Boulware v. The Univ. of N.C. Bd. of Governors ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA22-840
Filed 05 July 2023
Forsyth County, No. 21CVS2973
KIENUS PEREZ BOULWARE, Petitioner,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF GOVERNORS, ex rel.
WINSTON-SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Respondent.
Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 31 January 2022 by Judge Eric C.
Morgan in Forsyth County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 June
2023.
Freedman Thompson Witt Ceberio & Byrd PLLC, by Christopher M. Watford,
for the petitioner-appellant.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kari R.
Johnson, for the respondent-appellee.
TYSON, Judge.
Kienus Perez Boulware (“Boulware”) appeals from orders entered on 31
January 2022, which denied his request for relief and affirmed the decision of the
Winston-Salem State University (“WSSU”) Board of Trustees. We affirm.
I. Background
Boulware began his employment with WSSU on 4 January 2010. He was
employed as head coach for five years and agreed to a fixed-term contract for 48
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
months set to terminate on 31 December 2020.
Boulware’s contract set forth his duties, which included management and
supervision of the football team as well as “other duties . . . as may be assigned.” The
contract stated he could be terminated for just cause for a significant or repetitive
violation of the duties set forth in the contract, as well as a “significant or repetitive
violation of any law, regulation, rule, constitutional provision or bylaw of the
institution.”
Boulware was assigned the duty of serving as a Campus Security Authority
(“CSA”), a person who assists the University in complying with The Clery Act, which
tasks universities with reporting crimes and keeping a public crime log. As part of
his training as a CSA, Boulware signed a letter that explained the types of crimes he
was obligated to report.
Our university has a responsibility to notify the
campus community about any crimes which pose an
ongoing threat to the community, and, as such, campus
security authorities are obligated by law to report crimes
to the university police department. Even if you are not
sure whether an ongoing threat exists, immediately
contact the university police department.
On 4 April 2019, two WSSU football players were involved in an altercation
during practice and fought again in the weightroom after practice. Boulware
intervened and sent the players home. Later that morning, he was informed the
altercation had reignited in the players’ dorm room.
On his way to the dorms, Boulware contacted the father of one of the students
-2-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
and he was informed of a possibility a gun was involved. Boulware arrived at the
dorm room with an assistant coach, engaged with the players, but did not contact
WSSU Police. The players were asked if there was a gun in the room. All answered
no and no formal search occurred. A bag with a substance, possibly marijuana, was
found in the room, but no gun was seen. Boulware gave the bag to the student’s
father, who had arrived, and he disposed of it. Boulware attempted to inform the
Athletic Director, but he could not reach him. He never informed the WSSU Police
Department or the Director of Athletics, instead contacting only the Office of Student
Conduct.
On 23 April 2019, Chancellor Elwood L. Robinson signed a Notice of Intent to
Discharge Boulware for cause. The Chancellor listed Clause 5 of the Boulware’s
employment contract, WSSU EHRA Personnel Policies, Section 300.2.1 of the UNC
Policy Manual and Section 611 of the Code of the University of North Carolina Board
of Governors. Those policies list causes for discharge including, but not limited to,
incompetence, unsatisfactory performance, neglect of duty, or misconduct that
interferes with the capacity of the employee to perform effectively the requirements
of his or her employment.
Boulware requested a hearing before the WSSU’s EHRA Grievance Committee
on 29 April 2019. The hearing was originally scheduled for 30 May 2019 but was
continued until 23 July 2019 per Boulware’s request. Boulware and WSSU were
represented by counsel at the hearing.
-3-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
After hearing evidence and testimony, the Grievance Committee recommended
Boulware’s termination be affirmed. The Grievance Committee drafted a decision
letter, which outlined the termination procedures for Boulware. The procedures
initially described and outlined in the letter applied to at-will employees, which did
not include Boulware, who held a non-faculty ERHA position exempt from the State
Human Resources Act. Consequently, the letter incorrectly stated it was being sent
to WSSU’s Board of Trustees, but the letter was instead re-routed to Chancellor
Robinson when WSSU attorneys realized the procedures described in previous letters
to Boulware were inconsistent with the UNC System’s Code. The decision letter
Boulware received outlined the wrong procedures, but the process was handled
correctly and properly sent to Chancellor Robinson. Boulware’s attorneys consented
to the change in procedure via email. Chancellor Robinson adopted the Grievance
Committee’s recommendation on 22 November 2019.
On 3 December 2019, Boulware gave notice of appeal to WSSU’s Board of
Trustees. The Board of Trustees issued its Final Decision upholding his termination
on 5 March 2020.
Boulware filed a Petition for Judicial Review requesting his termination of
employment contract be reversed on 1 June 2020. He asserted the WSSU Board’s
Final Decision violated his constitutional protections, was made upon unlawful
procedures, was affected by errors of law, was unsupported by substantial evidence,
and constituted an abuse of discretion.
