NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (2026)

Discrimination prohibited

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 95 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) No person shall discriminate or take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee in good faith does or threatens to do any of the following:

(1) File a claim or complaint, initiate any inquiry, investigation, inspection, proceeding or other action, or testify or provide information to any person with respect to any of the following:

a. Chapter 97 of the General Statutes.

b. Article 2A or Article 16 of this Chapter.

c. Article 2A of Chapter 74 of the General Statutes.

d. G.S. 95-28.1.

e. Article 16 of Chapter 127A of the General Statutes.

f. G.S. 95-28.1A.

g. Article 52 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes.

h. Article 5F of Chapter 90 of the General Statutes.

(2) Cause any of the activities listed in subdivision (1) of this subsection to be initiated on an employee's behalf.

(3) Exercise any right on behalf of the employee or any other employee afforded by Article 2A or Article 16 of this Chapter, by Article 2A of Chapter 74 of the General Statutes, or by Article 52 of Chapter 143 of the General Statutes.

(4) Comply with the provisions of Article 27 of Chapter 7B of the General Statutes.

(5) Exercise rights under Chapter 50B. Actions brought under this subdivision shall be in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 50B-5.5.

(b) It shall not be a violation of this Article for a person to discharge or take any other unfavorable action with respect to an employee who has engaged in protected activity as set forth under this Article if the person proves by the greater weight of the evidence that it would have taken the same unfavorable action in the absence of the protected activity of the employee. (1991 (Reg. Sess., 1992), c. 1021, s. 1; 1993, c. 423, s. 1; 1997-153, s. 7; 1997-350, s. 3; 1998-202, s. 7; 1999-423, s. 4; 2004-186, s. 18.2; 2008-212, s. 1; 2009-205, s. 2.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 86 cases (28 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Pierce v. Atl. Grp., Inc., 724 S.E.2d 568 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pierce v. Atl. Grp., Inc., 724 S.E.2d 568 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 33× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a) (2011) provides that “[n]o person shall discriminate or take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee in good faith does or threatens to .”

Wiley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 594 S.E.2d 809 (N.C. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 10× “Plaintiff alleged that defendant had violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(la) by refusing to return him to work as a retaliatory action for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”

Smith v. Comput. Task Grp., Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 603 (M.D.N.C. 2008). · cites it 12× “Public Policy CTG also moves for summary judgment on Smith’s claim that CTG violated the public policy embodied in REDA, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 95-241, by terminating him for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”

White v. Cochran, 716 S.E.2d 420 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “White alleged that Sheriff Cochran’s actions violated REDA, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (2009), and constituted a wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy set out in § 95-241(a)(l)(a).”

Fatta v. M & M Props. Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 14× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(l)(a) (2011) (emphasis added).”

Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Indus., Inc., 493 S.E.2d 420 (N.C. 1997). · cites it 6× “§ 623 (a) (1988) (Age Discrimination Act); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2a (1988) (Equal Employment Opportunities Act); 42 U.”

Harris v. Blue Ridge Health Servs., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 633 (M.D.N.C. 2019). · cites it 4× “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(1)(b). Article 2A of that Chapter is the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, which includes a provision setting the minimum overtime wage rate at "not less than time and one half of *641 the regular rate of pay of the employee for those hours in excess…”

Tuan H. Nguyen v. Austin Quality Foods, Inc., 974 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D.N.C. 2013). · cites it 13× “The employee received notification of her termination thirty days after the work-related injury, but the termination was not effective until thirty-three days after the injury.”

McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 597 S.E.2d 695 (N.C. 2004). · cites it 3× “, N.C.G.S. § 95-241(b) (2003). Rather, the relevant question is determining whether, upon firing an injured employee for such misconduct, an employer can nevertheless be held responsible for continuing to pay injury benefits to the terminated employee.”

Workman v. Rutherford Elec. Membership Corp., 613 S.E.2d 243 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “, N.C.G.S. § 95-241(b) (2003). Rather, the relevant question is determining whether, upon firing an injured employee for such misconduct, an employer can nevertheless be held responsible for continuing to pay injury benefits to the terminated employee.”

Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 4× “Law § 120 (McKinney 2006); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (2005); Ohio Rev.”

