Woody v. AccuQuest Hearing Ctr.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
2022-NCCOA-500
No. COA21-563
Filed 19 July 2022
Guilford County, No. 20 CVS 7369
SHARON L. WOODY, Plaintiff,
v.
ACCUQUEST HEARING CENTER, LLC, Defendant.
Appeal by plaintiff from order and judgment entered 27 April 2021 by Judge
John O. Craig, III, in Guilford County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals
5 April 2022.
Higgins Benjamin, PLLC, by Robert N. Hunter, Jr., and Jonathan Wall, for
plaintiff-appellant.
A.Y. Strauss, LLC, by Kory Ann Ferro, pro hac vice, and Sharpless McClearn
Lester Duffy, PA, by Frederick K. Sharpless, 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
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
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
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
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
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
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. 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 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
“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, 2021-NCCOA-688, ¶ 12 (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.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
¶ 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
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
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, 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 exception to the
employment-at-will doctrine is “designed to vindicate the rights of employees fired
for reasons offensive to the public policy of this State. The existence of other remedies,
therefore, does not render the public policy exception moot.” Amos v. Oakdale Knitting
Co., 331 N.C. 348, 356, 416 S.E.2d 166, 171 (1992).
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
¶ 16 Nevertheless, “a legislative remedy may be deemed exclusive” in certain
circumstances:
If federal legislation preempts state law under the
Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, then state
claims, such as one for wrongful discharge, will be
precluded. Additionally, if our state legislature has
expressed its intent to supplant the common law with
exclusive statutory remedies, then common law actions,
such as wrongful discharge, will be precluded.
Id. (citation omitted).
¶ 17 In sum, a party may bring a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in
violation of public policy in the absence of “(a) federal preemption or (b) the intent of
our state legislature to supplant the common law with exclusive statutory
remedies[.]” Id. at 356–57, 416 S.E.2d at 171. This is the framework that guides our
analysis of this case.
¶ 18 There is no claim of federal preemption in the instant case. Instead, Defendant
alleged in its memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss that the General
Assembly enacted the PDPA “to preclude a common law cause of action as to
disability discrimination in favor of an exclusive statutory remedy under the PDPA.”
Accordingly, the resolution of this case turns on that question.
¶ 19 “In determining whether the state legislature intended to preclude common
law actions, we first look to the words of the statute to see if the legislature expressly
precluded common law remedies.” Id. at 358, 416 S.E.2d at 172. As Defendant
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
acknowledges, the PDPA “contains no specific language of preemption of the common
law claim[.]” Accordingly, “[b]ecause the legislature did not expressly preclude
common law remedies, we look to the purpose and spirit of the statute and what the
enactment sought to accomplish, considering both the history and circumstances
surrounding the legislation and the reason for its enactment.” Id. (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 20 In seeking to ascertain the purpose and spirit of a statute, we consider “the
policy objectives behind [its] passage and the consequences which would follow from
a construction one way or another. A construction which operates to defeat or impair
the object of the statute must be avoided if that can reasonably be done without
violence to the legislative language.” Elec. Supply Co. of Durham, Inc. v. Swain Elec.
Co., 328 N.C. 651, 656, 403 S.E.2d 291, 294 (1991) (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). We may also consider canons of statutory construction, but “[a]n
analysis utilizing the plain language of the statute and the canons of construction
must be done in a manner which harmonizes with the underlying reason and purpose
of the statute.” Id.¶ 21 We first review the history and circumstances surrounding the enactment of
the PDPA, in light of both the EEPA and the common-law claim of wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy. As our Supreme Court noted in Amos, “[i]t seems
elementary that before a legislative body can intend to eliminate certain forms of
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
remedy it must be aware that such remedies exist.” 331 N.C. at 359, 416 S.E.2d at
173 (citation omitted).
¶ 22 The EEPA was enacted in 1977 and, as stated above, provides that the public
policy of North Carolina 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).
Although no private cause of action exists under the EEPA, “[t]his Court has
repeatedly recognized that the EEPA may form the basis for a wrongful discharge
claim.” Jarman v. Deason, 173 N.C. App. 297, 301, 618 S.E.2d 776, 779 (2005) (Geer,
J., concurring).
¶ 23 The PDPA was enacted in 19851 and, as stated above, provides its own
statement of purpose. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-2. In pertinent part, the PDPA
recognizes the right of persons with disabilities “to engage in remunerative
employment,” id. § 168A-2(a), and finds that discrimination on the basis of disability
“is contrary to the public interest and to the principles of freedom and equality of
1 The PDPA was originally titled the “North Carolina Handicapped Persons Protection
Act,” but effective 1 October 1999, the Act was renamed “and amended such that ‘person with
a disability’ [wa]s generally substituted for ‘handicapped person’ throughout” the PDPA.