-4-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
Boulware’s First Petition for Judicial Review was heard on 3 September 2020.
On 28 September 2020, Judge Gottlieb entered an order stating: “Boulware’s
grievance was properly referred to the Grievance Committee for an impartial, fact-
finding hearing and the Grievance Committee’s Recommendation was properly
issued.” However, the Court nevertheless concluded that, because of the procedural
errors, the review and decision were:
made upon unlawful procedure within the meaning
of N.C. Gen. Stat § 150B-51(b)(3); and (ii) was
affected by other error of law within the meaning of
N.C. Gen. Stat § 150B-51(b)(4).
The court vacated the final decision of the Board of Trustees and remanded the
matter for impartial review of the Grievance Committee’s Recommendation with
subsequent review, if necessary and requested, as provided by the UNC system’s
code.
The record, including the transcript from the Committee’s hearing, was
reviewed by Dr. Kimberly van Noort, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and
Academic Officer for The University of North Carolina System. Dr. van Noort issued
a decision on 15 December 2020 agreeing with the Grievance Committee’s
recommendation to terminate Boulware’s contract and employment. Boulware
responded by submitting a notice of appeal to the WSSU Board of Trustees.
WSSU’s Board of Trustees unanimously affirmed Dr. van Noort’s decision on
7 May 2021. Board Chair Harris and the original board attorney did not participate
-5-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
in the appeal, due to concerns raised by Boulware.
Boulware filed a Second Petition for Judicial review on 7 June 2021 based upon
the same contentions from the First Petition: asserting violations of constitutional
provisions; unlawful procedures; errors of law; lack of substantial evidence; and,
abuse of discretion. On 21 July 2021, Boulware requested Judge Gottlieb to rule upon
unresolved issues from the First Petition. After this hearing, Judge Gottlieb declined
to rule on the First Petition, ruling any unresolved issues from the First Petition were
intrinsically intertwined with the issues raised in the Second Petition. Anything not
specifically addressed in the prior order should be addressed in the Second Petition.
The case was heard on 11 January 2022. Judge Morgan issued his ruling,
consolidating both the First and Second Petitions, affirming the final decision of the
WSSU Board of Trustees, and denying all relief for Boulware on 31 January 2022.
II. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction lies in this Court pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1) (2021).
III. Issues
Boulware argues the Final Decision to terminate his employment was not
supported by substantial evidence because all decisions were based on a
misapprehension of law.
Boulware also argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because the
WSSU changed its justification for dismissing Boulware’s appeal post hoc after the
case was remanded for impartial review. Boulware lastly contends the conclusions
-6-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
of law are not supported by proper findings of fact because the substantive findings
are mere recitations of evidence.
IV. Standard of Review
This Court examines the trial court’s order for errors of law by completing two
steps: “(1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of
review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly.” Amanini
v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 114 N.C. App. 668, 675, 443 S.E.2d 114, 118-19
(1994).
The trial court’s review of the issues was governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-
51 which reads in part:
(b) The court reviewing a final decision may affirm the
decision or remand the case for further proceedings. It may
also reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights
of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the
findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are:
...
(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence admissible
under G.S. 150B-29(a), 150B-30, or 150B-31 in view
of the entire record as submitted [ ]
...
(c) In reviewing a final decision in a contested case, the
court shall determine whether the petitioner is entitled to
the relief sought in the petition based upon its review of the
final decision and the official record. With regard to
asserted errors pursuant to . . . subdivisions (5) and (6) of
subsection (b) of this section, the court shall conduct its
review of the final decision using the whole record standard
-7-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
of review.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(b)-(c) (2021).
Under the whole record test, “if the agency’s findings are supported by
substantial evidence, they must be upheld.” Sack v. N.C. State Univ., 155 N.C. App.
484, 491, 54 S.E.2d 120, 127 (2002). Substantial evidence is “relevant evidence a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” In re Denial of
NC Idea’s Refund, 196 N.C. App. 426, 433, 675 S.E.2d 88, 94 (2009) (internal citations
and quotations omitted).
V. Misapprehension of Law
Boulware argues the Final Decision to terminate his employment was not
supported by substantial evidence because all decisions were based upon a
misapprehension of The Clery Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (2018) (tasking universities
with reporting crimes and keeping a public crime log). He argues WSSU relied upon
a misapprehension of The Clery Act as a basis for their argument against him, and
substantial evidence does not exist to support the Board’s decision. Id.Substantial evidence tends to show Boulware engaged in a significant violation
of his assigned contractual duties. Boulware signed his CSA training letter on 7
November 2019 and acknowledged his awareness and understanding of his duty to
immediately report any on-going threats to the university’s police department even if
unsure whether an on-going threat existed.
