Woody v. AccuQuest Hearing Ctr., LLC

• Decision Date: 19 July 2022
• Docket Number: COA21-563
• Parties: Sharon L. WOODY, Plaintiff, v. ACCUQUEST HEARING CENTER, LLC, Defendant.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

284 N.C.App. 540

877 S.E.2d 1

Sharon L. WOODY, Plaintiff,

v.ACCUQUEST HEARING CENTER, LLC, Defendant.

No. COA21-563

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 19, 2022

Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by Robert N. Hunter, Jr., and Jonathan Wall, Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellant.

A.Y. Strauss, LLC, by Kory Ann Ferro, pro hac vice, and Sharpless McClearn Lester Duffy, PA, by Frederick K. Sharpless, Greensboro, for defendant-appellee.

ZACHARY, Judge.

¶ 1 Plaintiff Sharon L. Woody appeals from the trial court's order and judgment granting Defendant AccuQuest Hearing Center, LLC's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. After careful review, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Background

¶ 2 This case arises out of Plaintiff's suit against Defendant alleging her wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged as follows in her complaint: Defendant hired Plaintiff to serve as a patient care coordinator in October 2018. She worked in both of Defendant's Greensboro and High Point offices, "receiving positive performance reviews" in her first few months. In February 2019, she "began experiencing symptoms for which she sought the advice of a cardiologist[,]" who determined that she needed a cardiac ablation to correct her atrial fibrillation. On the last workday before Plaintiff's procedure, "the employee with primary responsibility for making bank deposits ... failed to make deposits" for each office; consequently, Plaintiff took the deposits with her when she left work for the day. She intended to make the deposits that evening, but the bank was closed when she arrived. Plaintiff brought the deposits home and "kept them secure."

¶ 3 On 5 March 2019, Plaintiff had surgery, and she missed one week of work while she recuperated. On her first days back in each office she returned the deposits. On 13 March 2019, the employee tasked with making the bank deposits again failed to do so. Before beginning her shift on 14 March, Plaintiff picked up the deposits and delivered them to the bank when it opened.

¶ 4 Later that day, a member of Defendant's Human Resources Department called Plaintiff and informed her that "she was being terminated" because she had committed "multiple procedural violations in a short period of time." Although Plaintiff asked what procedures she violated, she was not provided with any detailed examples of policies or procedures violated. Plaintiff was told she would receive an email "explaining the reason for the termination[,]" but she never received any such email, despite her follow-up request a few days later.

¶ 5 On 29 September 2019, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant, claiming wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Plaintiff alleged, inter alia , that her "termination violated the established public policy of North Carolina as expressed in N.C[.]G.S. § 143-422.2"—the Equal Employment Practices Act ("EEPA")—"and as set forth in other statutes and regulations, such as the Persons with Disabilities Protection Act," ("PDPA"). See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-1 et seq. (2019).

¶ 6 On 30 November 2019, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant also filed a memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss, in which it alleged that "Plaintiff's claim ... is governed by the [PDPA], which she cite[d] to in her Complaint, as the exclusive statutory remedy[,]" and that therefore Plaintiff's common-law wrongful-discharge claim was time-barred by the 180-day statute of limitations provided by the PDPA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-12.

¶ 7 On 16 March 2021, Defendant's motion to dismiss came on for hearing in Guilford County Superior Court. By order entered on 27 April 2021, the trial court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. The trial court specifically found and concluded that Plaintiff's "common law remedy [wa]s precluded under the statutory provisions of the [PDPA,]" and therefore, Plaintiff's claim was time-barred by the PDPA's statute of limitations. Plaintiff timely filed notice of appeal.

Discussion

¶ 8 On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred by concluding that her common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy was preempted by the PDPA, and thus granting Defendant's motion to dismiss. We agree.