Morris v. Scenera Rsch., LLC, 788 S.E.2d 154 (N.C. 2016). · cites it 3× “*867 We thus hold that proving a willful violation of N.C.G.S. § 95-241 requires a showing of the accused party’s knowledge or reckless disregard of whether an action violated the statute and affirm the Court of Appeals’ holding that competent evidence supported the trial…”

Show all 86 citing cases →

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a) — 11 cases

Fatta v. M & M Props. Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(l)(a) (2011) (emphasis added).”

Harris v. Blue Ridge Health Servs., Inc., 388 F. Supp. 3d 633 (M.D.N.C. 2019). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(1)(b). Article 2A of that Chapter is the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, which includes a provision setting the minimum overtime wage rate at "not less than time and one half of *641 the regular rate of pay of the employee for those hours in excess…”

Driskell v. Summit Contracting Grp., Inc., 325 F. Supp. 3d 665 (W.D.N.C. 2018).

Greene v. Dialysis Clinic, Inc., 159 F. Supp. 2d 228 (W.D.N.C. 2001).

Pierce v. Atl. Grp., Inc., 724 S.E.2d 568 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a) (2011) provides that “[n]o person shall discriminate or take any retaliatory action against an employee because the employee in good faith does or threatens to .”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(1) — 6 cases

Lilly v. Mastec North Am., Inc., 302 F. Supp. 2d 471 (M.D.N.C. 2004).

Green-Hayes v. Handcrafted Homes, LLC, 775 S.E.2d 695 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).

Hopkins v. Mwr Mgmt. Co., 2017 NCBC 46 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2017).

Matthews v. Herc Rentals, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2023).

Kelley v. Charlotte Radiology, P.A., 2019 NCBC 14 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2019).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(1)(b) — 3 cases

Robinson v. Affinia Grp., Inc., 815 F. Supp. 2d 935 (W.D.N.C. 2011).

Wilkins v. Consol. Commc'ns Holdings, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Ehmann v. Medflow, Inc., 2022 NCBC 55 (N.C. Bus. Ct. 2022).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(l) — 4 cases

Tuan H. Nguyen v. Austin Quality Foods, Inc., 974 F. Supp. 2d 879 (E.D.N.C. 2013). “The employee received notification of her termination thirty days after the work-related injury, but the termination was not effective until thirty-three days after the injury.”

White v. Cochran, 716 S.E.2d 420 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011). “White alleged that Sheriff Cochran’s actions violated REDA, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (2009), and constituted a wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy set out in § 95-241(a)(l)(a).”

Smith v. Comput. Task Grp., Inc., 568 F. Supp. 2d 603 (M.D.N.C. 2008). “Public Policy CTG also moves for summary judgment on Smith’s claim that CTG violated the public policy embodied in REDA, N.C. Gen.Stat. § 95-241, by terminating him for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”

Wiley v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 227 F. Supp. 2d 480 (M.D.N.C. 2002).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(l)(a) — 4 cases

Webb v. K.R. Drenth Trucking, Inc., 780 F. Supp. 2d 409 (W.D.N.C. 2011).

Arnett v. Leviton Mfg., Inc., 174 F. Supp. 2d 410 (W.D.N.C. 2001).

Fatta v. M & M Props. Mgmt., Inc., 727 S.E.2d 595 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012). “N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a)(l)(a) (2011) (emphasis added).”

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(a)(l)(b) — 1 case

Robinson v. Affinia Grp., Inc., 815 F. Supp. 2d 935 (W.D.N.C. 2011).

— N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241(b) — 12 cases

McRae v. Toastmaster, Inc., 597 S.E.2d 695 (N.C. 2004). “, N.C.G.S. § 95-241(b) (2003). Rather, the relevant question is determining whether, upon firing an injured employee for such misconduct, an employer can nevertheless be held responsible for continuing to pay injury benefits to the terminated employee.”

Workman v. Rutherford Elec. Membership Corp., 613 S.E.2d 243 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005). “, N.C.G.S. § 95-241(b) (2003). Rather, the relevant question is determining whether, upon firing an injured employee for such misconduct, an employer can nevertheless be held responsible for continuing to pay injury benefits to the terminated employee.”

Edwards v. PCS Phosphate Co., 812 F. Supp. 2d 689 (E.D.N.C. 2011).

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.