Thomas v. Catawba College
| Decision Date | 30 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 738,738 |
| Citation | 104 S.E.2d 175,248 N.C. 609 |
| Parties | Christopher J. THOMAS v. CATAWBA COLLEGE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Barnie P. Jones and W. R. Dalton, Jr., Burlington, for plaintiff, appellant.
McLendon, Brim, Holderness & Brooks, C. T. Leonard, Jr., Greensboro, and Linn & Linn, Salisbury, for defendant, appellee.
No evidence was offered to support plaintiff's further allegations that defendant, after plaintiff's discharge, made statements, false, wilful, malicious or otherwise, to prospective employers of plaintiff, and thereby interfered with plaintiff's efforts to obtain other employment; and no evidence was offered to support plaintiff's allegations that the Board of Trustees acted 'maliciously, tortiously and wilfully' to carry out a preconceived and deliberate scheme to ruin plaintiff. Indeed, a witness for plaintiff testified that each member of the Board of Trustees was 'a man of outstanding reputation and character' and undertook to serve the college in the capacity of Trustee 'with absolute faithfulness and honesty' and in obedience to what he conceived to be his conscientious duty. Without further comment, we pass from these unsupported allegations of the complaint.
The Board of Trustees terminated plaintiff's employment as of February 23, 1952. Conceding the power of the Board of Trustees to discharge him, thus severing his connection with Catawba College, plaintiff denies the right of the Board of Trustees to discharge him otherwise than for 'adequate cause.' He contends that 'adequate cause' for his discharge did not exist. Hence, he contends he was discharged wrongfully.
Consideration of the record leaves the impression that the proceedings before the hearing committee and Board of Trustees were in good faith and in substantial compliance with paragraph (a) (4) of the tenure policy. However, the basis of decision, stated below, renders unnecessary the discussion or decision of questions raised as to whether the action of the Board of Trustees when rendered was a final determination that plaintiff's dismissal was for 'adequate cause.'
Plaintiff had full notice and knowledge that his dismissal was based on the determination by the hearing committee and the Board of Trustees that 'adequate cause' for his dismissal existed. Moreover, he had full notice and knowledge that the resolution of the Board of Trustees, quoted in the notification of dismissal, contained this provision: Thus, he was advised plainly that the $4,175 paid to him during the year following notification of dismissal was paid to him as salary.
Obviously, the provision in paragraph (a) (4) of the tenure policy, regarding payment of salary for one year following notification of dismissal, is applicable only when 'adequate cause' for dismissal has been determined after proceedings conducted in accordance with its terms; and, in such case, the payment of the discharged employee's salary for one year is both the measure and the limit of defendant's obligation. It does not bear upon the respective rights of the parties in case of wrongful discharge in breach of contract. In the latter case, the discharged employee's remedy is an action to recover damages for defendant's breach of contract.
The wrongful discharge of plaintiff by defendant, if such occurred, would constitute a breach of defendant's contract with plaintiff and give rise to a cause of action in favor of plaintiff and against defendant; but in such action the measure of the damages recoverable would be the actual loss or damage...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sanders v. Duke University
...contract between a university and its faculty members has not been addressed by the North Carolina courts. See Thomas v. Catawba College, 248 N.C. 609, 104 S.E.2d 175 (1958) (question avoided). Accordingly, the courts of North Carolina, not a federal court, should initially resolve the For ......
-
Wirth v. Bracey, s. 528
...rule in this jurisdiction. Surratt v. Lambeth Insurance Agency, 244 N.C. 121, 93 S.E.2d 72, and cases cited; Thomas v. Catawba College, 248 N.C. 609, 616, 104 S.E.2d 175. There is no inconsistency in respect of plaintiffs' claims against the Highway Commission and their actions against Brac......
-
F. D. Cline Paving Co. v. Southland Speedways, Inc.
...was no inconsistency in plaintiff's procedure, it was not called upon to make an election as to the remedy sought. Thomas v. Catawba College, 248 N.C. 609, 104 S.E.2d 175; Carrow v. Weston, 247 N.C. 735, 102 S.E.2d 134; Surratt v. Charles E. Lambeth Insurance Agency, 244 N.C. 121, 93 S.E.2d......
-
Bloch v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.
...compensation and the amount plaintiff earned or by reasonable effort could earn during the contract period." Thomas v. Catawba College, 248 N.C. 609, 615, 104 S.E.2d 175, 179 (1958) (citations omitted) (emphasis supplied); see also, Lowery v. Love, 93 N.C.App. 568, 571, 378 S.E.2d 815, 817 ......