The firing's merits were never even argued – here's the step that sank it
A fired Birmingham worker lost her shot at challenging the termination – not on the facts, but on a single court filing step she skipped.
Tameka Fitzpatrick was hired as an administrative analyst in the City of Birmingham's planning, engineering, and permits department in May 2021. On Nov. 29, 2022, the city terminated her.
The city leveled six charges. According to those charges, Fitzpatrick did not dispute sending emails to her supervisor and director that the city described as disrespectful, rude, and aggressive. The charges further stated that she did not provide documentation showing she completed assignments, did not dispute being untruthful on her submitted telework report, and failed to give adequate notice for four absences logged as unexcused. Another charge said she did not dispute violating the city's telework policy. One charge noted that, during her hearing, she stated she had communicated with Mayor Woodfin on her personal devices and on her personal time.
Fitzpatrick took her case to the Jefferson County Personnel Board. After a three-day hearing, a hearing officer recommended upholding the termination in November 2023, and the board adopted that recommendation that December.
She appealed again, this time to the circuit court. With her notice of appeal she filed an affidavit of substantial hardship, indicating she could not afford the fees and costs, and a judge waived prepayment of the docket fees.
That waiver became the heart of the dispute. The local act governing personnel board appeals requires an appealing party to file security for costs with the circuit clerk within 10 days of the board's decision. Fitzpatrick did not file it. A three-judge panel reasoned that the security-for-costs requirement sits in the same sentence as the deadline to file a written notice of appeal, and carries the same mandatory force. Missing it, the panel held, was a jurisdictional defect. It dismissed her appeal with prejudice.
Fitzpatrick argued the hardship waiver relieved her of the duty to post security, relying on the appellate rule that lets a party proceed without paying fees – in forma pauperis, meaning as a pauper. The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals was not persuaded. In its May 29, 2026 decision, the court held that the rule she cited applies to appeals filed in appellate courts, not to appeals taken from an agency to a circuit court. Because her entire argument rested on that single rule, and the rule did not apply, the court denied her petition.
The takeaway for HR leaders is in what the court did not do: it never reviewed whether the firing was justified. The substance of the termination was never weighed at this stage. The case ended on a procedural step the employee failed to complete, and the employer's motion to dismiss on that ground closed it out.
That is a useful signal for public-sector HR teams especially. A discipline appeal can rise or fall on statutory mechanics long before anyone argues the facts. It is also a reminder of why employers build terminations on documented grounds – here, telework-policy violations, unexcused absences, and a disputed telework report - so a dismissal can stand up if and when the merits are finally tested. For now, with the appeal dismissed and the petition denied, the board's decision affirming the termination remains in place.
