Lake v. State Health Plan for Teachers & State Employees , 234 N.C. App. 368 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NO. COA13-1006
    NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
    Filed: 17 June 2014
    I. BEVERLY LAKE, JOHN B. LEWIS,
    JR., EVERETTE M. LATTA, PORTER L.
    McATEER, ELIZABETH S. McATEER,
    ROBERT    C.    HANES,    BLAIR    J.
    CARPENTER, MARILYN L. FUTRELLE,
    FRANKLIN    E.   DAVIS,    JAMES   D.
    WILSON, BENJAMIN E. FOUNTAIN, JR.,
    FAYE IRIS Y. FISHER, STEVE FRED
    BLANTON, HERBERT W. COOPER, ROBERT
    C. HAYES, JR., STEPHEN B. JONES,
    MARCELLUS    BUCHANAN,    DAVID    B.
    BARNES, BARBARA J. CURRIE, CONNIE
    SAVELL, ROBERT B. KAISER, JOAN
    ATWELL, ALICE P. NOBLES, BRUCE B.
    JARVIS, ROXANNA J. EVANS, and JEAN
    C.   NARRON,     and    all    others
    similarly situated,
    Plaintiffs,
    v.                                 Gaston County
    No. 12-CVS-1547
    STATE HEALTH PLAN FOR TEACHERS AND
    STATE EMPLOYEES, a corporation,
    formerly   Known   as    the North
    Carolina    Teachers    and  State
    Employees’    Comprehensive  Major
    Medical Plan, TEACHERS’ AND STATE
    EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF
    NORTH CAROLINA, a corporation,
    BOARD OF TRUSTEES TEACHERS’ AND
    STATE EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM
    OF NORTH CAROLINA, a body politic
    and corporate, JANET COWELL, in
    her official capacity as Treasurer
    of the State of North Carolina,
    and the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Defendants.
    -2-
    Appeal by    Defendants from order            entered 23       May 2013      by
    Judge Edwin G. Wilson, Jr.                in    Gaston County Superior Court.
    Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 March 2014.
    Attorney General Roy A. Cooper, III, by Special Deputy
    Attorney General Marc Bernstein, for the Defendants-
    appellants.
    Gray, Layton, Kersh, Solomon, Furr & Smith,                        P.A.,    by
    Michael L. Carpenter, for Plaintiffs-appellees.
    DILLON, Judge.
    The State Health Plan for Teachers and State Employees, et
    al., (the “Defendants”) appeal from the denial of their motion
    to dismiss pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(1),
    (2),    and   (6)   in    favor    of     I.    Beverly    Lake,   et    al.,     (the
    “Plaintiffs”).       For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part,
    and dismiss in part.
    I. Background
    On 20 April 2012, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging,
    inter   alia,   that     they     are   all     former    employees     and    current
    retirees with the State of North Carolina with at least five
    years of contributory service; as part of their employment, they
    were offered certain benefits, including a health benefit plan
    after   retirement       through    the    State    Health    Plan;     this   health
    -3-
    benefit      plan   provided       the    option     to       each   Plaintiff        to
    participate on a        non-contributory 80/20 basis or                  on a      90/10
    basis with a contribution; they had vested by working at least
    five years and were eligible upon retirement to receive these
    health insurance benefits from the State Health Plan; Defendants
    stopped     providing    a   non-contributory        80/20     health    benefit      in
    2011 and the 90/10 plan for retirees in 2009, respectively; and
    that    these    actions     by    Defendants      constituted       a    breach      of
    contract.1
    On   23   July   2012,     Defendants    filed     a    motion    to    dismiss
    pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(1), (2), and (6),
    arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction based, in part,
    on Defendants’ sovereign immunity defense and that the complaint
    should otherwise be dismissed because the allegations therein
    failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.                           On
    23   May    2013,   Judge    Edwin   G.    Wilson,    Jr.2,     entered       an   order
    denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety.                             On 14
    June 2013, Defendants filed notice of appeal from the trial
    court’s denial of their motion to dismiss.
    1
    Plaintiffs also raised a number of other claims which are
    not at issue in Defendants’ appeal.
