25 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sides v. Duke Universitygreen2 sentences2020App. 663, 671 , 493 S.E.2d 74, 79 (1997) (affirming dismissal of wrongful discharge claims against individual defendants “as they were not plaintiff’s employers for the purposes of a wrongful discharge claim”); Sides, 74 N.C. 2020App. at 343 , 328 S.E.2d at 827 (dismissing wrongful discharge claim against individual defendants as plaintiff’s employment contract was with the corporate defendant, not her supervisors). | 3 | 3 |
Hill v. Medfordgreen2 sentences2016App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev'd, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting Judge Martin’s dissent) (holding that when an at-will employee is terminated and brings a wrongful discharge claim, the employee “does not have a claim for breach of contract against his or her employer on that basis.”). {43} Although our courts have recognized that a party may “allege that he was an at-will employee with a tort claim for wrongful discharge or, alternatively, a contract employee with a breach of contract claim,” Hill, 158 N.C. 2016App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev'd, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting Judge Martin’s dissent) (holding that when an at-will employee is terminated and brings a wrongful discharge claim, the employee “does not have a claim for breach of contract against his or her employer on that basis.”). {43} Although our courts have recognized that a party may “allege that he was an at-will employee with a tort claim for wrongful discharge or, alternatively, a contract employee with a breach of contract claim,” Hill, 158 N.C. | 2 | 3 |
Jarman v. Deasongreen2 sentences2022Although no private cause of action exists under the EEPA, “[t]his Court has repeatedly recognized that the EEPA may form the basis for a wrongful discharge claim.” Jarman v. Deason, 173 N.C. 2022Although no private cause of action exists under the EEPA, “[t]his Court has repeatedly recognized that the EEPA may form the basis for a wrongful discharge claim.” Jarman v. Deason, 173 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Presnell v. Pellgreen2 sentences2005Plaintiff admits in his complaint that he "did not exhaust his potential administrative remedies for his claim of retaliation[.]" As our Supreme Court stated in Presnell v. Pell, interrupting administrative proceedings through "`premature intervention by the courts would completely destroy the efficiency, effectiveness, and purpose of the administrative agencies.'" Presnell, 298 N.C. 715, 722 , 260 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1979) (citations omitted) (the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was properly dismissed pursuant to N.C. 2005Plaintiff admits in his complaint that he "did not exhaust his potential administrative remedies for his claim of retaliation[.]" As our Supreme Court stated in Presnell v. Pell, interrupting administrative proceedings through "`premature intervention by the courts would completely destroy the efficiency, effectiveness, and purpose of the administrative agencies.'" Presnell, 298 N.C. 715, 722 , 260 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1979) (citations omitted) (the plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim was properly dismissed pursuant to N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Rishel v. Nationwide Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2026Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 854, 875 (2003) (“When considering a wrongful-discharge claim on the basis of age under North Carolina law, this Court has previously held that it ‘should apply the same standards that apply under the ADEA.’ ” (quoting Alderman v. Inmar Enters., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 532, 546 (M.D.N.C. 2002))). 61. | 1 | 1 |
Alderman v. Inmar Enterprises, Inc.green1 sentence2026Co., 297 F. Supp. 2d 854, 875 (2003) (“When considering a wrongful-discharge claim on the basis of age under North Carolina law, this Court has previously held that it ‘should apply the same standards that apply under the ADEA.’ ” (quoting Alderman v. Inmar Enters., Inc., 201 F. Supp. 2d 532, 546 (M.D.N.C. 2002))). 61. | 1 | 1 |
Lorbacher v. Housing Authority of Raleighgreen1 sentence2020App. 663, 671 , 493 S.E.2d 74, 79 (1997) (affirming dismissal of wrongful discharge claims against individual defendants “as they were not plaintiff’s employers for the purposes of a wrongful discharge claim”); Sides, 74 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Blakeley v. The Town of Taylortowngreen1 sentence2017App. at 448–49, 756 S.E.2d at 884 (finding that, for a wrongful discharge claim, “plaintiff was not required to show either ‘severe emotional distress’ or ‘extreme and outrageous conduct’ by defendant” to recover emotional distress damages). ii. | 1 | 1 |
Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hillgreen2 sentences2015Id. at ----, 745 S.E.2d at 325 ("A retaliatory firing based upon an employee's filing of a claim of discrimination in the workplace clearly violates public policy and could support a wrongful discharge claim." (emphasis added)); see also N.C. 2015Id. at ----, 745 S.E.2d at 325 ("A retaliatory firing based upon an employee's filing of a claim of discrimination in the workplace clearly violates public policy and could support a wrongful discharge claim." (emphasis added)); see also N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Salter v. E & J HEALTHCARE, INC.green2 sentences2009App. at 694 , 575 S.E.2d at 52 (affirming grant of summary judgment when plaintiff failed to substantiate any statutory violations even though the statute at issue could be a source of public policy for purposes of wrongful discharge claim). *164 In addition, in Garner v. Rentenback Constructors, Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 572 , 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999), our Supreme Court held that a violation of a statute, standing alone, is not sufficient for a wrongful discharge claim, but rather there must be “a degree of intent or wilfulness on the part of the employer.” In that case, because the plaintiff had 2009App. at 694 , 575 S.E.2d at 52 (affirming grant of summary judgment when plaintiff failed to substantiate any statutory violations even though the statute at issue could be a source of public policy for purposes of wrongful discharge claim). *164 In addition, in Garner v. Rentenback Constructors, Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 572 , 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999), our Supreme Court held that a violation of a statute, standing alone, is not sufficient for a wrongful discharge claim, but rather there must be “a degree of intent or wilfulness on the part of the employer.” In that case, because the plaintiff had | 1 | 1 |
Garner v. Rentenbach Constructors Inc.green2 sentences2009App. at 694 , 575 S.E.2d at 52 (affirming grant of summary judgment when plaintiff failed to substantiate any statutory violations even though the statute at issue could be a source of public policy for purposes of wrongful discharge claim). *164 In addition, in Garner v. Rentenback Constructors, Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 572 , 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999), our Supreme Court held that a violation of a statute, standing alone, is not sufficient for a wrongful discharge claim, but rather there must be “a degree of intent or wilfulness on the part of the employer.” In that case, because the plaintiff had 2009App. at 694 , 575 S.E.2d at 52 (affirming grant of summary judgment when plaintiff failed to substantiate any statutory violations even though the statute at issue could be a source of public policy for purposes of wrongful discharge claim). *164 In addition, in Garner v. Rentenback Constructors, Inc., 350 N.C. 567, 572 , 515 S.E.2d 438, 441 (1999), our Supreme Court held that a violation of a statute, standing alone, is not sufficient for a wrongful discharge claim, but rather there must be “a degree of intent or wilfulness on the part of the employer.” In that case, because the plaintiff had | 1 | 1 |
Badih v. Myersgreen2 sentences2005See also Badih v. Myers, 36 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1293 , 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 231 (1995) (distinguishing Jennings with respect to a wrongful discharge claim based on sex discrimination because "sex discrimination ... is prohibited not only by the [Fair Employment and Housing Act] but also by article I, section 8 of the California Constitution"), *782 disc. review denied, No. 5048587, 1995 Cal. LEXIS 6410 (Cal. Oct. 19, 1995). 2005See also Badih v. Myers, 36 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1293 , 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 229, 231 (1995) (distinguishing Jennings with respect to a wrongful discharge claim based on sex discrimination because "sex discrimination ... is prohibited not only by the [Fair Employment and Housing Act] but also by article I, section 8 of the California Constitution"), *782 disc. review denied, No. 5048587, 1995 Cal. LEXIS 6410 (Cal. Oct. 19, 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Burton v. Exam Center Industrial & General Medical Clinic, Inc.green2 sentences2005See Jennings, 8 Cal.4th at 135 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d at 284 , 876 P.2d at 1083 ("The Legislature's decision to exclude small employers from the [fair employment act] and the omission of any other legislation barring discrimination on the basis of age precludes finding a fundamental policy that extends to age discrimination by small employers." (emphasis added)); Burton, 2000 UT 18 at ¶ 14 , 994 P.2d at 1266 ("There is no such constitutional or statutory declaration of public policy in Utah against discrimination on account of age in the termination of employment of employees of small employers."). 2005See Jennings, 8 Cal.4th at 135 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d at 284 , 876 P.2d at 1083 ("The Legislature's decision to exclude small employers from the [fair employment act] and the omission of any other legislation barring discrimination on the basis of age precludes finding a fundamental policy that extends to age discrimination by small employers." (emphasis added)); Burton, 2000 UT 18 at ¶ 14 , 994 P.2d at 1266 ("There is no such constitutional or statutory declaration of public policy in Utah against discrimination on account of age in the termination of employment of employees of small employers."). | 1 | 1 |
