7 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2018 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Swain v. Elflandgreen2 sentences2018Petitioner contends that by filing his second petition in OAH he revived the Superior Court claim, but this Court has previously held otherwise: "[A] state employee may choose to pursue a Whistleblower claim in either forum, [administrative or superior court,] but not both." Swain v. Elfland , 145 N.C. 2018Petitioner contends that by filing his second petition in OAH he revived the Superior Court claim, but this Court has previously held otherwise: "[A] state employee may choose to pursue a Whistleblower claim in either forum, [administrative or superior court,] but not both." Swain v. Elfland , 145 N.C. | 1 | 4 |
Miko v. Commission on Human Rights & Opportunitiesgreen2 sentences2005LEXIS 9545 at *24-25 (applying the McDonnell Douglas proof scheme to a whistleblower claim in the absence of direct evidence of retaliation); Miko v. Comm’n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 220 Conn. 192, 204 , 596 A.2d 396, 403 (1991) (holding that “[w]hen the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination,” Price Waterhouse applies rather than McDonnell Douglas). 2005LEXIS 9545 at *24-25 (applying the McDonnell Douglas proof scheme to a whistleblower claim in the absence of direct evidence of retaliation); Miko v. Comm’n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 220 Conn. 192, 204 , 596 A.2d 396, 403 (1991) (holding that “[w]hen the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination,” Price Waterhouse applies rather than McDonnell Douglas). | 1 | 2 |
Caudill v. Dellingergreen2 sentences2005We note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that "`the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.'" Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C.App. 581 , 584, 448 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F.Supp. 146 , 151 (M.D.N.C.1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C.App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Han 2005App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Hanton v. Gilbert, 126 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Hanton v. Gilbertgreen2 sentences2005We note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that "`the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.'" Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C.App. 581 , 584, 448 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F.Supp. 146 , 151 (M.D.N.C.1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C.App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Han 2005App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Hanton v. Gilbert, 126 N.C. | 1 | 2 |
Huang v. North Carolina State Universitygreen2 sentences2005State University, 107 N.C.App. 710, 715 , 421 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1992). 2005State University, 107 N.C.App. 710, 715 , 421 S.E.2d 812, 815 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
Hobbs v. County of Mooregreen2 sentences2001See Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665, 671 , 149 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1966) (“If possible, the language of a statute will be interpreted so as to avoid an absurd consequence. 2001See Hobbs v. Moore County, 267 N.C. 665, 671 , 149 S.E.2d 1, 5 (1966) (“If possible, the language of a statute will be interpreted so as to avoid an absurd consequence. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 706000
green
2 sentences2005"Direct evidence" has been defined as "evidence of conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged [retaliatory] attitude and that bear directly on the contested *209 employment decision." Fuller, 67 F.3d at 1142 . 2005“Direct evidence” has been defined as “evidence of conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged [retaliatory] attitude and that bear directly on the contested employment decision.” Fuller, 67 F.3d at 1142 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Newberne v. DEPT. OF CRIME CONTROL
green
1 sentence2016Given the two grounds clearly indicated for his requested OAH hearing and the conspicuous absence of any allegation in his petition that his dismissal was the result of retaliation in violation of the Whistleblower Act, the Court held that "the doctrine of administrative exhaustion does not prevent [the] plaintiff from filing a whistleblower claim in superior court." Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
McCauley v. Greensboro City Board of Education
green
1 sentence2005We note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that "`the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.'" Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C.App. 581 , 584, 448 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F.Supp. 146 , 151 (M.D.N.C.1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C.App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Han | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Community College
green
2 sentences2005We note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that "`the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.'" Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C.App. 581 , 584, 448 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F.Supp. 146 , 151 (M.D.N.C.1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C.App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Han 2005We note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that "`the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.'" Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C.App. 581 , 584, 448 S.E.2d 280 , 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F.Supp. 146 , 151 (M.D.N.C.1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C.App. at 655 , 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Han | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Swain v. Elfland
neutral
2 sentences2002App. 383, 388-89 , 550 S.E.2d 530, 535 (dismissing the plaintiff’s whistleblower claim in superior court where plaintiff had previously elected to try this claim in the Office of Administrative Hearings), cert. denied, 354 N.C. 228 , 554 S.E.2d 832 (2001). 2002App. 383, 388-89 , 550 S.E.2d 530, 535 (dismissing the plaintiff’s whistleblower claim in superior court where plaintiff had previously elected to try this claim in the Office of Administrative Hearings), cert. denied, 354 N.C. 228 , 554 S.E.2d 832 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.