Simmons v. Chemol Corp., 137 N.C. App. 319, 322, 528 S.E.2d 368, 370 (2000). For ease of
reading, we refer to it as the PDPA throughout our rendition of its history.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
opportunity[,]” id. § 168A-2(b). The PDPA provides a cause of action, with a 180-day
statute of limitations, for persons with disabilities aggrieved by discrimination in
employment. Id. §§ 168A-5, -11 to -12.
¶ 24 The PDPA was enacted in the midst of our appellate courts’ recognition of the
public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. Our General Assembly
ratified the PDPA on 3 July 1985, and it became effective 1 October 1985. An Act to
Protect Handicapped Persons, ch. 571, § 4, 1985 N.C. Sess. Laws 649, 656.
Meanwhile, this Court first recognized the public-policy exception in Sides v. Duke
University, which was published on 7 May 1985 and which our Supreme Court
declined to review on 13 August 1985. 74 N.C. App. 331, 342–43, 328 S.E.2d 818, 826–
27, disc. review denied, 314 N.C. 331, 335 S.E.2d 13 (1985). Our Supreme Court did
not itself affirmatively recognize the public-policy exception until 1989. Coman, 325
N.C. at 176, 381 S.E.2d at 447–48.
¶ 25 Defendant argues that this history evinces our General Assembly’s intent that
the PDPA preempt the common-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy with respect to cases of disability discrimination. However, this chronological
argument acknowledges but a small part of “the history and circumstances
surrounding the [PDPA] and the reason for its enactment[,]” while ignoring “the
purpose and spirit of the [PDPA] and what [its] enactment sought to accomplish[.]”
Amos, 331 N.C. at 358, 416 S.E.2d at 172 (citation omitted).
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
¶ 26 Looking to the purpose and spirit of the PDPA, in concert with the EEPA as
emblematic statements of the public policy of this state, our Supreme Court has
consistently cautioned against precisely the argument that Defendant now makes.
Defendant’s contention—that the PDPA’s statutory cause of action for disability
discrimination in employment preempts the common-law claim of wrongful discharge
in violation of public policy—disregards our Supreme Court’s holding in Amos that
“the availability of alternative remedies does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking tort
remedies for wrongful discharge based on the public policy exception.” Id. at 356–57,
416 S.E.2d at 171 (emphasis added). This must be so, the Amos Court reasoned,
because “[t]he availability of alternative common law and statutory remedies . . .
supplements rather than hinders the ultimate goal of protecting employees who have
been fired in violation of public policy.” Id. at 357, 416 S.E.2d at 171 (emphasis added).
¶ 27 Indeed, our Supreme Court has long recognized the rule that “if a statute is
remedial in nature, seeking to advance the remedy and repress the evil[,] it must be
liberally construed to effectuate the intent of the legislature.” Misenheimer v. Burris,
360 N.C. 620, 623, 637 S.E.2d 173, 175 (2006) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). Nearly two centuries ago, our Supreme Court concluded that the existence
of a statutory remedy did not eliminate a remedy at common law, and described
alternative statutory remedies as often “giving an easier or cumulative remedy for a
wrong, for which there was an action at the common law.” McKay v. Woodle, 28 N.C.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
352, 353–54 (1846); see also, e.g., Humphrey v. Wade, 70 N.C. 280, 281 (1874)
(“[A]lthough the relief sought may possibly have been under the act of 1846, . . . that
remedy is only cumulative . . . .”); Oliveira v. Univ. of N.C., 62 N.C. 69, 70 (1867)
(“Supposing, therefore, that the complainant has [a] complete remedy at law, . . . it is
only concurrent, and not exclusive . . . .”).
¶ 28 Consequently, adopting Defendant’s preferred construction of the PDPA—by
holding that its statutory remedy implicitly precludes a common-law claim, despite
the absence of any evidence that the General Assembly intended such a result—
would contravene this well-established maxim of remedial statutes. Stated another
way, accepting Defendant’s argument would require us “to [repress] the remedy and
[advance] the evil” that our General Assembly sought to remedy. Misenheimer, 360
N.C. at 623, 637 S.E.2d at 175 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
¶ 29 In addition, Defendant asks that we ignore well-established canons of
statutory construction by reading into the PDPA an implicit preclusion that is not
explicit in its text. Our Supreme Court has often reiterated that “[c]ourts should give
effect to the words actually used in a statute and should neither delete words that
are used nor insert words that are not used into the relevant statutory language
during the statutory construction process.” N.C. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dana,
379 N.C. 502, 2021-NCSC-161, ¶ 16 (emphasis added). “Nothing is to be added to
what the text states or reasonably implies (casus omissus pro omisso habendus est).
