Civil Practice — Public Records Act – Unemployment Hearings – Confidentiality – Preliminary Injunction – Statutory Amendment
Teresa Bruno, Opinions Editor//February 18, 2015//
Wilson v. North Carolina Department of Commerce (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-07-0158, 17 pp.) (Lucy Inman, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court (Paul Ridgeway, J.) N.C. App.
Holding: In this Public Records Act case, the trial court failed to determine the effect of 20 C.F.R. Part 603 – the federal regulations concerning the confidentiality of unemployment insurance information – on plaintiffs’ request for continuing daily access to unemployment appeal hearing notices.
We vacate the preliminary injunction and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs – an attorney and her firm – sought and won a preliminary injunction requiring defendants to provide plaintiffs daily access to appeals hearing notices about unemployment claimants. However, during the pendency of this appeal, the General Assembly amended G.S. § 96-4(x) to provide that unemployment appeal hearing notices are “confidential information” and are specifically exempt from the Public Records Act.
Plaintiffs contend the amendment to § 96-4(x) was a substantial change and was therefore not retroactive. Accordingly, plaintiffs argue that, with respect to hearings scheduled prior to the amendment, plaintiffs were entitled to disclosure of daily hearing notices and to recover their attorneys’ fees incurred in enforcing their right.
On remand, the trial court must determine whether the amendment to § 96-4(x) changed the substance of the statute or merely clarified it and, in turn, whether the amendment applies to plaintiffs’ claims for the disclosure of hearing notices created prior to the amendment.
Vacated and remanded.
Top Legal News
- Beware of overlooking legal requirements for remote workers
- NC House pulls hemp bill after hundreds of protesters descend on legislature
- U.S. senator urges regulators to probe Wall Street banks over Epstein accounts
- NC hemp industry rallies against bill it calls a ban in disguise
- U.S. Supreme Court won’t halt $655M judgment against Palestinians over attacks
- Oklahoma court tosses conviction of YouTuber who went to prison for online rant
- DNA fight grows as civil suit advances in SC Murdaugh retrial
Legal Tech
- AI is reshaping family law practice, but attorneys worry about DIY research
- Massachusetts court rejects work product protection for AI documents by girlfriend
- Exterro launches on-premises AI platform for digital forensics
Commentary
- Legally Speaking: How communication failures turn disputes into lawsuits
- We tore out our own backup generator
- When is a PIP an adverse employment action?
- Legally Speaking: What spring can teach us about active listening
- A useful patent management government notice
- Opinion: NC judges have enormous power. Be sure to vote in November
- The third option: Why your best employees are quietly losing their edge
- AI divorce is real, but family law can still save itself




