Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 North Carolina opinions name it 3 courts 1987–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2022The employment at-will doctrine provides that “in the absence of a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee establishing a definite term of employment, the relationship is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party[.]” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329, 331 (1997); see also Wuchte v. McNeil, 130 N.C. 2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. | 8 | 8 |
Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co.green2 sentences2022The question, though, was whether the Act provided the sole remedy. ¶ 56 The Court recognized that the “strongest argument” for the remedies in the Act to be exclusive was that at the time the Act was passed, neither our Court or our Supreme Court “had recognized the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine.” Id. at 358-59 , 416 S.E.2d at 172 . ¶ 57 The Court held, though, that the remedies provided by the Act was not exclusive because “[j]udging from these statutory remedies, it seems apparent that the intent of the legislature was to provide an employee an avenue to recover 2022The question, though, was whether the Act provided the sole remedy. ¶ 56 The Court recognized that the “strongest argument” for the remedies in the Act to be exclusive was that at the time the Act was passed, neither our Court or our Supreme Court “had recognized the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine.” Id. at 358-59 , 416 S.E.2d at 172 . ¶ 57 The Court held, though, that the remedies provided by the Act was not exclusive because “[j]udging from these statutory remedies, it seems apparent that the intent of the legislature was to provide an employee an avenue to recover | 5 | 7 |
Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2009Co., 325 N.C. 172 , 381 S.E.2d 445 (1989), our Supreme Court first recognized a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: [W]hile there may be a right to terminate a contract at will for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate such a contract for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy. 2009Co., 325 N.C. 172 , 381 S.E.2d 445 (1989), our Supreme Court first recognized a public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine: [W]hile there may be a right to terminate a contract at will for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate such a contract for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy. | 3 | 8 |
Sides v. Duke Universitygreen2 sentences2014Our appellate Courts first recognized a public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Sides v. Duke Univ., 74 N.C. 1999Our Court of Appeals first recognized a public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine in Sides v. Duke Univ., 74 N.C. | 1 | 13 |
Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc.green2 sentences1999This jurisdiction has long adhered to the employment-at-will doctrine, i.e. “[w]here a contract of employment does not fix a definite term, it is terminable at the will of either party, with or without cause.” Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205, 209 , 388 S.E.2d 134, 137 (1990) (citations omitted). 1999This jurisdiction has long adhered to the employment-at-will doctrine, i.e. “[w]here a contract of employment does not fix a definite term, it is terminable at the will of either party, with or without cause.” Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, 326 N.C. 205, 209 , 388 S.E.2d 134, 137 (1990) (citations omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Wuchte v. McNeilgreen1 sentence2022The employment at-will doctrine provides that “in the absence of a contractual agreement between an employer and an employee establishing a definite term of employment, the relationship is presumed to be terminable at the will of either party[.]” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329, 331 (1997); see also Wuchte v. McNeil, 130 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Combs v. City Electric Supply Co.green1 sentence2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green2 sentences2009In reliance on language found in decisions such as Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629 , 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987), overruled in part by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., 347 N.C. 329 , 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997) (“if an employee furnishes ‘additional consideration’.. ., such consideration may take the case out of the usual employment-at-will rule”) (citing Tuttle v. Kemersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216 , 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964)), and Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 77 N.C. 2009App. 253, 260 , 335 S.E.2d 79, 84 (1985), disc. rev. dm. 315 N.C. 597 , 341 S.E.2d 39 (1986), (“If an employee gives some additional consideration in addition to the usual obligation of service, a contract for an indefinite term” might become enforceable) (citation omitted), Defendant argues that the affected employee, and only the affected employee, can provide the consideration needed to create an enforceable agreement. | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Duke Power Co.green2 sentences2009In reliance on language found in decisions such as Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629 , 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987), overruled in part by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., 347 N.C. 329 , 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997) (“if an employee furnishes ‘additional consideration’.. ., such consideration may take the case out of the usual employment-at-will rule”) (citing Tuttle v. Kemersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216 , 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964)), and Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 77 N.C. 2009In reliance on language found in decisions such as Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629 , 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987), overruled in part by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., 347 N.C. 329 , 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997) (“if an employee furnishes ‘additional consideration’.. ., such consideration may take the case out of the usual employment-at-will rule”) (citing Tuttle v. Kemersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216 , 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964)), and Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 77 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Salter v. E & J HEALTHCARE, INC.green2 sentences2004To state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an employee has the burden of pleading that his "dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Considine, 145 N.C.App. at 317 , 551 S.E.2d at 181 ; see also Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 331 , 493 S.E.2d at 422 ; Salter v. *399 E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 685, 693 , 575 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2003). 2004To state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an employee has the burden of pleading that his "dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Considine, 145 N.C.App. at 317 , 551 S.E.2d at 181 ; see also Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 331 , 493 S.E.2d at 422 ; Salter v. *399 E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 685, 693 , 575 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