Boulware testified he was aware of the possibility of a gun being involved in
-8-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
the altercation between his players, yet instead of contacting law enforcement, he
engaged with numerous people, including the agitated players and the father of one
of the players inside the dorm for over two hours. Despite being made aware of the
potential presence of a gun, Boulware never searched for one nor informed university
police of this allegation. This testimony alone is a substantial violation, and his
failure to comply risked serious harm or even death of students, staff, or the public.
Clear and substantial evidence of a violation of Boulware’s contractual
obligations was presented and substantiated his termination.
VI. Post Hoc Change in Justification
Boulware argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law because WSSU
changed its justification for dismissing Boulware post hoc after the case was
remanded for impartial review. He asserts the initial focus to justify the termination
of his contract was a violation of The Clery Act, but when Judge Gottlieb remanded
for an impartial review, WSSU utilized a different theory.
The initial letter of termination to Boulware from 25 April 2019 was introduced
at trial. In the opening sentences, the letter notifies the intent to dismiss based on
“WSSU EHRA Personnel Policies, Section 300.2.1 of the UNC Policy Manual and
Section 611 of The Code of the University of North Carolina Board of Governors.” The
letter describes Boulware’s failure to contact law enforcement and its potential
impact on campus safety. All of these assertions allegedly occurred before any
reference to The Clery Act. In the initial briefs to the Superior Court, WSSU asserted
-9-
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
Boulware was terminated for failure to fulfill both his contractual and legal
obligations to notify university police officers of a serious safety concern. This
assertion is consistent with Dr. Van Noort’s impartial review after remand, as well
as the Board of Trustee’s decision, to unanimously uphold the review.
These documents from the hearings provide clear and substantial evidence
WSSU had stated numerous grounds for Boulware’s termination, beginning in the
initial letter. WSSU consistently maintained these arguments throughout the
multiple review levels, including the current appeal before this Court.
VII. Findings of Fact
Boulware contends the conclusions of law are not supported by proper findings
of fact because the substantive findings are mere recitations of evidence.
Judge Morgan’s Findings of Fact utilizes direct quotes from testimony.
Boulware does not identify any conflicts in the evidence or testimony, and he does not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support any specific Finding of Fact. A
significant portion of the Findings of Fact Boulware cites as relying upon direct
testimony are taken directly from Boulware’s testimony, which neither side disputes.
“Where there is directly conflicting evidence on key issues, it is especially crucial that
the trial court make its own determination as to what pertinent facts are actually
established by the evidence, rather than merely reciting what the evidence may tend
to show.” Moore v. Moore, 160 N.C. App. 569, 572, 587 S.E.2d 74, 75 (2003) (internal
quotations and citation omitted).
- 10 -
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
No conflicting evidence is shown, and Boulware does not contend the Findings
of Fact are not supported by the evidence. This Court has previously stated where
“[p]laintiff does not challenge any of the trial court’s findings of fact as unsupported
by the evidence[,]” the findings of fact “are binding on appeal.” Garrett v. Burris, 224
N.C. App. 32, 34, 735 S.E.2d 414, 416 (2012). Without conflicts in the Findings of
Fact, and no contention the Findings of Fact are not supported by competent
evidence, Boulware’s argument is overruled.
VIII. Conclusion
Boulware’s argument asserting the Final Decision to terminate his
employment contract was not supported by substantial evidence, due to a
misapprehension of The Clery Act, fails. Boulware’s clear violation of his employment
contract created grounds for termination whether or not The Clery Act was asserted
as a ground.
Boulware’s argument WSSU changed its justification for termination midway
through the legal process and reviews also fails. Documents entered at trial provide
clear and substantial evidence to support WSSU had stated multiple grounds for
Boulware’s termination, not solely his violation of The Clery Act. These factors are
found in the initial termination letter, and WSSU consistently maintained these
arguments throughout the multiple levels of review.
Boulware’s challenges to the substantive findings as mere recitations of
evidence and the purportedly unsupported conclusions of law are without merit.
- 11 -
BOULWARE V. THE UNIV. OF N.C. BD. OF GOVERNORS
Opinion of the Court
Boulware fails to identify any conflicts in the evidence or testimony and does not
challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as not supporting any specific findings of
fact. The Findings of Fact are binding upon appeal. Moore, 160 N.C. App. at 572,
587 S.E.2d at 75; Burris, 224 N.C. App. at 34, 735 S.E.2d at 416. These findings of
fact support the conclusions of law. The order appealed from is affirmed. It is so
ordered.
AFFIRMED.
Judge MURPHY and Judge STADING Concur.
- 12 -