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
That is, a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered.” Antonin Scalia & Bryan
A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 93 (2012); see also Wilson
Funeral Dirs., Inc. v. N.C. Bd. of Funeral Serv., 244 N.C. App. 768, 774, 781 S.E.2d
507, 511 (2016) (applying the casus omissus canon). Although the casus omissus
canon allows for reasonable implications, Defendant’s proposal does not fall within
the boundary of our longstanding rule favoring the broad construction of statutory
remedies.
¶ 30 Plaintiff argues that “this Court should not find some kind of implied ‘exclusive
remedy provision’ where the legislature has remained silent[,]” observing that our
General Assembly “is familiar with such clauses, such as in the area of workers[’]
compensation, where it provided a comprehensive statutory framework” that includes
such an exclusive remedy provision. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 97-10.1 (“[T]he rights and
remedies herein granted . . . shall exclude all other rights and remedies . . . as against
the employer at common law or otherwise . . . .”). Indeed, Defendant’s chronological
argument, discussed above, arguably weighs more heavily on this point, and favors
Plaintiff. That our General Assembly—which explicitly precludes common-law
remedies when it so chooses—declined to include an explicit preclusion provision in
the PDPA either at its enactment or in its subsequent amendments speaks to the
General Assembly’s intent that the PDPA be viewed as a cumulative remedy, rather
than exclusive or preclusive of the common-law cause of action.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
¶ 31 Defendant relies heavily in its preclusion argument on Lederer v. Hargraves
Tech. Corp., in which a federal district court applied the Amos framework to conclude
that our General Assembly “intended to preclude common law actions for wrongful
discharge in violation of public policy with respect to members of the National Guard”
by the enactment of N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 127A-202, -202.1 and -203. 256 F. Supp. 2d
467, 472 (W.D.N.C. 2003). However, “[w]ith regard to matters of North Carolina state
law, neither this Court nor our Supreme Court is bound by the decisions of federal
courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, although in our discretion
we may conclude that the reasoning of such decisions is persuasive.” Salvie v. Med.
Ctr. Pharmacy of Concord, Inc., 235 N.C. App. 489, 493 n.2, 762 S.E.2d 273, 277 n.2
(2014) (citation omitted).
¶ 32 Our careful review of Lederer shows it to be an outlier among decisions issued
by other courts that have reviewed whether various statutes exclusively preempt the
common-law claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. For example,
“[o]ur courts have previously held that a plaintiff may pursue both a statutory claim
under [the Retaliatory Employment Discrimination Act (“REDA”)] and a common law
wrongful discharge claim based on a violation of REDA.” White v. Cochran, 216 N.C.
App. 125, 133, 716 S.E.2d 420, 426 (2011). Neither does Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., preclude the common law claim. See Atkins v.
USF Dugan, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 799, 810 (M.D.N.C. 1999) (“Consistent with Amos,
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
this Court finds that [the plaintiff]’s assertion of a Title VII claim does not preclude
his discharge in violation of public policy cause of action . . . .”). Atkins also concerned
concurrent claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et
seq., which the defendant moved to dismiss, and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., which the defendant did not. 106 F. Supp.
2d at 801–02. The district court allowed the common-law claim to proceed alongside
the three federal statutory claims. Id. at 814.
¶ 33 In sum, we conclude that the General Assembly did not intend for the PDPA
to preclude the common-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy,
in light of (1) the plain text of the PDPA; (2) the history and circumstances of the
enactment of the PDPA in light of the EEPA and the common-law claim; (3) our
longstanding principle of construing remedial statutes broadly; and (4) the guidance
of several other applicable canons of statutory construction. As such, the trial court
erred as a matter of law by concluding that the PDPA’s 180-day statute of limitations
bars Plaintiff’s common-law claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy,
and thus erred by dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as time-barred.
