Hopkins v. MWR Management Co.
| Citation | 2017 NCBC 46 . |
| Decision Date | 31 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | 15 CVS 697 |
| Parties | BRANDON HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. MWR MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a MICHAEL WALTRIP RACING and TY NORRIS, Defendants. |
| Court | Superior Courts of Law and Equity of North Carolina |
Van Kampen Law, PC, by Joshua R. Van Kampen, Sean F. Herrmann and Kevin P. Murphy, for Plaintiff Brandon Hopkins.
James McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Jon P. Carroll and Adam L Ross, for Defendants MWR Management Company and Ty Norris.
1. THIS MATTER is before the Court upon (i) Plaintiff Brandon Hopkins's ("Plaintiff" or "Hopkins") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Plaintiff's Motion") and (ii) Defendants MWR Management Company d/b/a Michael Waltrip Racing ("MWR" or "Michael Waltrip Racing") and Ty Norris's ("Norris, " collectively, "Defendants") Motion for Summary Judgment ("Defendants' Motion, " collectively, the "Motions") in the above-captioned case. Having considered the Motions, the briefs and evidence in support of and in opposition to the Motions, and the arguments of counsel at a hearing on the Motions, the Court herein GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Motions.
2. This action arises out of the termination of Brandon Hopkins's employment as a pit crew member for one of the race teams operated by Defendant Michael Waltrip Racing.
3. Plaintiff initiated this action on January 12, 2015 and filed an amended complaint on May 26, 2015. On November 5, 2015, the Court dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and also granted Plaintiff leave to amend the complaint a second time to assert certain new claims. Hopkins v. MWR Mgmt. Co., 2015 NCBC LEXIS 104 (N.C. Super. Ct. Nov. 5, 2015).
4. Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint on November 10, 2015, asserting three claims against both MWR and Norris for (1) defamation, (2) tortious interference with contract, and, alternatively, (3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, and four additional claims solely against MWR for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, (2) violation of the North Carolina Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act ("REDA"), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-240 et seq., (3) violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq., and (4) violation of the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq.
5. The Court subsequently granted in part and denied in part Defendants' partial motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, dismissing only Plaintiff's ADA claim to the extent that claim was based on Plaintiff's alleged actual disability in the major life activity of sleeping. Hopkins v. MWR Mgmt. Co., 2016 NCBC LEXIS 40 .
6. Defendants assert counterclaims against Plaintiff for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, (3) misappropriation of trade secrets in violation of the North Carolina Trade Secrets Protection Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 66-152 et seq., (4) unfair or deceptive trade practices under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1, (5) trespass to chattels, and (6) punitive damages.
7. On September 1, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendants filed their respective Motions for Summary Judgment. Each party seeks summary judgment on all of the claims asserted by the opposing party. The Court held a hearing on the Motions on November 3, 2016, at which all parties were represented by counsel. The Motions are now ripe for resolution.
8. The Court does not make findings of fact on motions for summary judgment. Instead, the Court summarizes the facts before it, noting undisputed and contested facts, to provide context for the claims and its ruling on the Motions. See Hyde Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing Corp., 26 N.C.App. 138, 142, 215 S.E.2d 162, 164-65 (1975).
9. MWR previously owned and operated two race teams-the #15 team and the #55 team-that competed in NASCAR's Sprint Cup Series. MWR ceased operations in December 2015.
10. MWR first hired Hopkins to join its pit crew in November 2011 as a tire changer pursuant to a one-year contract. The first one-year contract was followed by a similar one-year agreement in 2012. Hopkins became the front tire changer on MWR's #15 car, and in September 2013, he and MWR executed a two-year contract for Hopkins to continue working through the 2015 race season. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 3, hereinafter "Employment Agreement.")
11. The Employment Agreement contained a confidentiality agreement and a covenant not to compete. (Employment Agreement ¶¶ 7-8.) The non-compete provision provided that "in the event this Agreement is terminated for any reason other than . . . by the Company without cause, " Hopkins would not accept a paying position with another NASCAR Nationwide Series or Sprint Cup Series team for up to one year. (Employment Agreement ¶ 8.) Hopkins received a copy of MWR's employee manual ("Employee Manual") in conjunction with his execution of the Employment Agreement. (Countercl. ¶ 24; Reply ¶ 24.)