I. Standard of Review

¶ 9 "We review de novo a trial court's order on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)." Bill Clark Homes of Raleigh, LLC v. Town of Fuquay-Varina , 281 N.C. App. 1, 2021-NCCOA-688, ¶ 11, 869 S.E.2d 1. Similarly, "[q]uestions of statutory interpretation are ultimately questions of law for the courts and are reviewed de novo." Wilkie v. City of Boiling Spring Lakes , 370 N.C. 540, 547, 809 S.E.2d 853, 858 (2018) (citation omitted). When conducting de novo review, this Court "considers the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the trial court." Jackson v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth. , 238 N.C. App. 351, 353, 768 S.E.2d 23, 25 (2014) (citation omitted).

¶ 10 "When reviewing a motion to dismiss, an appellate court considers whether the allegations of the complaint, if treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under some legal theory." Deminski v. State Bd. of Educ. , 377 N.C. 406, 2021-NCSC-58, ¶ 12, 858 S.E.2d 788 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The statute of limitations may provide the basis for dismissal on a motion pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) if the face of the complaint establishes that [the] plaintiff's claim is barred." Liptrap v. City of High Point , 128 N.C. App. 353, 355, 496 S.E.2d 817, 818, disc. review denied , 348 N.C. 73, 505 S.E.2d 874 (1998). "In reviewing a trial court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal the issue for the court is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the plaintiff is entitled to offer evidence to support the claim." Bill Clark Homes , 281 N.C.App. 1, 2021-NCCOA-688, ¶ 12, 869 S.E.2d 1 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Preemption

¶ 11 On appeal, Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in concluding that her common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy was preempted by the PDPA. Defendant frames the question presented as one of first impression for our appellate courts: whether the PDPA preempts Plaintiff's common-law wrongful-discharge claim, such that the PDPA's 180-day statute of limitations controls the case at bar, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-12, rather than the three-year statute of limitations that applies to the common-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, see id. § 1-52(1); Winston v. Livingstone Coll., Inc. , 210 N.C. App. 486, 488, 707 S.E.2d 768, 770 (2011) ("The limitations period for a tort action based upon wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is three years."). For the reasons that follow, we conclude that it does not.

¶ 12 "Ordinarily, an employee without a definite term of employment is an employee at will and may be discharged without reason." Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co. , 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 446 (1989). However, it is well settled that "[w]hile there may be a right to terminate a contract at will for no reason, or for an arbitrary or irrational reason, there can be no right to terminate such a contract for an unlawful reason or purpose that contravenes public policy." Id. at 175, 381 S.E.2d at 447 (citation omitted). "Public policy has been defined as the principle of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public or against the public good." Id. at 175 n.2, 381 S.E.2d at 447 n.2.

¶ 13 In the case at bar, Plaintiff raises both the EEPA and the PDPA in support of her claim. The EEPA declares, in pertinent part, that "the public policy of this State [is] to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain and hold employment without discrimination or abridgement on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2(a). The PDPA provides, in pertinent part and as quoted by Plaintiff:

(a) The purpose of [the PDPA] is to ensure equality of opportunity, to promote independent living, self-determination, and economic self-sufficiency, and to encourage and enable all persons with disabilities to participate fully to the maximum extent of their abilities in the social and economic life of the State, to engage in remunerative employment, to use available public accommodations and public services, and to otherwise pursue their rights and privileges as inhabitants of this State.

(b) The General Assembly finds that: the practice of discrimination based upon a disabling condition is contrary to the public interest and to the principles of freedom and equality of opportunity; the practice of discrimination on the basis of a disabling condition threatens the rights and proper privileges of the inhabitants of this State; and such discrimination results in a failure to realize the productive capacity of individuals to their fullest extent.

Id. § 168A-2.

¶ 14 Taking the allegations of Plaintiff's complaint as true, as we must at this stage, Deminski , 377 N.C. 406, 2021-NCSC-58, ¶ 12, 858 S.E.2d 788, Defendant violated the public policy of North Carolina as expressed by our legislature by terminating Plaintiff's employment because of her disability. Defendant contends, however, that the General Assembly intended for the PDPA to be the exclusive statutory remedy for Plaintiff's claim, thus preempting the common law and preventing Plaintiff from seeking common-law tort remedies for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

¶ 15 Our Supreme Court has explained that the public-policy...