III. Failure to State a Claim
¶ 34 Our dissenting colleague contends that assuming, arguendo, that the PDPA’s
statute of limitations does not apply to—and therefore, bar—Plaintiff’s common-law
claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the trial court’s order
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss should nevertheless be affirmed because
“Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish she is a member of the
protected class of disabled individuals.” Dissent ¶ 71. However, upon careful review
of the allegations of Plaintiff’s complaint in the deferential light of our standard of
review, we conclude that Plaintiff has pleaded a claim sufficient to survive
Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
¶ 35 As stated above, “[t]he standard of review of an order granting a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion is whether the complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted under
some legal theory when the complaint is liberally construed and all the allegations
included therein are taken as true.” Bill Clark Homes, 281 N.C. App. 1, 2021-NCCOA-
688, ¶ 11 (citation omitted).
¶ 36 Although the EEPA declares that the public policy of this State is to protect
against discrimination in employment on the basis of “handicap[,]” the EEPA does
not itself define the word “handicap” as used in this context. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-
422.2 (containing no definition of “handicap”). However, this Court has previously
determined that the PDPA’s definition of “person with a disability” applies to
common-law claims of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as set forth in
the EEPA, prohibiting discrimination on account of a person’s handicap or disability.
McCullough v. Branch Banking & Tr. Co., 136 N.C. App. 340, 347–48, 524 S.E.2d
569, 574 (2000). The PDPA defines “person with a disability” as: “Any person who (i)
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major
life activities; (ii) has a record of such an impairment; or (iii) is regarded as having
such an impairment.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-3(7a) (emphasis added).
¶ 37 The dissent views Plaintiff’s complaint as alleging the bare possibility of a
future impairment or handicap. Our dissenting colleague asserts that “Plaintiff
merely alleges that she has a heart condition that requires occasional treatment
which could be impairing in the future if untreated and that her condition ‘impairs’
her ability to walk and exercise.” Dissent ¶ 74. However, our dissenting colleague
argues, Plaintiff “does not expressly allege that her condition substantially impairs
these activities, nor does she allege facts which show that her condition substantially
impairs these activities.” Id.
¶ 38 Yet, construing Plaintiff’s complaint liberally and taking all allegations therein
as true, as we must, Bill Clark Homes, 281 N.C. App. 1, 2021-NCCOA-688, ¶ 11, we
conclude that Plaintiff’s complaint is sufficient to survive Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6)
motion. In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following facts:
In February 2019, [Plaintiff] began experiencing symptoms
for which she sought the advice of a cardiologist. It was
determined that she suffered from a serious health
condition that would require a cardiac ablation procedure.
The procedure involves cauterizing arteries in the heart
with the objective of correcting atrial fibrillation, an
irregular and often rapid heartbeat that can increase the
risk of strokes, heart failure, and other heart-related
complications.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
¶ 39 She also recounts the “many healthcare appointments” that her condition
required and her week-long absence from work that was necessary for Plaintiff to
undergo and recuperate from a cardiac ablation procedure.
¶ 40 In the portion of her complaint setting forth her wrongful-discharge
allegations, Plaintiff adds that she “suffers from a disability. Her heart condition
affects major life activities, such as walking and exercising, and if left untreated can
lead to stroke or death. Plaintiff had a record of a disability at the time she was
wrongfully terminated.” She further alleges that she “was retaliated against and
wrongfully discharged from her employment because of (a) her disability, (b) the time
she took off to have her disability treated, and (c) Defendant’s discrimination and
preconceived notions about her future performance as an employee based on her
disability.” Lastly, she claims that her “medical condition and status as ‘disabled’ was
a substantial factor in . . . Defendant’s decision to terminate her employment.”
¶ 41 Considering the PDPA’s definition of “person with a disability,” there does not
appear to be any dispute that Plaintiff has pleaded: (1) that she has a record of (2) a
physical impairment (atrial fibrillation) (3) that limits one or more major life
activities.2 Our dissenting colleague only challenges the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s
2 “[W]alking” is specifically included among the PDPA’s non-exhaustive list of “[m]ajor
life activities.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-3(7a)(b). “A major life activity also includes the
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
allegations regarding the degree of her physical limitation—i.e., whether her
condition substantially limits these major life activities.
