The Canipe Law Firm, PLLC
704-817-4710
  • Home
  • Practice Areas
    • Business & Contract Law
    • Business & Commercial Litigation
    • Employment Law
    • General Counsel Services
    • Mediation
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Personal Injury
    • Wills, Estate Planning & Probate
    • Workers' Compensation
  • About Us
  • Location
  • Contact Us
  • Blog

What Is Wrongful Termination in North Carolina?

4/23/2014

1 Comment

 
In North Carolina, an at-will employee can be terminated for almost any reason. One key exception is that the termination may not violate public policy. In a new decision, Blakeley v. The Town of Taylortown, the North Carolina Court of Appeals provides a useful guide for exactly what is meant by the phrase “violation of public policy,” and what types of damages a jury can award. This case is very instructive for employers and
employees.

Background Facts


In 2003, Timothy Blakeley was hired as the Chief of Police of Taylortown, a small community in Moore County, North Carolina. He soon became engaged in a dispute with the town’s mayor when he brought it to the Town Council’s attention that the town’s use of an ATV on the public streets was not legal. He did not drop the issue as instructed, but went directly to the mayor with additional information regarding the illegal use of the ATV.  Since Blakeley did not follow the proper chain of command by going to the Police Commissioner first he received a written reprimand for not following the chain of command.  

In 2006, the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) contacted Blakely about its ongoing investigation of possible corruption within Taylortown government, which led to the indictment of the town’s mayor. These charges were eventually dropped. Blakeley's relationship with the Town Council and the mayor became much worse after he advised them, with the SBI’s approval, of his involvement in the SBI’s investigation.

Also during this time frame it was alleged that the Town Council and the mayor began asking Chief Blakeley to provide ongoing information about his department’s investigation of the town’s drug problems.  Blakeley refused to discuss specifics of ongoing cases or to identify confidential informants. In 2007, Chief Blakeley was fired. He had significant difficulty finding new permanent employment in the law enforcement field, though he was able to find some temporary work, including advising US forces in Afghanistan on policing. At the time of the trial in 2011, Blakeley did not have full-time permanent job despite applying to a large number of positions.

The Trial


The jury found that Chief Blakeley’s refusal to disclose information about ongoing criminal investigations and the identity of confidential informants to the City Council, which would have violated North Carolina law, was a substantial factor in Blakeley’s termination. They also found that the Town would not have terminated the chief if he had agreed to violate these laws, and that he had damages of $291,000, of which he was entitled to recover only $100,000 due to having earned $191,000 through other employment during the period between his termination and the trial.  The court also granted Blakeley’s motion for additional lost wages going forward, or “front pay” instead of being reinstated to his old job.

What Happened On Appeal?

Taylortown appealed this verdict. The only practical victory they obtained was a small reduction in the total award. For our purposes, the key points are that (1) the Court of Appeals found that there was evidence to support the jury’s verdict of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy and (2) a wrongfully terminated employee is entitled to claim non-monetary damages such as negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

First, “[a]n employer wrongfully discharges an at-will employee if the termination is done for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy."  Garner v. Rentenbach Constructors Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 571, 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999)). Here, the police chief would have violated State law designed to protect confidential informants and to protect ongoing criminal investigations if he had given the Town Council the information for which he was pressed. The Court agreed that there was evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that it was this refusal to violate these laws and the public policy behind these laws was at least part of why Blakely was fired. Thus, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury’s finding of wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Second, the Court of Appeals noted that exactly what type of damages were available for wrongful termination had not been decided in North Carolina. Taylortown argued that the employee could not claim damages for emotional distress or lost wages.  However, the cases which Taylortown cited for this position resulted from employers suing former employees for breach of contact claims, not wrongful termination claims. The Court noted that most states which recognize common law wrongful termination claims also allow claims for resulting damages for “lost wages, future lost earnings, and emotional distress" and found no reason not to allow these types of damage claims. Thus, it was held that the trial court did not err in letting the jury consider and award these types of damages.

What Is The End  Result?

We learn a few lessons from this case. First, while recent cases had reduced the strength of the “public policy” exception to the at-will  employment rule, North Carolina courts will take a close look at this type of
argument, at least in these sorts of cases. Second, we know that wrongfully terminated employees can argue for a whole host of possible types of damages. 

This result makes a lot of practical sense: if damages are caused by a wrongful action and if those damages are foreseeable, there does not seem to be a strong case against letting a jury award that a specific type of damage. Given the tough road that former chief Blakeley faces under the circumstances, there does seem to be some measure of justice in all of these damages including further lost wages.

1 Comment

Is A Workplace Injury Compensable Under North Carolina Law?

4/6/2014

0 Comments

 

In many cases individuals claim to have been hurt at work but they do not know whether what happened qualifies as workers’ compensation injury under North Carolina law.  In the recent decision by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, Allsbrook v.  Illinois Tool Works/Wilsonart, we find a very good discussion of the legal standard that applies in most North Carolina workers’ compensation claims: the “injury-by-accident” standard.