    2
    On 26 November 2012, the Chief Justice of the North
    Carolina Supreme Court designated this case as “exceptional”
    under Rule 2.1 of the General Rules of Practice for the Superior
    and District Courts, and assigned Judge Wilson to the case.
    -4-
    II. Interlocutory Appeal
    On 19 December 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss
    Defendants’ appeal with this Court, arguing that “the appeal is
    an impermissible interlocutory appeal and Defendant-Appellants
    do   not   have   a   substantial     right   to    immediate   review[.]”
    Plaintiffs raised similar arguments in their brief on appeal.
    We have recently stated that
    “[a]s a general rule, interlocutory orders
    are    not   immediately    appealable.”   Id.
    (citation    omitted).   However,   “immediate
    appeal    of   interlocutory   orders      and
    judgments is available in at least two
    instances: when the trial court certifies,
    pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 54(b),
    that there is no just reason for delay of
    the appeal; and when the interlocutory order
    affects a substantial right under N.C.G.S.
    §§   1-277(a)    and    7A-27(d)(1).”      Id.
    (quotation omitted).
    Jenkins v. Hearn Vascular Surgery, P.A., ___ N.C. App. ___, ___,
    
    719 S.E.2d 151
    , 153-54 (2011).            Defendants admit that their
    appeal is interlocutory, and we agree.             Since there is no Rule
    54(b)   certification,    we   must    determine     whether    Defendants’
    appeal affects a substantial right.
    In North Carolina, “appeals raising issues of governmental
    or sovereign immunity affect a substantial right sufficient to
    warrant immediate appellate review.”          McClennahan v. N.C. Sch.
    of the Arts, 
    177 N.C. App. 806
    , 808, 
    630 S.E.2d 197
    , 199 (2006),
    -5-
    disc.    review   denied,      
    361 N.C. 220
    ,   
    642 S.E.2d 443
       (2007).
    However, as stated by our Supreme Court, “[t]he denial of a
    motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
    can be granted, made pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Rules of Civil
    Procedure, G.S. 1A-1, is an interlocutory order from which no
    immediate appeal may be taken.”                Teachy v. Coble Dairies, Inc.,
    
    306 N.C. 324
    ,   326,     
    293 S.E.2d 182
    ,   183    (1982)   (citation
    omitted).      Therefore, we dismiss Defendants’ appeal as to any
    issues     related    to     the     trial    court’s   Rule   12(b)(6)    ruling
    regarding the validity of the alleged contract as interlocutory,
    and address only those issues related to sovereign immunity and
    Rule 12(b)(2)3, as those issues relate to a substantial right and
    3
    Our Supreme Court has stated that an order denying a motion
    to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant to
    Rule 12(b)(1) is not immediately appealable, but that an order
    denying a motion for lack of personal jurisdiction, pursuant to
    Rule 12(b)(2) is immediately appealable.    Teachy, 306 N.C. at
    327-28, 
    293 S.E.2d at 184
    . The Court in Teachy also noted that
    there is a split in authority around the country as to whether a
    motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity is properly a
    motion under Rule 12(b)(1) or under Rule 12(b)(2) and that the
    determination of this issue is relevant in North Carolina in
    situations involving an interlocutory appeal denying a motion to
    dismiss based on sovereign immunity. 
    Id.
     However, our Supreme
    Court did not ultimately resolve the issue in Teachy, deciding
    rather to review that       appeal based on     its  supervisory
    jurisdiction.   
    Id.
      Though our Supreme Court has not resolved
    the issue as to whether a motion to dismiss based on sovereign
    immunity is a motion under Rule 12(b)(1) or under Rule 12(b)(2),
    our Court has determined that the denial of a motion to dismiss
    based on sovereign immunity can be based on Rule 12(b)(2), and
    -6-
    are immediately appealable.            See McClennahan, 177 N.C. App. at
    808, 
    630 S.E.2d at 199
    .            We next turn to address Defendants’
    appeal and their arguments regarding sovereign immunity.