Jennings v. Marrallegreen2 sentences2005See Jennings, 8 Cal.4th at 135 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d at 284 , 876 P.2d at 1083 ("The Legislature's decision to exclude small employers from the [fair employment act] and the omission of any other legislation barring discrimination on the basis of age precludes finding a fundamental policy that extends to age discrimination by small employers." (emphasis added)); Burton, 2000 UT 18 at ¶ 14 , 994 P.2d at 1266 ("There is no such constitutional or statutory declaration of public policy in Utah against discrimination on account of age in the termination of employment of employees of small employers."). 2005See Jennings, 8 Cal.4th at 135 , 32 Cal.Rptr.2d at 284 , 876 P.2d at 1083 ("The Legislature's decision to exclude small employers from the [fair employment act] and the omission of any other legislation barring discrimination on the basis of age precludes finding a fundamental policy that extends to age discrimination by small employers." (emphasis added)); Burton, 2000 UT 18 at ¶ 14 , 994 P.2d at 1266 ("There is no such constitutional or statutory declaration of public policy in Utah against discrimination on account of age in the termination of employment of employees of small employers."). | 1 | 1 |
Simmons v. Chemol Corp.green2 sentences2005See, e.g., Simmons v. Chemol Corp., 137 N.C.App. 319, 322 , 528 S.E.2d 368, 370 (2000) (wrongful discharge claim for handicap discrimination based upon N.C. 2005See, e.g., Simmons v. Chemol Corp., 137 N.C.App. 319, 322 , 528 S.E.2d 368, 370 (2000) (wrongful discharge claim for handicap discrimination based upon N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Considine v. Compass Group USA, Inc.green2 sentences2004USA, Inc ., this Court held that an at-will employee may only bring a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of established public policy. 145 N.C.App. 314, 317 , 551 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2001). 2004USA, Inc ., this Court held that an at-will employee may only bring a wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of established public policy. 145 N.C.App. 314, 317 , 551 S.E.2d 179, 183 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
| Corum v. University of North Carolinagreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hughes v. Town of Oak Island
green
2 sentences2016App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev'd, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting Judge Martin’s dissent) (holding that when an at-will employee is terminated and brings a wrongful discharge claim, the employee “does not have a claim for breach of contract against his or her employer on that basis.”). {43} Although our courts have recognized that a party may “allege that he was an at-will employee with a tort claim for wrongful discharge or, alternatively, a contract employee with a breach of contract claim,” Hill, 158 N.C. 2015App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev’d, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting then- Judge Martin’s dissent). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Hill v. Medford
green
2 sentences2016App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev'd, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting Judge Martin’s dissent) (holding that when an at-will employee is terminated and brings a wrongful discharge claim, the employee “does not have a claim for breach of contract against his or her employer on that basis.”). {43} Although our courts have recognized that a party may “allege that he was an at-will employee with a tort claim for wrongful discharge or, alternatively, a contract employee with a breach of contract claim,” Hill, 158 N.C. 2015App. 618, 627 , 582 S.E.2d 325, 331 (Martin, J., dissenting), rev’d, 357 N.C. 650 , 588 S.E.2d 467 (2003) (adopting then- Judge Martin’s dissent). | 2 | 2015–2016 |
Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells
green
1 sentence2026As the Supreme Court has observed, the definition of employee under both Title VII and the ADEA does little to advance the analysis because it is “completely circular.” Clackamas, 538 U.S. at 444 (quoting Nationwide Mut. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Phillips v. Gray
green
1 sentence2018App. 52 , 57-58, 592 S.E.2d 229 , 233 (2004) (holding that a plaintiff's rights were adequately protected by a wrongful discharge claim against a Sheriff in his individual capacity so that dismissal of the plaintiff's free speech claim against the Sheriff in his official capacity was appropriate). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bowling v. MARGARET R. PARDEE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
green
1 sentence2017Id. at 818, 635 S.E.2d at 627 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Combs v. City Electric Supply Co.