What Are The Primary Benefits Under NC Workers’ Compensation Law?

If an employee has a North Carolina workers’ compensation injury, their employer (almost always through an insurance company), will have to provide (1) medical treatment and (2) lost wage benefits to the injured employee, among other benefits. All North Carolina employers with at least three employees must provide workers’ compensation benefits. When an individual needs medical treatment and cannot work due to their injury, knowing if they are entitled to workers' compensation benefits is crucial.

What’s An Injury-By-Accident?

Under the “injury-by-accident” standard, an employee’s injury is compensable (entitling them to workers’ compensation benefits) if (1) the injury took place “in the course and scope” (2) of their assigned work duties and (3) was caused by something unexpected that happened during the work duties. In other words, there needs to be an injury caused by something unexpected that took place while the employee was working. This is how North Carolina defines an “injury-by-accident” for purposes of workers’ compensation.

The Key Facts of the Allsbrook Case

In the Allsbrook case, Mr. Allsbrook worked as a “saw helper” at an Asheville area company which manufactures kitchen and bath countertops. The primary dispute in this case was whether Mr. Allsbrook was doing his normal job in the normal manner when he felt a pop in his chest. Mr. Allsbrook suffered a pretty significant injury, requiring surgery to his right shoulder and sterno-clavicual joint, among other problems.  This injury has caused him to be out of work since 2009.

Mr. Allsbrook worked as part of a team which cut the countertop materials to specific lengths using large industrial saws. At the hearing, Mr. Allsbrook testified that he was using an older, manual saw that was rarely, if ever, used for his job. However, the injury report from the employer stated Mr. Allsbrook was using a newer, less physically demanding saw when he felt pain.

Probably the most crucial evidence came from Mr. Allsbrook’s own lips. Early on, he gave a recorded statement to the insurance company.  He agreed that he was doing his normal job in the normal way when he felt pain near the end of his February 26, 2009 shift. At the original hearing, Mr. Allsbrook’s former manager, who no longer worked for Wilsonart, testified that the saw which Mr. Allsbrook was using on the day of the injury was very much in regular use by Mr. Allsbrook in doing his job. There was similar testimony from the plant manager for the employer.

At The Commission Hearing

When this claim was heard by the North Carolina Industrial Commission, the original hearing officer (called a “Deputy Commissioner”) decided to believe the testimony and evidence that Mr. Allsbrook was doing his normal job in the normal way when he felt the pain in his chest.  Thus, she ruled that Mr. Allsbrook did not have a compensable claim. Because his injury was not caused by an “accident" that occurred while he was working he was not entitled to have his medical bills paid through workers' compensation. Nor was he entitled to recover any lost wages from the insurance company.

Thereafter, Mr. Allsbrook’s case was heard on appeal by three Commissioners at the North Carolina Industrial Commission, who are part of a group of individuals who make up The Full Commission.  The Full Commission had the option to re-consider all the evidence and was not required to rule the same way as did the Deputy Commissioner. They could have decided that the weight (or majority) of the evidence proved Mr. Allsbrook injured his shoulder due to an “injury-by-accident.” However, they agreed with the Deputy Commissioner, and ruled against Mr. Allsbrook. The Full Commission ruled that Mr. Allsbrook was not  entitled to any worker’s compensation benefits.

At The NC Court of Appeals

This week, the North Carolina Court of Appeals also ruled against Mr. Allsbrook. However, they were applying an entirely different legal standard. At this point, the judges simply asked whether there was any credible evidence on which the Full Commission had relied in ruling against Mr. Allsbrook. In this instance, there was clearly good and credible evidence on which both the Deputy Commissioner and the three member panel of the Full Commission relied.

In my judgment, Mr. Allsbrook’s early statement to the insurance adjuster, that he was doing his normal job in the normal way when he felt this pain, was probably the decisive factor.

What If Mr. Allsbrook Had Hurt His Back?

What you might find puzzling is that, if Mr. Allsbrook had injured his back, rather than his shoulder in this case, he would almost certainly have won.  There is a lower, and easier to meet, standard for a compensable back claim in North Carolina: the “specific traumatic incident.” No accident is required to meet this standard.

What Lesson Can You Learn?

Both employees and employers need to understand these legal issues. If you have questions, please consider consulting with an attorney who handles North Carolina worker’s compensation claims to understand this issue and the various rules that apply to specific types of injuries in the workplace.



 



0 Comments

    Author

    Jeremy Canipe loves learning and enjoys sharing his insights and questions about legal and business issues. 

    Archives

    January 2019
    January 2018
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

The Canipe Law Firm, PLLC        10130 Mallard Creek Rd, Ste 300, Charlotte, NC 28262        704-817-4710 Phone        980-225-5274 Fax         info@canipelaw.com     
                                                      

2014 The Canipe Law Firm, PLLC.  All Rights Reserved.    Disclaimer