American Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union No. 7, International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers

<bold>1. Employer and Employee — wrongful discharge</bold> <bold>— reporting misconduct to management — evidence</bold> <bold>sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for the wrongful discharge of an at-will employee where the claim was based upon a retaliatory termination after plaintiff reported to management that the company was withholding negative account balance statements from customers, transferring the monies to a separate account, and continuing to invoice customers in violation of N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>14-100</cross_reference> (obtaining property by false pretenses).</block_quote> <bold>2. Employer and Employee — tortious interference</bold><bold>with contract — termination — wrongful purpose</bold><bold>— evidence sufficient</bold> <block_quote> The trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for directed verdict on a claim for tortious interference with a contract by defendant Smith where plaintiff reported misconduct<page_number>Page 76</page_number> within the company to Smith and was later terminated. Plaintiff forecasted more than a scintilla of evidence that he was terminated for a wrongful purpose.</block_quote> <bold>3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues</bold><bold>— argument not raised</bold> <block_quote> Plaintiff was deemed to have abandoned an argument on appeal that a corporation ratified the acts of a supervisor in a wrongful termination suit. Plaintiff did not raise the issue in his brief, cite authority, or point to evidence in the record.</block_quote> <bold>4. Unfair Trade Practices — employment dispute</bold><bold>— not an un-fair or deceptive trade practice</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting defendants' motion for a directed verdict on plaintiffs claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices after an alleged retaliatory firing. The case involved a simple employment dispute and did not fall with