Search form

North Carolina Wrongful Discharge Claims May Not be based on Federal Public Policy or Constitution, Federal Court Rules

By Ann H. Smith and Jason V. Federmack
  • October 15, 2015

A wrongful discharge claim under North Carolina law may not be based on federal public policy, including policy expressed in the federal Constitution, a federal district court has ruled. Santifort v. Guy, 4:14-cv-00225-F, DE # 34 (E.D. N.C. Sept. 8, 2015).

The court based its decision on finding a “consensus” among North Carolina’s intermediate courts, as the state’s highest court has not addressed the question.

After Donna Santifort, an Emergency Medical Technician, was terminated by her employer, she sued Wayne County, North Carolina, and several Wayne County officials alleging a state law claim against the County for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, among other things. Santifort alleged that her termination violated public policy as expressed in the First Amendment to the federal Constitution. Wayne County moved to dismiss this claim on the grounds that, in failing to allege a violation of North Carolina state public policy, Santifort’s wrongful discharge claim failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The general rule under North Carolina law is that all employment is considered “at will,” and employers (or employees) may end the employment relationship for any reason.

North Carolina’s highest court, the North Carolina Supreme Court, in Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 325 N.C. 172, 381 S.E.2d 445 (1989), created an exception to the “at will” rule where an employer’s reason for ending the employment relationship is unlawful or contrary to public policy.

In Santifort, the federal district court recognized that the North Carolina Supreme Court left open the question of whether federal public policy could form the basis for a wrongful discharge claim when it first recognized the wrongful discharge cause of action. Since Coman, the North Carolina Supreme Court has not made any rulings to resolve whether federal public policy can form the basis of a North Carolina state wrongful discharge claim.

Accordingly, the district court determined it must rely on decisions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the state’s intermediate court, and federal district courts to predict how the North Carolina Supreme Court might decide the issue. In addition, the court recognized that an existing rule prohibits it from creating or expanding North Carolina public policy.

Operating under these guidelines, the court reviewed cases from lower North Carolina and federal district courts and identified a consensus rule: “[t]he public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine is confined to the express statements contained within [North Carolina’s] General Statutes or [North Carolina’s] Constitution” (citing Whiting v. Wolfson Casing Corp., 173 N.C. App. 218, 222, 618 S.E.2d 750, 753 (2005)). Indeed, the court noted that no court has ever held federal public policy to be a sufficient basis for a wrongful discharge claim under North Carolina law.

Accordingly, the court ruled that “a plaintiff may not ground a wrongful discharge on a violation of federal public policy, including the policy expressed in the [federal] Constitution” and granted Wayne County’s motion to dismiss Santifort’s wrongful discharge claim.

While employment law attorneys are waiting on the North Carolina Supreme Court to rule on this issue, it is clear lower North Carolina and federal district court judges are in agreement.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 30, 2017

Chicago Adopts ‘Hands Off Pants On’ Law to Protect Hotel Workers from Sexual Harassment, Assault

October 30, 2017

To provide hospitality workers greater protections against sexual harassment and assault, the Chicago City Council passed the “Hands Off Pants On” Ordinance on October 11, 2017. The Ordinance requires all hotels in the City to adopt a panic button system and an anti-sexual harassment policy. The Ordinance was passed after months of... Read More

October 24, 2017

California Adds ‘Transgender,’ ‘Gender Nonconforming Individuals’ to Sexual Harassment Prevention Training for Supervisors

October 24, 2017

Employers subject to California’s mandatory sexual harassment training requirement for supervisors will need to ensure their programs include prevention of harassment based on gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation following an amendment (SB 396) to California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). On October 15... Read More

October 5, 2017

Department of Justice Releases Memorandum Restricting Transgender Worker Protection under Title VII

October 5, 2017

On October 4, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions reversed the Department of Justice’s position that gender identity is protected as part of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination — taking a position that is contrary to current guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. In a... Read More

Related Practices