McLaughlin v. Bailey , 2016 N.C. LEXIS 28 ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. 163A15
Filed 29 January 2016
IVAN MCLAUGHLIN and TIMOTHY STANLEY
v.
DANIEL BAILEY, in his individual and official capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg
County, and OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of
the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C. App. ___, 771 S.E.2d 570 (2015), affirming an order
granting summary judgment entered on 6 January 2014 by Judge Robert C. Ervin in
Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 20 August 2015, the Supreme Court
allowed plaintiffs’ petition for discretionary review of additional issues. Heard in the
Supreme Court on 7 December 2015.
Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harold L. Kennedy, III and
Harvey L. Kennedy, for plaintiff-appellants.
Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice, LLP, by Sean F. Perrin, for defendant-
appellees.
Tin Fulton Walker & Owen, PLLC, by William G. Simpson, Jr.; and Pinto
Coates Kyre & Bowers, PLLC, by Jon Ward, for North Carolina Advocates for
Justice, amicus curiae.
Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., General Counsel, North Carolina Sheriffs’
Association, amicus curiae.
Bailey & Dixon, LLP, by Jeffrey P. Gray; and McGuinness Law Firm, by J.
Michael McGuinness, for North Carolina State Lodge of the Fraternal Order of
Police, amicus curiae.
PER CURIAM.
MCLAUGHLIN V. BAILEY
Opinion of the Court
For the reasons stated in Young v. Bailey, ___ N.C. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2016)
(355PA14-2), plaintiffs’ suit under N.C.G.S. § 153A-99 fails. In addition, the suit
brought by plaintiff Stanley pursuant to the North Carolina Constitution and the
United States Constitution fails for the reasons set out in Young v. Bailey.
Unlike plaintiff Stanley, however, plaintiff McLaughlin was not a sworn law
enforcement officer, and thus Young v. Bailey does not dispose of McLaughlin’s
constitutional claims. We need not address whether a non-deputy employee of a
sheriff, like McLaughlin, may be legally fired on the basis of political speech. Instead,
the record indicates that plaintiff McLaughlin violated the department’s policies by
failing to properly conduct his pod tours and by falsifying paperwork submitted to his
supervisors. The record also shows that plaintiff conceded to such allegations and
that his termination was upheld by a department review board.
Based on this record, and applying de novo review, Robins v. Town of
Hillsborough, 361 N.C. 193, 196, 639 S.E.2d 421, 423 (2007), we conclude that the
trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Even if
defendant Bailey knew that plaintiff McLaughlin did not contribute to his reelection
campaign, defendant Bailey had sufficient job-related reasons to terminate this
plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff McLaughlin’s constitutional claims also fail. See
Anderson v. Assimos, 356 N.C. 415, 416, 572 S.E.2d 101, 102 (2002) (per curiam)
-2-
MCLAUGHLIN V. BAILEY
Opinion of the Court
(“[T]he courts of this State will avoid constitutional questions, even if properly
presented, where a case may be resolved on other grounds.”).
AFFIRMED.
Justice ERVIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
-3-