¶ 42 The dissent relies on Burgess v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 298 N.C. 520, 259
S.E.2d 248 (1979), to support its contention that Plaintiff did not allege that her
condition is substantially impairing. Dissent ¶ 74. In Burgess, our Supreme Court
considered “whether a person who suffers from ‘simple glaucoma,’ but has 20/20
vision in both eyes with glasses, is a ‘handicapped person’ as defined” by the PDPA’s
predecessor statute. 298 N.C. at 522, 259 S.E.2d at 250. The Burgess Court concluded
that “[f]airly construed, the remedial provisions of [the PDPA’s predecessor statute]
are intended to aid only those who are presently disabled. The problems of
individuals, not presently disabled, who suffer from conditions which may or may not
disable them in the future are beyond the scope of the statute.” Id. at 528, 259 S.E.2d
at 253–54. Thus, because the Burgess plaintiff alleged “that he has an eye disease but
that his vision is functioning normally with glasses[,]” the Court concluded that the
plaintiff was “not visually disabled within the meaning of the statute.” Id. at 528, 259
S.E.2d at 253.
¶ 43 However, the use of eyeglasses to correct poor vision is specifically addressed
in the PDPA. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-3(7a)(d) (“The determination of whether an
operation of a major bodily function, including, but not limited to, . . . circulatory . . .
functions.” Id.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to
the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, such as . . . low-vision devices, which
do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses . . . .” (emphasis added)). Thus,
the PDPA instructs that “the ameliorative effects” of eyeglasses shall be considered
in “[t]he determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life
activity[,]” id., making this specific example less than illustrative for the case at bar.
¶ 44 As for the broader holding of Burgess, there is little in Plaintiff’s pleading that
suggests that she is “not presently disabled”; rather, the issue seems to be that her
pleading could be read to suggest that her condition “may or may not disable [her] in
the future[.]” Burgess, 298 N.C. at 528, 259 S.E.2d at 253–54. But what speculative
language exists in Plaintiff’s complaint—concerning the potential dire effect of failing
to treat the atrial fibrillation with the cardiac ablation procedure to which Plaintiff
was compelled to submit—should not be overread to deny the existence of her present
condition as pleaded in her complaint.
¶ 45 Plaintiff alleges in her complaint that she “had a record of a disability”: namely,
atrial fibrillation, which is “a serious health condition” that “affects major life
activities” and, if left untreated, could “lead to stroke or death.” Plaintiff also alleges
that she had been experiencing symptoms serious enough to require her week-long
absence from work so that she could undergo and recuperate from a cardiac ablation
procedure. And Plaintiff alleges that she “was retaliated against and wrongfully
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
discharged from her employment because of (a) her disability, (b) the time she took
off to have her disability treated, and (c) Defendant’s discrimination and preconceived
notions about her future performance as an employee based on her disability.”
¶ 46 Altogether, construed liberally and taken as true, as we must at this stage of
litigation, Bill Clark Homes, 281 N.C. App. 1, 2021-NCCOA-688, ¶ 11, the allegations
of Plaintiff’s complaint are sufficient to plead that Plaintiff is a “person with a
disability,” notwithstanding Plaintiff’s omission of the word “substantially” from her
description of the myriad ways her condition limits her major life activities.
¶ 47 At this juncture, this Court is not tasked with passing on the merits of
Plaintiff’s claim, only her pleading. We express no opinion on whether Plaintiff “will
ultimately prevail” on the merits of her claim. Id. ¶ 12 (citation omitted). Our
dissenting colleague posits that Plaintiff may have difficulty proving that she was
terminated based on her disability; regardless, she has alleged facts supporting such
a claim and we must not construe them unfavorably against her at this stage of the
proceedings. Rather, we merely conclude that Plaintiff “is entitled to offer evidence
to support [her] claim.” Id. (citation omitted).
¶ 48 Our opinion sounds in the longstanding and oft-recognized principle that a
remedial statute “should be construed liberally, in a manner which assures
fulfillment of the beneficial goals for which it is enacted and which brings within it
all cases fairly falling within its intended scope.” Burgess, 298 N.C. at 524, 259 S.E.2d
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
Opinion of the Court
at 251. Dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim at this preliminary stage of litigation would
frustrate those beneficial goals more than it would ensure their fulfillment.
Conclusion
¶ 49 For the foregoing reasons, the trial court’s order dismissing Plaintiff’s claim is
reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judge ARROWOOD concurs.
Judge DILLON dissents by separate opinion.
No. COA21-563 – Woody v. Accuquest Hearing Ctr., LLC
DILLON, Judge, dissenting.
¶ 50 Though Plaintiff pleads in her complaint that she was terminated shortly after
she retained for over a week funds her employer had directed to be deposit
immediately into her employer’s bank account, our role is to determine whether she
has stated a claim for wrongful termination based on workplace disability
discrimination. I conclude that she has not, as a matter of law for two independent
reasons as explained below. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
I. No Common Law Action Exists.
¶ 51 First, I conclude that our General Assembly intended the statutory remedies it
created in Section 168A-11 (the “1985 PDPA”) to be exclusive, and not to co-exist with
a judicially created, common law remedy based on that body’s public policy
pronouncement in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2 (the “1977 EEPA”). And since Plaintiff
did not file her claim within the applicable 180-day statute of limitations contained
in the 1985 PDPA, Judge Craig was correct in dismissing the complaint.