12. NASCAR tire changers use "pit guns" to change tires during races. In late 2013, MWR began developing a proprietary line of "clutch guns"-a type of pit gun- to keep up with other teams who were also using the emerging clutch gun technology. (Watson Dep. 68:4-9; 83:13-20). MWR assigned Hopkins to work closely with Brian Watson, MWR's in-house engineer, on the clutch gun program; Hopkins helped test the clutch guns, provided MWR's engineer with feedback after races, and disassembled and serviced the clutch guns. (Watson Dep. 83:21-84:6; 85:4-9.) MWR placed great trust in Hopkins to securely transport the clutch guns to and from races. (Norris 237:13-23.)
13. MWR considered its clutch gun program to be confidential and proprietary. MWR limited access to the "shock room" where the clutch guns were stored and serviced, (Watson Dep. 37:2-4), and it required its employees to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements prior to permitting access to the clutch guns, (Myers Dep. 324:2-8). Prior to Hopkins's termination, MWR allowed its pit crew members to use MWR clutch guns when moonlighting in other NASCAR series races, although it required those pit crew members to get permission before doing so. (Watson Dep. 91:10-22.) Hopkins argues, however, that MWR was lax in enforcing these rules. (Miller Dep. 139:1-12.)
14. Hopkins injured his shoulder in October 2013 after being struck by the #15 car during a race. (Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 5.) MWR did not dispute the cause of Hopkins's injury prior to the filing of this action, although MWR now contends that discovery has shown that Hopkins sustained his injury outside of work. (Defs.' Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. 5 n.3.) Hopkins worked with Pamela Brown, MWR's in-house athletic trainer, to treat his shoulder, but the injury worsened, and MWR opened a worker's compensation claim for Hopkins on January 30, 2014. (Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Ex. 10.) In March 2014, Hopkins underwent an MRI, which revealed that he had a torn labrum. Hopkins's doctors advised that he needed surgery to repair the injury. Hopkins and Brown scheduled his surgery to occur some seven months later, after the last race of the season in November 2014. (Hopkins Dep. 328:11-15.)[1] Hopkins argues that MWR pressured him into delaying surgery until the season was over, whereas MWR contends that Hopkins wanted to complete the season before repairing his shoulder.
15. Despite his injury, Hopkins continued working as a pit crew member at races. After a particularly painful race, however, Hopkins reported to MWR that he could no longer tolerate his injury and on July 30, 2014, demanded that his surgery be rescheduled to occur as soon as possible. (Hopkins Dep. 344:10-25.) Brown promptly rescheduled Hopkins's surgery to occur less than two weeks later on August 7, 2014. (Hopkins Dep. 353:2-6.)
16. The parties expected Hopkins's shoulder to need twelve weeks of recovery time after surgery before he could resume his pit crew duties. (Hopkins Dep. 409:25- 410:7.) Hopkins discussed a plan with his supervisors to be out of work for twelve days of worker's compensation leave, after which he would return to full-time office work while his shoulder healed. (Hopkins Dep. 410:17-24; Smith Dep. 247:14- 248:14.)[2] The parties expected that Hopkins would be able to resume training with his teammates approximately six weeks after surgery. (Hopkins Dep. 412:10-11.) The plan called for Dave Collins to serve as Hopkins's replacement until Hopkins was medically cleared to return to work, with the possibility that he would be back for the last three races of the 2014 season. (Smith Dep. 249:7-11; Hopkins Dep. 410:1-7.)
17. On Monday, August 4, 2014, three days before Hopkins's scheduled surgery, Hopkins met with Norris in Norris's office to discuss Hopkins's future at MWR. All parties agree that this conversation occurred, although they dispute what exactly was said. Hopkins states that he had heard from pit crew members on other teams that MWR intended to replace Hopkins as the front tire changer on the #15 car. (Hopkins Dep. 579:5-12.) This particularly troubled Hopkins because his contract extended through the following year's race season. (Hopkins Dep. 583:8-11; Employment Agreement ¶ 2.) Hopkins asked Norris about these rumors, and received assurances from Norris that his job was safe. (Hopkins Dep. 584:21-23.)
18. Norris agrees that he and Hopkins discussed Hopkins's "contract situation" in the August 4 meeting because Hopkins was "worried about his job when he came back [from surgery]." (Norris Dep. 350:19-25.) Norris also agrees that he attempted...
To continue reading
Request your trial