CL-2025-1001 the JCPB, which assigned a hearing officer to preside over the appeal. Following a three-day evidentiary hearing, on November 13, 2023, the hearing officer entered a decision, which included findings of fact and conclusions of law, recommending that the JCPB affirm the termination of Fitzpatrick's employment. On December 5, 2023, the JCPB adopted the hearing officer's recommendation and affirmed the termination of Fitzpatrick's employment. On December 15, 2023, Fitzpatrick filed in the circuit court a notice of appeal and an affidavit of substantial hardship. In her form affidavit, Fitzpatrick checked the box indicating that she was unable to pay the fees and costs of the appeal to the circuit court, and she requested that payment of those fees and costs be initially waived and taxed as costs at the conclusion of the appeal. On March 11, 2024, Judge Carole C. Smitherman, the circuit-court judge initially assigned to the appeal, entered an order that, in pertinent part, "