    III. Rule 12(b)(2) Dismissal Based on Sovereign Immunity
    To     survive   a   Rule   12(b)(2)       motion    to    dismiss      based   on
    sovereign immunity, “the complaint must specifically allege a
    waiver of governmental immunity.             Absent such an allegation, the
    complaint fails to state a cause of action.”                   Paquette v. County
    of Durham, 
    155 N.C. App. 415
    , 418, 
    573 S.E.2d 715
    , 717 (2002)
    (citations   omitted),     disc.      review    denied,       
    357 N.C. 165
    ,    
    580 S.E.2d 695
     (2003).          However, consistent with the concept of
    notice pleading, “as long as the complaint contains sufficient
    allegations to provide a reasonable forecast of waiver, precise
    language    alleging     that   the   State     has   waived        the   defense    of
    sovereign immunity is not necessary.”                   Fabrikant v. Currituck
    County, 
    174 N.C. App. 30
    , 38, 
    621 S.E.2d 19
    , 25 (2005) (citation
    omitted).
    is, therefore, immediately appealable.     See, e.g., Data Gen.
    Corp. v. City of Durham, 
    143 N.C. App. 97
    , 99-100, 
    545 S.E.2d 243
    , 245-46 (2001), explained in Atl. Coast Conf. v. Univ. of
    Md., ___ N.C. App. ___, __, 
    751 S.E.2d 612
    , 617 (2013).
    Therefore, we dismiss Defendants’ appeal to the extent that it
    is based on the denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of
    subject-matter jurisdiction, pursuant on Rule 12(b)(1).
    -7-
    Here,   Plaintiffs   argue   that     they   have   sufficiently      pled
    that      sovereign    immunity    has    been    waived     by     alleging   the
    existence of a valid contract; and, therefore, the trial court
    properly     denied    Defendants’    Rule     12(b)(2)    motion    to   dismiss.
    Specifically, Plaintiffs pled that they each had a contract of
    employment with the State and that these contracts included a
    promise to provide a guaranteed health benefit during retirement
    on   a    non-contributory    80/20      basis   or   a   90/10   basis    with   a
    contribution.         Our Supreme Court has held that “whenever the
    State of North Carolina, through its authorized officers and
    agencies, enters into a valid contract, the State implicitly
    consents to be sued for damages on the contract in the event it
    breaches the contract.”           Smith v. State, 
    289 N.C. 303
    , 320, 
    222 S.E.2d 412
    , 423-24 (1976) (emphasis added).                  We have held that
    this waiver of immunity applies in the context of employment
    contracts:
    “The existence of the relation of employer
    and   employee   .   .   .   is    essentially
    contractual in its nature, and is to be
    determined   by  the   rules   governing   the
    establishment   of   contracts,   express   or
    implied.”   Hollowell    v.   Department    of
    Conservation and Development, 
    206 N.C. 206
    ,
    208, 
    173 S.E. 603
    , 604 (1934). Guided by
    this principle, as well as the reasoning in
    [Smith v State, 
    289 N.C. 303
    , 
    222 S.E.2d 412
    (1976)], we hold that the County may not
    assert the defense of sovereign immunity in
    -8-
    this case . . . . We agree with plaintiffs’
    assertion that the employment arrangement
    between   the   County   and  plaintiffs  was
    contractual in nature, although the contract
    was implied.     Employment contracts may be
    express or implied.       An implied contract
    refers to an actual contract inferred from
    the    circumstances,    conduct,   acts   or
    relations of the parties, showing a tacit
    understanding. . . . We do not limit Smith
    to written contracts; its reasoning is
    equally sound when applied to implied oral
    contracts.
    Archer v. Rockingham Cty., 
    144 N.C. App. 550
    , 557, 
    548 S.E.2d 788
    ,   792-93   (2001),      disc.    review    denied,     
    355 N.C. 210
    ,     
    559 S.E.2d 796
     (2002).