¶ 52 In North Carolina, “[o]rdinarily, an employee without a definite term of
employment is an employee at will and may be discharged without reason.” Coman
v. Thomas Mfg., 325 N.C. 172, 175, 381 S.E.2d 445, 446 (1989). However, in 1989,
our Supreme Court first recognized a cause of action under our common law for
wrongful discharge where one is discharged “for an unlawful reason or purpose that
contravenes public policy.” Id. at 175, 381 S.E.2d at 447 (emphasis added). In Coman,
the Court held that a trucker had stated a cause of action for wrongful termination
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
based on allegations he was terminated for refusing to falsify his driving log to show
that he was not driving for periods in excess of that allowed under federal law. “Thus,
according to plaintiff’s allegations when defendant discharged plaintiff, if violated the
federal regulations and the public policy of North Carolina as established in our
Administrative Code.” Id. at 176, 381 S.E.2d at 447. It should be noted that our
General Assembly had, otherwise, not provided Mr. Coman with a remedy to sue for
wrongful termination.
¶ 53 In the present case, however, our General Assembly has provided a remedy for
wrongful termination based on workplace disability discrimination, through its
passage of the 1985 PDPA. We are tasked to determine whether the 1985 PDPA
constitutes Plaintiff’s exclusive remedy or whether she also has a common law claim
for wrongful termination based on a violation of the public policy announced by our
General Assembly in the 1977 EEPA. Since the 1985 PDPA does not contain any
express statement concerning whether the remedies contained in the 1985 PDPA are
meant to be exclusive, our Supreme Court instructs that we are to “look to the purpose
and spirit of the statute and what the enactment sought to accomplish, considering
both the history and circumstances surrounding the legislation and the reasons for
its enactment.” Amos v. Oakdale, 331 N.C. 348, 358, 416 S.E.2d 166, 172 (1992).
¶ 54 Applying our Supreme Court’s reasoning in Amos to the history and
circumstances surrounding the passage of the 1985 PDPA, I conclude that our
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
General Assembly did not intend that a judicially created, common law action based
on the 1977 EEPA was to co-exist with the cause of action it was establishing.
¶ 55 In Amos, our Supreme Court determined that the termination of the plaintiffs’
employment for their refusal to work for less than the minimum wage established by
our state’s Wage and Hour Act violated the public policy of our State. Id. at 350, 416
S.E.2d at 167. The question, though, was whether the Act provided the sole remedy.
¶ 56 The Court recognized that the “strongest argument” for the remedies in the
Act to be exclusive was that at the time the Act was passed, neither our Court or our
Supreme Court “had recognized the public policy exception to the employment at-will
doctrine.” Id. at 358-59, 416 S.E.2d at 172.
¶ 57 The Court held, though, that the remedies provided by the Act was not
exclusive because “[j]udging from these statutory remedies, it seems apparent that
the intent of the legislature was to provide an employee an avenue to recover back
wages while remaining employed . . . [but] provides no remedy for refusing to work
for less than the statutory minimum wage.” Id. at 358, 416 S.E.2d at 172.
¶ 58 Like the Wage and Hour Act, the 1985 PDPA was enacted before our Supreme
Court recognized the public policy exception in Coman and at the time our Court first
recognized the exception. Sides v. Duke, 74 N.C. App. 331, 342, 328 S.E.2d 818, 826
(1985). (The 1985 PDPA was introduced before our Sides opinion and enacted a few
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
months after Sides. I doubt Sides, which involved a different public policy concern
was in our General Assembly’s conscience when it considered the 1985 PDPA.)
¶ 59 However, unlike the Wage and Hour Act at issue in Amos, the 1985 PDPA does
provide a comprehensive range of remedies, not only for those terminated or not hired
based on their disability, but for those refusing to work under discriminatory
conditions. Specifically, the 1985 PDPA mandates an employer to provide reasonable
accommodations, a new duty not contemplated even in the 1977 EEPA which
established the public policy. See Head v. Adams Farm Living, Inc., 242 N.C. App.
