Two nearly identical job titles. One disappointed candidate. A lesson on who actually holds hiring power
The Alabama Supreme Court has tossed a failure-to-hire lawsuit built on confusion between two similarly named jobs, offering a clear cautionary tale for public-sector HR.
In a decision issued on May 15, 2026, the state's highest court affirmed the dismissal of John William Wilder, Jr.'s case against the City of Hoover, Mayor Frank V. Brocato, City Administrator Allan Rice, and the City's Public Park and Recreation Board.
Wilder had applied to be the City's Park and Recreation Director. The mayor appointed someone else in 2021. Wilder sued, arguing the city defendants had "usurped the Board's autonomy by not allowing the Board to hire the Plaintiff." He pointed to a majority of the Board's members who supported him – and who, according to his complaint, told the mayor so at a specially called meeting. The mayor went a different direction and announced the appointment in a citywide email.
The court's answer turned on a quiet but important distinction.
There are two roles here, not one. The City has a "Park and Recreation Director," appointed by the mayor under Alabama Code § 11-43-81. The Board, a legally separate public corporation, has its own "director of Parks and Recreation," which the Board's bylaws say the Board selects. Wilder wanted the city job. He sued as if the Board could have hired him for it.
Against the Board, the court found Wilder had no standing. Under the Lujan test – the framework the Alabama Supreme Court uses for standing in public-law cases – a plaintiff has to show an injury caused by the defendant. The Board didn't pass Wilder over. By his own account, the Board's members were the ones backing him. The mayor and city administrator made the decision.
Against the city defendants, Wilder cleared standing but lost on the merits. The court noted that even if the Board's bylaws claimed power to pick the city's director, "a public corporation cannot unilaterally enlarge its statutory powers." The mayor's appointment authority for the city role sits in the statute. Internal bylaws don't override that.
The practical lesson for HR landed in plain terms. When an organization has a board or commission with its own legal personality, the lines around hiring authority matter. Titles that sound the same can sit under very different appointing bodies. Bylaws can shape internal process. They cannot expand statutory power.
For HR leaders in municipal government, public agencies, and any organization with a board structure, the takeaway is operational. Keep position descriptions, charters, and statutory references in sync. Make sure candidates know which body is doing the hiring. And when a board's preferences run up against an executive's statutory authority, expect the statute to win.
The court also denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the appeal and their motion to strike portions of Wilder's reply brief. Chief Justice Stewart and Justices Wise, Sellers, and Cook concurred with Justice Parker. The decision is final.