    We   believe   that     Plaintiffs       sufficiently       pled   a    valid
    contract.      For instance, Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint
    that the State of North Carolina acted by offering specific
    health plans when Plaintiffs were hired and made representations
    to Plaintiffs while they were employed that if they worked five
    years then those health plans would vest and be irrevocable upon
    retirement.       Also,      Plaintiffs       alleged     that    they    acted     by
    accepting employment based, in part, on these health plans and
    working a set amount of time with the State of North Carolina so
    that   those    health    plans      would    vest   or   be     irrevocable      upon
    retirement.      We believe that our decision in Sanders v. State
    -9-
    Pers. Comm’n, 
    183 N.C. App. 15
    , 
    644 S.E.2d 10
    , disc. review
    denied, 
    361 N.C. 696
    , 
    652 S.E.2d 654
     (2007), is instructive.
    In   Sanders,      the    plaintiffs,     who   were    employed     as
    “temporary” employees by the State of North Carolina for more
    than 12 consecutive months, filed their action alleging that a
    rule promulgated by the State Personnel Commission prohibited
    individuals    from   being   employed   by   the   State   as    temporary
    employees for more than twelve consecutive months; that this
    rule was part of their contracts of employment; that by working
    for more than twelve consecutive months, they were entitled to
    be treated as “permanent” State employees; and that the State
    breached their contracts of employment by “wrongfully den[ying]”
    the plaintiffs the employment benefits that permanent employees
    are entitled to receive.        Id. at 16, 
    644 S.E.2d at 11
    .            The
    State moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim
    based on sovereign immunity, a motion which was granted by the
    trial court.    
    Id. at 17
    , 
    644 S.E.2d at 11
    .         On the plaintiffs’
    appeal, the State argued that the “plaintiffs’ claim for relief
    based on a breach of contract cannot overcome sovereign immunity
    . . . because the alleged contract is ‘implied,’ ‘imaginary,’
    and in no way ‘an authorized and valid contract.’”               
    Id. at 19
    ,
    
    644 S.E.2d at 12
    .
    -10-
    In our opinion, we stated that the plaintiffs alleged “that
    the State entered into employment contracts with the plaintiffs,
    incorporating         state    personnel      regulations,         pursuant         to    which
    they were entitled to certain benefits as a result of their
    employment for more than 12 months.”                      
    Id. at 18-19
    , 
    644 S.E.2d at 13
    .         We stated      that these “allegations [were]                    materially
    indistinguishable           from     those     found       sufficient          in    several
    opinions   of     this      Court[,]”       including      Peverall       v.    County       of
    Alamance, 
    154 N.C. App. 426
    , 430-31, 
    573 S.E.2d 517
    , 519-20
    (2002) (reversing the trial court’s dismissal based on sovereign
    immunity   when       the     plaintiff      had    alleged    a    valid       employment
    contract   in     which       the   defendant       had    agreed    to    provide          the
    plaintiff “disability retirement benefits . . . in exchange for
    five years of continuous service”), disc. review denied, 
    356 N.C. 676
    ,    
    577 S.E.2d 632
        (2003)    and    Hubbard     v.      County       of
    Cumberland, 
    143 N.C. App. 149
    , 150-51, 
    544 S.E.2d 587
    , 589,
    disc. review denied, 
    354 N.C. 69
    , 
    553 S.E.2d 40
     (2001).                                  Id. at
    19-20, 
    644 S.E.2d at 13
    .                  In further comparing these cases, we
    held,
    [p]laintiffs allege that defendants are
    manipulating State personnel policies and
    benefit plans, which govern the terms of
    state   employment,  to   avoid  providing
    plaintiffs benefits that they rightfully
    earned as a result of the tenure of their
    -11-
    employment.       Plaintiffs’       complaint
    sufficiently    alleges    that    defendants
    accepted     plaintiffs’    services     and,
    therefore, “may not claim sovereign immunity
    as a defense” to their alleged commitment to
    provide   the   benefits  provided   by   the
    personnel policies setting forth the terms
    of employment.
    
    Id. at 20
    , 
    644 S.E.2d at 13
     (quoting Hubbard, 143 N.C. App. at
    154, 
    544 S.E.2d at 590
    ).
