It is the intent and purpose of this Chapter to establish for the government of the State a system of personnel administration under the Governor, based on accepted principles of personnel administration and applying the best methods as evolved in government and industry. It is also the intent of this Chapter that this system of personnel administration shall apply to local employees paid entirely or in part from federal funds, except to the extent that local governing boards are authorized by this Chapter to establish local rules, local pay plans, and local personnel systems. It is also the intent of this Chapter to make provisions for a decentralized system of personnel administration, where appropriate, and without additional cost to the State, with the State Human Resources Commission as the policy and rulemaking body. The Office of State Human Resources shall make recommendations for policies and rules to the Commission based on research and study in the field of personnel management, develop and administer statewide standards and criteria for good personnel management, provide training and technical assistance to all agencies, departments, and institutions, provide oversight, which includes conducting audits to monitor compliance with established State Human Resources Commission policies and rules, administer a system for implementing necessary corrective actions when the rule, standards, or criteria are not met, and serve as the central repository for State Human Resources system data. The agency, department, and institution heads shall be responsible and accountable for execution of Commission policies and rules for their employees. (1965, c. 640, s. 2; 1997-349, s. 1; 2013-382, s. 9.1(c); 2014-115, s. 55.4(c); 2025-25, s. 29(6).)
Notes of Decisions
Watlington v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. Rockingham Cty., 799 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 10× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-1 (2015). The State Human Resources Commission establishes the procedures and rules governing many aspects of this personnel system.”
Peace v. Emp. SEC. Com'n of North Carolina, 507 S.E.2d 272 (N.C. 1998).
· cites it 6× “The State Personnel System, created by chapter 126 of the General Statutes, strives to implement a program of employee management "based on accepted principles of personnel administration and applying the best methods as evolved in government and industry.”
Johnson v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 418 S.E.2d 700 (N.C. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 6× “(1989), the State Personnel Act, N.C.G.S. § 126-1 (1991), and the Administrative Rules of the Office of State Personnel, 25 N.”
Hodge v. North Carolina Dep't of Transp., 528 S.E.2d 22 (N.C. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Appellant contends that the superior court lacks jurisdiction over the matter and that the State Personnel Commission has exclusive original jurisdiction pursuant to N.”
Caudill v. Dellinger, 501 S.E.2d 99 (N.C. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “The Whistleblower Act Chapter 126 of the North Carolina General Statutes (State Personnel System) was enacted in 1965 for the express purpose of "establish[ing] for the government of the State a system of personnel administration under the Governor.”
Hooper v. North Carolina, 379 F. Supp. 2d 804 (M.D.N.C. 2005).
· cites it 2× “” N.C. GemStat. § 126-5(c)(l). The SPA defines a “career state employee” as an employee of the State who is “in a permanent position appointment” and who has held “a position subject to the State Personnel Act for the immediate 24 preceding months.”
Buser v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 73 F. Supp. 2d 556 (M.D.N.C. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” N.C.Gen.Stat. § 126-1. 9 . Although this Court finds that the Administrative Code provision in Coman is materially different from the provision cited by Buser in this case, the Court also notes that the Coman court also cited to sections of the North Carolina General Statutes…”
Steward v. Green, 657 S.E.2d 719 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “In Plaintiff's complaint, her first claim for relief prayed for declaratory judgment that the Guilford County Personnel Regulations were not "substantially equivalent" to the standards established by N.C. Gen.Stat. § 126-1, et seq. Plaintiff specifically contended that the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.