| Williams v. Hillhaven Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Vereen v. Holdengreen | 1 | 1 |
| English v. General Electric Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Duke Power Co. v. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sides v. Duke University
green
2 sentences1997App. 331 , 328 S.E.2d 818 , disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985); Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172 , 381 S.E.2d 445 (1989); and Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co., 331 N.C. 348 , 416 S.E.2d 166 (1992), in support of what he contends is a growing prohibition against discharging employees for engaging in conduct that is protected by “public policy.” In each of the above cases, our State has recognized an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine by identifying a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. 1993An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists where an employee is discharged for “an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy.” Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., Inc., 325 N.C. 172, 175 , 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989), quoting Sides v. Duke Hospital, 74 N.C.App. 331, 342 , 328 S.E.2d 818, 826 , disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985). | 8 | 1987–2014 |
Sides v. Duke University
green
2 sentences1997App. 331 , 328 S.E.2d 818 , disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985); Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., 325 N.C. 172 , 381 S.E.2d 445 (1989); and Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co., 331 N.C. 348 , 416 S.E.2d 166 (1992), in support of what he contends is a growing prohibition against discharging employees for engaging in conduct that is protected by “public policy.” In each of the above cases, our State has recognized an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine by identifying a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. 1993An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists where an employee is discharged for “an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy.” Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co., Inc., 325 N.C. 172, 175 , 381 S.E.2d 445, 447 (1989), quoting Sides v. Duke Hospital, 74 N.C.App. 331, 342 , 328 S.E.2d 818, 826 , disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331 , 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985). | 6 | 1987–2014 |
Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. 2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. | 2 | 1999–2014 |
Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co.
green
2 sentences2009In reliance on language found in decisions such as Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629 , 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987), overruled in part by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., 347 N.C. 329 , 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997) (“if an employee furnishes ‘additional consideration’.. ., such consideration may take the case out of the usual employment-at-will rule”) (citing Tuttle v. Kemersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216 , 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964)), and Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 77 N.C. 2009In reliance on language found in decisions such as Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629 , 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987), overruled in part by Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., 347 N.C. 329 , 493 S.E.2d 420 (1997) (“if an employee furnishes ‘additional consideration’.. ., such consideration may take the case out of the usual employment-at-will rule”) (citing Tuttle v. Kemersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216 , 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964)), and Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 77 N.C. | 2 | 1987–2009 |
Brackett v. SGL Carbon Corp.
green
2 sentences2015In order to state such a claim, "an employee must plead and prove that the employee's dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Brackett v. SGL Carbon Corp., 158 N.C.App. 252 , 259, 580 S.E.2d 757 , 761-62 (2003) (citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). 2015In order to state such a claim, "an employee must plead and prove that the employee's dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Brackett v. SGL Carbon Corp., 158 N.C.App. 252 , 259, 580 S.E.2d 757 , 761-62 (2003) (citation, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Simmons v. Chemol Corp.
green
2 sentences2015An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged in contravention of public policy." Simmons v. Chemol Corp., 137 N.C.App. 319 , 321-22, 528 S.E.2d 368 , 370 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 2015An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged in contravention of public policy." Simmons v. Chemol Corp., 137 N.C.App. 319 , 321-22, 528 S.E.2d 368 , 370 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Still v. Lance
green
1 sentence2015Id. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Rumple v. DELELLIS
neutral
1 sentence2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Greene v. Richardson
neutral
1 sentence2014App. 75, 80 , 690 S.E.2d 719, 723 (2010), disc. review denied, 365 N.C. 190 , 706 S.E.2d 492 (2011), “[t]he narrow exceptions to [the employment-at-will doctrine] have been grounded in considerations of public policy designed either to prohibit status-based discrimination or to insure the integrity of the judicial process or the enforcement of the law.” Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 , 333–34, 493 S.E.2d 420, 423 (1997), reh’g denied, -7- 347 N.C. 586 , 502 S.E.2d 594 (1998); see, e.g., Ridenhour v. Int’l Bus. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Ridenhour v. International Business MacHines Corp.
