Tag Archives: Just Cause

Labor & Employment – Public Employees – Insufficient Findings — Personal Misconduct – Just Cause – Discipline – First Impression (access required)

Warren v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety The superior court purported to base its decision on the facts as found by the administrative law judge. However, the ALJ found that the Highway Patrol had failed to establish that petitioner drove a Patrol vehicle with any alcohol in his system, while the superior court found that petitioner consumed some amount of alcohol prior to driving.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Public Employees – Termination – Just Cause – Unacceptable Personal Conduct – Side Business (access required)

Shaw v. North Carolina Central University Without prior approval, petitioner engaged in outside employment by selling sexually oriented items. He sold such items to a subordinate while both of them were on campus, in uniform and on duty; in addition, he sent advertisements for such items to his subordinates via university email.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Contract – Termination – Just Cause – DNA Testing – Intentionally Obscure Report – Duke Lacrosse Players – Exoneration (access required)

Meehan v. American Media International, LLC Plaintiff’s employment contract allowed the defendant-employer to terminate him for just cause, including substandard performance. Plaintiff admittedly made a “big error” when he wrote a report that obscured the fact that DNA test results exonerated Duke Lacrosse players who had been accused of rape and sexual assault. We affirm summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff’s breach of contract and tortious interference with contract claims. We vacate summary judgment on plaintiff’s Wage and Hour Act claim.

Read More »

Labor & Employment – Public Employees – Termination – Just Cause – Insufficient Showing – Patient Restraint – Facedown (access required)

Gooch v. Central Regional Hospital. (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-09-1204, 9 pp.) (Beecher R. Gray, ALJ) OAH Holding: Petitioners violated no policies when they restrained a patient facedown, nor did they harm the combative patient. Petitioners are entitled to reinstatement, back ...

Read More »