    In overruling the defendants’ argument “that any contract
    was   only      ‘implied’    and,    therefore,     no    waiver        of   sovereign
    immunity has occurred[,]” the Court relied on the holding in
    Archer,    
    supra,
        which     extended      the   holding   in     Smith,       
    supra,
    regarding written contracts to oral implied contracts and also
    noted    that    Archer     “held    that    plaintiffs     could       assert   their
    claims    because     they    were    ‘in    the   nature    of     a    contractual
    obligation[.]’”       Id. at 20-21, 
    644 S.E.2d at 13-14
    .
    Like Sanders, Defendants here essentially make an argument
    that their Rule 12(b)(2) motion should have been granted because
    Plaintiffs failed to allege an express agreement concerning the
    retirement       health     benefits.        Specifically,        they       point   to
    Plaintiffs’        allegations        that     Defendants         have,        through
    representations,      policies,       and    statutes,    “avoid[ed]         providing
    plaintiffs benefits that they rightfully earned as a result of
    the tenure of their employment” and because of this alleged
    -12-
    exchange, Defendants, “‘may not claim sovereign immunity as a
    defense’ to their alleged commitment to provide the benefits
    provided by the personnel policies setting forth the terms of
    employment.”      See 
    id. at 20
    , 
    644 S.E.2d at 13
    .           However, as in
    Sanders, we believe that Plaintiffs have alleged something “in
    the nature of a contractual obligation” which would still amount
    to a valid contract under Archer, sufficient to survive a Rule
    12(b)(2) motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity.                  See
    Sanders, 183 N.C. App. at 21, 
    644 S.E.2d at 13
    .
    We further held in Sanders that the defendants’ arguments
    “that the alleged contract is ‘imaginary’ and not ‘an authorized
    and   valid    contract’”   went   to   the   merits   of   the   plaintiffs’
    breach of contract claims, pointing out that
    in   considering    the   applicability   of
    sovereign immunity to allegations of breach
    of a governmental employment contract, “that
    we are not now concerned with the merits of
    plaintiffs’ contract action. . . . [W]hether
    plaintiffs are ultimately entitled to relief
    are questions not properly before us.”
    Archer v. Rockingham County, 
    144 N.C. App. 550
    , 558, 
    548 S.E.2d 788
    , 793 (2001), disc.
    review denied, 
    355 N.C. 210
    , 
    559 S.E.2d 796
    (2002). See also Smith, 
    289 N.C. at 322
    , 
    222 S.E.2d at 424
     (“We are not now concerned
    with the merits of the controversy. . . . We
    have no knowledge, opinion, or notion as to
    what the true facts are. These must be
    established at the trial.    Today we decide
    only that plaintiff is not to be denied his
    day in court because his contract was with
    -13-
    the State.”).
    Id. at 20, 
    644 S.E.2d at 13-14
    .
    In the same way, Defendants here make a number of arguments
    which go to the merits of Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claims.
    However, “[t]his Court has consistently held that we are not to
    consider the merits of a claim when addressing the applicability
    of sovereign immunity as a potential defense to liability.”                      Cam
    Am South, LLC v. State of North Carolina, ___ N.C. App. ___,
    ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___, 
    2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 558
     at *16 (N.C.
    App.   June    3,    2014).     Rather,   our   analysis       is   restricted   to
    whether   Plaintiffs      have    sufficiently       alleged    that   Defendants
    have   waived       sovereign   immunity.       As   Plaintiffs      sufficiently
    alleged a valid contract between them and the State in their
    complaint to waive the defense of sovereign immunity, we affirm
    the trial court’s order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss
    pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2).             See Cam Am South, at *18 (holding
    that “the State waives its sovereign immunity when it enters
    into a contract with a private party, not when it engages in
    conduct that may or may not constitute a breach”) (emphasis in
    original).
    IV.   Conclusion
    -14-
    For   the   foregoing   reasons,    we   affirm   the   trial   court’s
    order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on
    their sovereign immunity defense, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2); and
    we dismiss Defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s order denying
    their motion to dismiss to the extent the order is based on
    grounds other than Defendants’ sovereign immunity defense.
    AFFIRMED, IN PART, and DISMISSED, IN PART.
    Judge BRYANT and Judge CALABRIA concur.