green
2 sentences2015This Court held that because the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim was based upon his termination in retaliation for reporting that the defendant obtained money from customers by false pretenses, his claim fell within “the very narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.” Id. at 83 , 690 S.E.2d at 725 . 2015This Court held that because the plaintiff’s wrongful discharge claim was based upon his termination in retaliation for reporting that the defendant obtained money from customers by false pretenses, his claim fell within “the very narrow public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.” Id. at 83 , 690 S.E.2d at 725 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Boesche v. Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority
green
1 sentence2015App. at 152 , 432 S.E.2d at 139 . {25} When an at-will employee is terminated and brings a wrongful discharge claim, the employee “does not have a claim for breach of contract against his or her employer on that basis.” Hill v. Medford, 158 N.C. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Trought v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 762 , 338 S.E.2d at 620 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Trought v. Richardson
green
1 sentence2013Id. at 762 , 338 S.E.2d at 620 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Molesworth v. Brandon
green
2 sentences2005Maryland's highest court has held that an employee may pursue a wrongful discharge claim based on sex discrimination despite an exclusion in its Fair Employment Practices Act for small employers because "Maryland's public policy against sex discrimination is ubiquitous." Molesworth, 341 Md. at 632 , 672 A.2d at 613 . 2005Maryland's highest court has held that an employee may pursue a wrongful discharge claim based on sex discrimination despite an exclusion in its Fair Employment Practices Act for small employers because "Maryland's public policy against sex discrimination is ubiquitous." Molesworth, 341 Md. at 632 , 672 A.2d at 613 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Bennett v. Hardy
green
2 sentences2005Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash. 2d 912, 926 , 784 P.2d 1258 , 1264 (1990). 2005Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wash.2d 912, 926 , 784 P.2d 1258 , 1264 (1990). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 173-74 , 381 S.E.2d at 446 . 2004Id. at 173-74 , 381 S.E.2d at 446 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Guthrie v. Conroy
green
2 sentences2004Guthrie, 152 N.C.App. at 19-20 , 567 S.E.2d at 407 ; Russell, 129 N.C.App. at 521 , 500 S.E.2d at 730 ; see also Harrison v. Edison Bros. 2004Guthrie, 152 N.C.App. at 19-20 , 567 S.E.2d at 407 ; Russell, 129 N.C.App. at 521 , 500 S.E.2d at 730 ; see also Harrison v. Edison Bros. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Russell v. Buchanan
green
2 sentences2004Guthrie, 152 N.C.App. at 19-20 , 567 S.E.2d at 407 ; Russell, 129 N.C.App. at 521 , 500 S.E.2d at 730 ; see also Harrison v. Edison Bros. 2004Guthrie, 152 N.C.App. at 19-20 , 567 S.E.2d at 407 ; Russell, 129 N.C.App. at 521 , 500 S.E.2d at 730 ; see also Harrison v. Edison Bros. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Graham v. Hardee's Food Systems, Inc. green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Barnett v. Karpinos green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Carpenter v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Lenzer v. Flaherty green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc. green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.