Heard-Leak v. N.C. State Univ. Ctr. for Urban Affairs

Citations: 798 S.E.2d 394; 2016 WL 8541062; 2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1367Docket: No. COA15-1300

Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina; October 18, 2016; North Carolina; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

An appeal was filed by North Carolina State University Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services against a summary judgment favoring JoEvelyn Heard-Leak, a career State employee and educational consultant. The court reversed and remanded the decision. 

Heard-Leak was employed to develop and manage the creation of science test items under a contract with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. Her primary responsibilities included ensuring the quality of test items and overseeing teacher contributions. After a supervisory change in April 2013, her new supervisor, Sheila Brown, expressed concerns regarding her performance and attendance but delayed addressing these until her interim performance appraisal in December 2013. 

To assist Heard-Leak, Brown reduced her workload expectations, first to 20-24 items per day, and then further to 16-24 items per day. Despite these adjustments, her performance was unsatisfactory, averaging less than one item per day from January to April 2014. Consequently, she received a Written Warning for Unsatisfactory Job Performance on April 29, 2014, detailing her inadequate task completion, early departures, and unnotified absences, followed by a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) aimed at helping her meet expectations.

Despite ongoing support, Heard-Leak continued to struggle, leading to a Final Written Warning on July 15, 2014, which noted her lack of improvement and warned of potential dismissal. By September 11, 2014, a pre-dismissal notice was issued, indicating that she had only worked 46 out of 80 days and completed just 63 items instead of the expected 230 during the specified period.

On September 11, 2014, a pre-dismissal letter indicated that the petitioner had not shown significant improvement in work performance, remaining well below expectations despite coaching and disciplinary actions. During a pre-dismissal conference on September 15, 2014, the petitioner admitted to not meeting expectations. Following this, on September 17, 2014, the petitioner received a Notice of Dismissal citing her unsatisfactory job performance, referencing prior warnings and reviews. The petitioner filed a grievance on November 19, 2014, claiming her dismissal lacked just cause and was discriminatory. On January 30, 2015, the final decision upheld the dismissal, stating procedural and substantive requirements were met, and the petitioner failed to demonstrate discrimination.

On February 16, 2015, the petitioner filed for a contested case hearing. During the hearing, testimonies from Brown and Brannon confirmed that the decision to discipline the petitioner was based on documented performance concerns over several months. The hearing was later recessed and rescheduled. On August 7, 2015, the petitioner filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that the respondent did not comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-35 by failing to provide a detailed list of reasons for her dismissal. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the respondent exceeded authority and did not follow proper procedures, granting the motion and ordering reinstatement, back pay, and attorney's fees. The ALJ did not provide written findings or conclusions. The respondent appealed, contending that the ALJ erred by granting the summary judgment since they had met procedural requirements for dismissal.

Judicial review of an agency's summary judgment ruling follows N.C. Gen. Stat. 150B-51(d) (2015), permitting the court to issue any order permissible under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 12(c) or Rule 56. If the ruling does not fully resolve the case, the court must remand it to the administrative law judge for further proceedings. The review standard aligns with Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court conducts a de novo review, as established in Krueger v. N.C. Criminal Justice Educ. Training Standards Comm'n. Summary judgment is warranted when there are no genuine material facts in dispute, as per N.C. Gen. Stat. 1A-1, Rule 56(c), with all factual inferences drawn against the moving party. Adequacy of notice is a legal question, but specifics of a dismissal letter are fact-dependent.

N.C. Gen. Stat. 126-35(a) mandates that career State employees must receive a written statement detailing the reasons for their termination. The statute aims to allow employees to understand the basis for their discharge and to facilitate an effective appeal. Notice must be sufficiently particular to inform the employee of the specific acts or omissions leading to their dismissal. However, employees are not entitled to receive every piece of evidence related to their conduct. The case of Nix v. Dep't of Admin illustrated that a dismissal letter citing inadequate performance and lack of improvement since prior warnings met the specificity requirement, affirming that the employee was already aware of performance expectations.

In Skinner v. N.C. Dep't of Corr., the court upheld an employee's demotion due to inadequate job performance, highlighting that the employee received multiple written warnings and a pre-demotion conference detailing the reasons for the disciplinary action. Similarly, in the current case, the respondent's dismissal letter dated 17 September 2014 outlined the specific reasons for the petitioner's termination, citing unsatisfactory job performance supported by numerous prior written warnings. The respondent tracked the petitioner's productivity from January 2014, emphasizing expectations of producing 16-24 written items per day. A warning letter dated 29 April 2014 indicated a pattern of inefficiency and failure to meet deadlines, with specific dates of underperformance listed. Despite receiving clear daily targets and guidelines, the petitioner consistently failed to meet the minimum expectations for her role. The 15 July 2014 warning letter reiterated ongoing performance issues, noting the petitioner’s work quality was subpar and her production levels were inadequate compared to peers. Prior to her dismissal, a pre-dismissal letter on 11 September 2014 confirmed that the petitioner had not shown significant improvement despite ongoing support and multiple disciplinary actions, resulting in her termination for failing to meet the basic responsibilities of her position.

The dismissal letter dated 17 September 2014 indicated that the petitioner failed to provide justification for her continued employment and acknowledged her noncompliance with performance expectations. The trial court prematurely granted summary judgment, concluding that the petitioner was inadequately notified prior to termination. However, the dismissal letter clearly outlined the reasons for her discharge, which included prior notice of unsatisfactory performance reviews, a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) detailing required improvements, ongoing feedback through progress meetings, two written warnings regarding her performance, and a pre-disciplinary conference notice about her dismissal consideration. This evidence suggests that the petitioner was sufficiently informed to prepare an effective defense against her discharge. Additionally, the court noted that while an employee is entitled to adequate notice of the rationale for disciplinary action, they are not entitled to every piece of evidence considered in the decision. The court referenced a recent Supreme Court ruling emphasizing that work history is a relevant factor in determining just cause for termination. The trial court's summary judgment was deemed erroneous, and the case is remanded to the administrative law judge to proceed with the case-in-chief regarding the petitioner's dismissal for just cause. The ruling was reversed and remanded, with no need to address the respondent's other arguments on appeal.