Wilson v. Dollar General Corp. An employee of a chain-store distribution center who filed his disability discrimination claim with the EEOC before he filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition has standing to pursue his discrimination claim, the 4th Circuit says, but the claim has no merit as the employee did not show he could perform the essential functions of his job had he been granted a brief additional leave for treatment of his vision impairment.
Johnson v. Forsyth County G.S. Chapter 126, including the N.C. Whistleblower Act, applies only to state employees and the local employees listed in G.S. § 126-5. Since county board of election employees are not included in the § 126-5 list, they are not covered by the Whistleblower Act.
Pinehurst Surgical Clinic, P.A. v. DiMichele-Manes The plaintiff-medical practice has shown that the non-compete covenant in the parties’ employment agreement was valid and enforceable and that the defendant-doctor violated the covenant by going to work for a nearby competitor; therefore, plaintiff was likely to succeed on the merits of its case.
A chief warrant officer in the U.S. Coast Guard Reserves, who left his job as a municipal waste manager for periods of active service with the Coast Guard, waited too long to file his suit under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, and the 4th Circuit affirms the district court decision that the suit is barred by the four-year federal “catchall” statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 1658(a).
Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill North Carolina does not recognize direct constitutional claims against public officials acting in their individual capacities
Hill v. Hubbell Distribution, Inc. Had he called the evening before he was summoned for jury duty, plaintiff would have learned that he had been excused. The defendant-employer fired plaintiff because its investigation convinced it that plaintiff was dishonest about why he missed a day of work; plaintiff has not shown that he was fired because he was summoned for jury duty
Pledger v. UHS-Pruitt Corp. The complaint can be read to allege timely claims of discrimination and retaliation based on plaintiff’s termination. Given the nature of plaintiff’s pro se complaint, defendants understandably did not address this issue. They may do so in an answer and, if desired, a new motion to dismiss.
Austin v. Alltell Communications, LLC Despite one positive performance review and a new supervisor who made disparaging remarks about her own and plaintiff’s age, plaintiff’s history of performance problems shows that she was not fired because of her age.
Austin v. Alltell Communications, LLC Despite one positive performance review and a new supervisor who made disparaging remarks about her own and plaintiff’s age, plaintiff’s history of performance problems shows that she was not fired because of her age.
Westbrook v. North Carolina A&T State University Even though the pro se plaintiff lacks the financial ability to hire counsel and arguably has a meritorious religious discrimination claim, he has not tried to obtain counsel, and he has demonstrated the ability to represent himself.