546, 553, 775 S.E.2d 904, 909 (2015) (recognizing that unlike the 1985 PDPA, the
1977 EEPA “does not impose a corresponding duty of reasonable accommodation by
an employer”). That is, under the 1977 EEPA, discriminatory practices included
treating disabled persons who could otherwise perform a job differently than fully
abled persons. The 1985 PDPA fully proscribes this practice and adds the failure to
provide reasonable accommodations as a discriminatory practice.
¶ 60 I note that the language in the 1985 PDPA, its history, and other
circumstances occurring around the time of its passage indicate that the 1985 PDPA
was intended to be exclusive, as explained below.
¶ 61 The General Assembly already provided a remedy for workplace disability
discrimination prior to the 1977 EEPA. Specifically, in 1973, our General Assembly
enacted the Handicapped Persons Act (the predecessor of the 1985 PDPA), codified
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
in N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 168-1, et seq. The 1973 Act was entitled “AN ACT TO PROVIDE
FOR TREATMENT OF HANDICAPPED AND DISABLED PERSONS EQUAL TO
THAT AFFORDED OTHER PERSONS[,]” and its stated purpose was to “encourage
and enable handicapped persons to participate fully in the social and economic life of
the State and to engage in remunerative employment.” Id. § 168-1. One of the
sections under the 1973 Act established certain rights to disabled individuals in the
workplace, as follows:
Right to employment. Handicapped persons shall be
employed in [all] employment, both public and private, on
the same terms and conditions as the able-bodied, unless it
is show that the particular disability impairs the
performance of the work involved.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168-6 (1973) (repealed and superseded by the 1985 PDPA). As the
1973 Act did not specify any statute of limitations, any claim filed for workplace
disability discrimination was subject to the 3-year statute of limitations under N.C.
Gen. Stat. 1-52(2). Spaulding v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 93 N.C. App. 770, 771-
72, 379 S.E.2d 49, 50 (1989), aff’d, 326 N.C. 44, 387 S.E.2d 168 (1990).
¶ 62 In 1977, our General Assembly enacted the EEPA, which recognized as the
public policy of our State that employers of fifteen (15) or more people should not
discriminate based on “race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex or handicap[.]”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2. The General Assembly certainly did not understand that
this Act would be the basis of a new cause of action in addition to that provided in its
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
1973 Act, as no court had yet recognized a common law claim. The 1973 Act provided
the cause of action, and the 1977 EEPA is clearly just a statement of public policy.
¶ 63 In 1985, our General Assembly replaced the portion of the 1973 Act dealing
with workplace discrimination with the more robust 1985 PDPA. The language of
the 1985 PDPA established a new cause of action with broader rights than that even
contemplated in its 1970’s legislation (as discussed above), again without any
understanding that the cause of action was supplementing some common law claim
as shown by the language in the Act.
¶ 64 The General Assembly repealed the section in the 1973 Act which
initially created a cause of action for disability workplace discrimination. See
1985 Session Law, Chapter 571, Sec. 3 (“G.S. 168-6 is repealed.”).
¶ 65 The “Statement of purpose” contained in the 1985 Act (codified in
Chapter 168A-2) is substantially similar to the public policy as announced in
the 1977 EEPA, as it relates to disabled persons.
¶ 66 Where its 1977 EEPA merely announces a public policy regarding
discrimination by employers of 15 or more persons, the 1985 PDPA creates a
cause of action against employers of 15 or more persons. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §
168A-3(2).
¶ 67 Our General Assembly made specific policy decisions for the procedure
one would have to follow to pursue a claim for workplace disability
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
discrimination. For instance, the 1985 PDPA provides that actions for a
discriminatory practice “shall be tried to the court without a jury.” N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 168A-11(a). The Act provides that an employer’s liability for back pay
shall be limited to two years. Id. § 168A-11(b). And the Act limits the time
within which a plaintiff may sue for workplace disability discrimination to 180
days. It seems odd that our General Assembly would enact these limitations
while intending litigants could sue for the same conduct without these
limitations through a common law claim.
¶ 68 And the 1985 PDPA states that our State’s jurisdiction to consider a
plaintiff’s claim under that Act ends after the plaintiff commences a federal
action raising a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the same
conduct. Id. § 168A-11(c). There is no mention that jurisdiction for common
law claims likewise ends. If our General Assembly understood that a common
law claim existed, it seems that this statute would have been amended to
include a statement that our State’s jurisdiction to consider any such claim
ends once a federal action was commenced. But that body did not reference
any such claim.