green
2 sentences2012The doctrine of employment-at-will, however, “is not without limits^] and a valid claim for relief exists for wrongful discharge of an employee at will if the contract is terminated for an unlawful reason or a purpose that contravenes public policy.” Ridenhour v. IBM, 132 N.C. 2012App. 563, 567 , 512 S.E.2d 774, 777 , disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 595 , 537 S.E.2d 481 (1999) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Blackwell
neutral
1 sentence2012App. 563, 567 , 512 S.E.2d 774, 777 , disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 595 , 537 S.E.2d 481 (1999) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Reis v. Hoots
green
1 sentence2012App. 563, 567 , 512 S.E.2d 774, 777 , disc. review denied, 350 N.C. 595 , 537 S.E.2d 481 (1999) (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Walker v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
green
2 sentences2009App. 253, 260 , 335 S.E.2d 79, 84 (1985), disc. rev. dm. 315 N.C. 597 , 341 S.E.2d 39 (1986), (“If an employee gives some additional consideration in addition to the usual obligation of service, a contract for an indefinite term” might become enforceable) (citation omitted), Defendant argues that the affected employee, and only the affected employee, can provide the consideration needed to create an enforceable agreement. 2009App. 253, 260 , 335 S.E.2d 79, 84 (1985), disc. rev. dm. 315 N.C. 597 , 341 S.E.2d 39 (1986), (“If an employee gives some additional consideration in addition to the usual obligation of service, a contract for an indefinite term” might become enforceable) (citation omitted), Defendant argues that the affected employee, and only the affected employee, can provide the consideration needed to create an enforceable agreement. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Considine v. Compass Group USA, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004To state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an employee has the burden of pleading that his "dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Considine, 145 N.C.App. at 317 , 551 S.E.2d at 181 ; see also Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 331 , 493 S.E.2d at 422 ; Salter v. *399 E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 685, 693 , 575 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2003). 2004To state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, an employee has the burden of pleading that his "dismissal occurred for a reason that violates public policy." Considine, 145 N.C.App. at 317 , 551 S.E.2d at 181 ; see also Kurtzman, 347 N.C. at 331 , 493 S.E.2d at 422 ; Salter v. *399 E & J Healthcare, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 685, 693 , 575 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2003). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gravitte v. Mitsubishi Semiconductor America
neutral
1 sentence2000App. 466, 472 , 428 S.E.2d 254, 258 , disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 163 , 432 S.E.2d 360 (1993). *322 An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged in contravention of public policy. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hinton v. Duke University
neutral
1 sentence2000App. 466, 472 , 428 S.E.2d 254, 258 , disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 163 , 432 S.E.2d 360 (1993). *322 An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged in contravention of public policy. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Gravitte v. Mitsubishi Semiconductor America, Inc.
green
1 sentence2000App. 466, 472 , 428 S.E.2d 254, 258 , disc. review denied, 334 N.C. 163 , 432 S.E.2d 360 (1993). *322 An exception to the employment-at-will doctrine exists when an employee is discharged in contravention of public policy. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Howell v. Town of Carolina Beach
green
1 sentence1999An employee at will has no property interest by virtue of her employment, though an enforceable interest in continued employment may *7 “be created by [statute], or by an implied contract.” Howell v. Town of Carolina Beach, 106 N.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
North Carolina Real Estate Licensing Board v. Aikens
green
1 sentence1999In Real Estate *693 Licensing Board v. Aikens, 31 N.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
McLaughlin v. Barclays American Corp.
green
1 sentence1999In McLaughlin v. Barclays American Corp., plaintiff asked this Court “to recognize, as a public-policy exception to the employee-at-will doctrine, a cause of action for wrongful discharge when the termination results from the employee’s use of self-defense.” 95 N.C. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Salt v. Applied Analytical, Inc. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.