Coomer v. Lee County Board of Education Where no other statute provides guidance for the judicial review of school board decisions, the superior court, following Overton v. Board of Education, 304 N.C. 312, 283 S.E.2d 495 (1981), properly looked to Article 4 of the Administrative Procedure Act to determine the correct time limit for appealing from school boards to the courts.
Deese v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services Respondent presented evidence that petitioner may have been less than gentle with two patients; however, respondent did not show that petitioner – who had 20 years of continuous employment without a serious incident and only one non-serious incident – “abused” either patient.
Reed v. Brunswick County Department of Social Services Although respondent presented evidence that petitioner had seven written warnings for tardiness, only three were within 12 months of her pre-disciplinary meeting. Furthermore, petitioner presented uncontroverted evidence that (1) there were problems with the recorded sign-in system on one of the days she was marked tardy and (2) on another of the days she was marked tardy, petitioner was in the human resources office to file for disability.
Leigh v. Department of Health & Human Services While the nursing home’s care plan for resident “L.A.” required two people to move L.A. from her bed to the shower, the care plan did not say L.A. could not be left alone. After helping the young, inexperienced and physically slight petitioner move L.A. to the shower, a more experienced aide left petitioner alone with L.A.
Sealey v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety A state trooper, whose secondary employment as a Robeson County Commissioner was authorized, was nevertheless insubordinate when he continued to carry his Robeson County-issued cell phone with him while he was on duty after he had been ordered not to do so.
Smith v. Bank of Stanly When plaintiff received her right-to-sue letter from the N.C. Department of Labor on May 12, 2009, she had 90 days from that date to file her state-law claim. Since plaintiff did not receive her right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission until Aug. 19, 2009 – more than 90 days after she received her letter from the state – plaintiff could not have filed both her state-law and her federal-law claims in one action because her state claim would not have been timely filed if she had waited for her federal right-to-sue letter before filing.
Hershner v. NC Department of Administration One of the reasons given for the petitioner-attorney’s termination was her alleged violation of a known work rule: a ban on discussing the possible outcomes of investigations with complainants. However, the written rule applied only to investigators – not to attorneys – and investigators had violated the rule in the past with no disciplinary action whatsoever taken against them. If such a rule did exist, it had not been enforced, and to use it as grounds for petitioner’s termination would be arbitrary and/or capricious.
Hill v. North Carolina Department of Correction Respondent’s justification for terminating the petitioner-correctional officer included both that he should not have threatened force because the inmates were not showing aggression and that he should have anticipated inmate aggression and instituted the anticipated-use-of-force procedure. Respondent’s investigation of the inmate disturbance was incomplete, and its failure to preserve the investigator’s notes – when petitioner had made it known he would appeal – gives rise to a presumption that the notes would have injured respondent’s case.
Wood v. Teachers’ & State Employees’ Retirement System Plaintiff had not yet been working – and contributing to the Teachers’ and State Employees’ Retirement System (TSERS) – for five years the first time the General Assembly amended the statute dealing with disability retirement benefits; therefore, plaintiff’s rights in the original benefit plan had not vested.
Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, Va. Reversing the trial court, the 4th Circuit says a female county employee laid off after 26 years on the job can sue under Title VII on a claim that she was offered a less favorable severance package than that offered to male employees who held similar positions.
