Schult v. International Business MacHines Corp. , 123 F. App'x 540 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-2471
KENNETH SCHULT; STEVEN PARSLEY; ROBERT BANNON,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
versus
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (CA-02-357-5-3BR)
Submitted: October 27, 2004 Decided: December 15, 2004
Before WILKINS, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard W. Rutherford, RUTHERFORD AND ASSOCIATES, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellants. C. Matthew Keen, OGLETREE, DEAKINS,
NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Schult, Steven Parsley, and Robert Bannon
(collectively, “Appellants”) appeal district court orders
dismissing their claims alleging that International Business
Machines Corporation (IBM) wrongfully terminated their employment
following an internal investigation of their alleged harassment of
a former coworker. We affirm.
I.
Appellants were employed by IBM as software programmers
at its Research Triangle Park facility in North Carolina. Between
August 2000 and June 2001, Appellants worked with Stan Jesionowski,
a contract employee. In June 2001, IBM terminated Jesionowski’s
assignment, apparently because he was responsible for a project
error. Jesionowski claims that before his termination, Appellants
harassed him in various ways, including making comments suggesting
that he--like other contract employees with whom Appellants had
worked--would be terminated. Jesionowski further claims that after
his termination, Appellants continued to harass him by email and
telephone.
In October 2001, Jesionowski’s attorney sent a letter to
IBM describing Appellants’ alleged conduct and threatening legal
action. In response, IBM conducted an internal investigation of
Jesionowski’s charges. As part of this investigation, IBM
2
personnel interviewed Appellants separately. Appellants claim that
they each requested that a coworker be present during their
interviews but that these requests were denied. Further,
Appellants allege that during their interviews they “were each
advised, in words or substance, that they could avoid being fired
by lying to change their accounts of the facts to agree with the
accounts of other witnesses” whose testimony supported
Jesionowski’s claims. J.A. 10. Appellants refused to do so.
Thereafter, IBM informed Appellants that they were being terminated
for their conduct during the investigation.
Appellants subsequently brought this action in North
Carolina state court asserting claims for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and defamation. Regarding the wrongful discharge claim,
Appellants’ complaint alleged that IBM terminated Appellants for
(1) refusing to falsely change their testimony during the
investigation and (2) attempting to exercise their right under
section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA),
see 29 U.S.C.A. § 157 (West 1998), to have a coworker present
during their investigatory interviews, see NLRB v. J. Weingarten,
Inc., 420 U.S. 251, 266-67 (1975). Appellants claimed that these
motives contravened North Carolina public policy.
IBM removed the case to the Eastern District of North
Carolina and moved to dismiss Appellants’ wrongful discharge claim.
3
The district court held that Appellants’ claim based on the alleged
violation of their Weingarten rights was federally preempted
because the National Labor Relations Board “has exclusive
jurisdiction over any action arising from rights guaranteed under
Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA.” J.A. 97 (citing Richardson v.
Kruchko & Fries, 966 F.2d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1992)). The district
court also rejected Appellants’ claim that IBM’s other alleged
motive for terminating their employment--Appellants’ refusal to lie
during the internal investigation--violated North Carolina public
policy. The court noted that North Carolina courts have recognized
a narrow public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine
in cases in which the employer’s conduct implicated a provision of
state law. However, finding that no provision of North Carolina
law was implicated by the conduct alleged here--involving an
internal investigation by a private employer--the district court
determined that it would be inappropriate to expand the public
policy exception beyond the limits established by North Carolina
courts. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Appellants’
wrongful discharge claim.
Following discovery, IBM moved for summary judgment on
Appellants’ remaining claims for negligent infliction of emotional
distress and defamation. The district court ruled that Appellants
had not suffered the severe emotional distress necessary to sustain
a claim under North Carolina law. Also, the district court held
4
that statements by IBM personnel concerning the investigation of
Appellants and their termination were not actionable because they
were subject to a qualified privilege protecting the internal
discussion of employment matters. The district court therefore
granted summary judgment to IBM.
II.
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the applicable
law, we conclude that the district court correctly decided the
issues before it. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Schult v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 5:02-
CV-357-BR(3) (E.D.N.C. Jan. 3, 2003); Schult v. Int’l Bus. Machs.
Corp., No. 5:02-CV-357-BR(3) (E.D.N.C. Oct. 30, 2003). We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5