¶ 69 Finally, I note that in 1990, the year after recognizing the public-policy
exception in Coman, our Supreme Court affirmed a decision from our Court holding
that a claim for workplace disability discrimination was subject to the 180-day
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
limitation period found in the 1985 PDPA that replaced the 1973 Act and, therefore
was subject to the 180-day limitation period in the 1985 PDPA. See Spaulding, 93
N.C. App. at 773, 379 S.E.2d at 51, aff’d, 326 N.C. at 44, 387 S.E.2d at 168.3
¶ 70 There is a place for our courts to recognize a cause of action where an employer
fires an at-will employee for a reason that violates some stated public policy.
However, I do not believe that our Supreme Court intended for us to recognize a
common law claim in the present context. Indeed, our General Assembly had already
recognized the ill of workplace disability discrimination and created a cause of action
for that ill four years prior to its public policy pronouncement in the 1977 EEPA. And
in its 1985 PDPA, our General Assembly essentially restated the public policy
contained in the 1977 EEPA when it repealed the 1973 Act and replaced it with
legislation designed to remediate the public policy concern with broader rights.
II. Failure to Allege “Substantial” Impairment
¶ 71 Even assuming North Carolina recognizes a common law claim for workplace
disability discrimination, Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to establish she
is a member of the protected class of disabled individuals.
3 I do note that, in 2000, our Court held that certain jury instructions for a common
law workplace disability claim based the 1977 EEPA were not erroneous, suggesting that
North Carolina does recognize a common law cause of action apart from the 1985 PDPA. See
McCullough v. BB&T, 136 N.C. App. 340, 524 S.E.2d 569 (2000). However, the record in that
case shows that the defendant bank never raised the issue of preemption. Further, whether
the claim in that case should have been one under the 1985 PDPA was not dispositive on the
issue before the Court, which merely centered on the definition of “handicapped” contained
in the jury instruction. Id. at 348, 524 S.E.2d at 574.
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
¶ 72 The term “handicap” is not defined in the 1977 EEPA. However, our Court has
held that the definitions contained in the 1985 PDPA apply. See McCullough v.
BB&T, 136 N.C. App. 340, 524 S.E.2d 569 (2000).
¶ 73 The 1985 PDPA defines a person with a disability as one who has a physical
“impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities” or is “treated
as” having such impairment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 168A-3(7a) (emphasis added).
¶ 74 In her complaint, Plaintiff merely alleges that she has a heart condition that
requires occasional treatment which could be impairing in the future if untreated and
that her condition “impairs” her ability to walk and exercise. However, she does not
expressly allege that her condition substantially impairs these activities, nor does she
allege facts which show that her condition substantially impairs these activities. See,
e.g., Burgess v. Joseph Schlitz, 298 N.C. 520, 259 S.E.2d 248 (1979) (holding in an
action brought under the 1973 Act that one is not “handicapped” who had glaucoma
but who had 20/20 vision when wearing glasses).
¶ 75 Therefore, assuming it is appropriate for us to recognize a common law remedy
in the face of the comprehensive remedies provided by the 1985 PDPA, Plaintiff’s
complaint still fails because of her failure to allege facts showing that she is a member
of a protected class under the 1977 EEPA.
¶ 76 I conclude by noting to address Plaintiff’s allegations that she was “wrongfully
discharged” because of “(a) her disability, (b) the time she took off to have her
WOODY V. ACCUQUEST HEARING CTR., LLC
2022-NCCOA-500
DILLON, J., dissenting
disability treated, and (c) Defendant’s discrimination and preconceived notions about
her future performance as an employee based on her disability.”
¶ 77 Assuming North Carolina recognizes a common law claim and that Plaintiff
has properly alleged such claim, Plaintiff cannot base her “common law” claim on
Defendant’s desire not to accommodate her (allowing her to attend doctor’s
appointments, etc.) Indeed, our Court has held that the duty to accommodate did not
arise under the 1977 EEPA, but this duty is exclusive to claims brought under the
1985 PDPA. Head v. Adams Farm, 242 N.C. App. at 553, 775 S.E.2d at 909(reiterating that the 1977 EEPA “does not impose a corresponding duty of reasonable
accommodation by the employer”). Therefore, to succeed in her claim, Plaintiff must
show how, based on her condition, she was treated differently than other employees
without the condition. Plaintiff would have an almost impossible burden of showing
that Defendant treated her differently based on her heart condition. Indeed, Plaintiff
has admitted in her complaint that Defendant had a non-discriminatory reason to
terminate her; namely, her failure to make a bank deposit for her employer for over
a week. And she makes no allegation that some employee without a heart condition
was not fired for similar conduct.