Montgomery attorneys Julian McPhillips and David Sawyer appeared before Judge Collins Pettaway Friday in Dallas County Circuit Court to pursue their motion to provide the three officers placed on administrative leave last year – Jeffrey Hardy, Toriano Neely and Kendall Thomas – with back pay, claiming that the city’s failure to provide the officers with a personnel hearing violates their due process rights.

Reed Coleman, an attorney with Hill, Hill, Carter, was representing the City of Selma during the hearing and had requested that the officers’ motion for back pay be dismissed after requesting that supplemental opposition, filed by McPhillips late Thursday afternoon, be tossed, arguing that she was unable to properly review the argument before Friday’s hearing.

Coleman asserted that the officers’ claim that their due process rights were violated was not substantiated by the statutes and court cases McPhillips was using to back up his claim that the officers were due a personnel hearing at the time of termination.

Sawyer cited the city’s own handbook, which states that an employee with the city has the right to a hearing to contest termination and that employees must be notified of the reason for their termination beforehand, and stated that case law “essentially establishes a contract.”

Coleman reminded those in attendance that, despite references to the U.S. Constitution during oral arguments, McPhillips’ team had made their plea referencing the Alabama Constitution, which she said was an effort to keep the case out of federal court.

McPhillips noted that the officers had sent multiple letters requesting a hearing, even showing up to city hall in person once, before feeling “further emboldened” to demand the hearing through the courts.

McPhillips said that the city continues to “flagrantly disregard” its own rules as if it’s a foreign country.

“Here in America, you do have personnel rules that entitle you to a hearing,” McPhillips said.

Coleman argued that it was unclear which city personnel guidelines were being referenced in McPhillips’ claims, but noted that the version she had only allows for a personnel hearing in cases of suspension, termination or “adverse employment action” – since the officers had never been suspended or terminated, only placed on administrative leave, first with pay and then without, their claim was invalid.

However, Pettaway wondered aloud how placing someone on administrative leave without pay could not be considered an “adverse employment action,” but Coleman stated that the city’s position was that it is not.

Coleman further asserted that because two of the officers are no longer on administrative leave – one has resigned and another has retired, making Hardy the only officer still on the city’s roster – they are not eligible for a hearing.

“I think they’re required to set forth more of their argument than that,” Coleman said.

McPhillips referred to Coleman’s claims as “artful semantics in the extreme.”

“It’s the worst case of bullying their own employees that I’ve ever seen [in a municipality],” McPhillips said. “[These officers are] starving and they’re struggling and that’s why we’re here.”

In the end, Pettaway denied the city’s motion to dismiss the request for back pay or a hearing and allowed Coleman five days to review the supplemental information, after which a ruling will be made if no other motions or amendments are filed.

“We’re hoping the judge will give us an order to give us some back pay or a personnel hearing,” McPhillips said, adding that Pettaway, who dismissed the charges against the officers a couple of months ago, could see that the entire court battle was a “travesty.”