BRIAN W. MEEHAN, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, LLC; DNA SECURITY, INC.; and RICHARD CLARK, Defendants
Case Details
- Citation
- 214 N.C. App. 245
- Judge(s)
- Judges BRYANT and STROUD concur.
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- North Carolina
- Circuit
- 4th Circuit
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The court affirmed summary judgment for defendants on breach of employment contract and tortious interference claims, finding just cause for termination based on the plaintiff's flawed DNA report work product. However, the court vacated and remanded the wage-and-hour claim under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the interpretation of CPI salary adjustment terms.
Excerpt
BRIAN W. MEEHAN, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN MEDIA INTERNATIONAL, LLC; DNA SECURITY, INC.; and RICHARD CLARK, Defendants No. COA10-1091 (Filed 2 August 2011) 1. Employer and Employee — breach of employment — conduct grounds for termination — reasons not pretextual — summary judgment proper The trial court did not err in a breach of employment contract case by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. There were no genuine issues of material fact as to whether plaintiff engaged in conduct that met the employment agreement’s grounds for termination and given the just cause for termination, defendant’s reasons for plaintiff’s discharge were not pretextual. 2. Employer and Employee — tortious interference with contract — no intentional inducement — summary judgment proper The trial court did not err in a tortious interference with contract case by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Defendant DSI did not breach its contract with plaintiff because it had just cause for termination. Since there was no breach of contract, plaintiffs claim failed. Additionally, as just cause for termination existed, defendants Clark and AMI had legal justification for discharging plaintiff. 3. Employer and Employee — employment contracts — Wage and Hour Act — terms ambiguous — genuine issues of material fact — summary judgment improper The trial court erred in a North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claim by granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The language of the employment contract was ambiguous and genuine issues of material fact existed as to which iteration of the Consumer Price Index should be used. Appeal by Plaintiff from an Order entered 26 March 2010 by Judge J.B. Allen, Jr., in Alamance County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 March 2011. Elliot Pishko Morgan, PA., by Robert M. Elliot, for Plaintiff-appellant. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., by Robert A. Sar, Gretchen W. Ewalt, and Phillip J. Strach, for Defendantsappellee. HUNTER, JR., Robert N., Judge. Brian W. Meehan (“Plaintiff”) appeals from an Order granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm in part, and vacate and remand in part. I. Facts and Procedural History This case arises from a dispute between Plaintiff and his former employer, DNA Security, Inc. (“DSI”). In 2006, Plaintiff prepared a report analyzing DNA samples in connection with the Durham Police Department’s investigation of 46 Duke University lacrosse players on sexual assault allegations (the “Duke Lacrosse Case”). The report obscured findings that exculpated the charged players, and in the controversy that followed, DSI terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Plaintiff contends DSI did not have just cause for termination and filed the underlying action against DSI, American Media International, LLC (“AMI”), and Richard Clark (“Clark”) (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff, who has a Ph.D. in Marine Science, is a scientist specializing in DNA analysis and testing. In 1998, Plaintiff established and incorporated DSI as a company providing DNA forensic analysis in North Carolina and began marketing its services to sheriffs, police departments, and district attorneys. In order to be recognized by police and prosecutorial authorities as a qualified testing lab, DSI had to obtain the “gold standard” of accreditation from the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (“ASCLD/LAB”). To meet ASCLD/LAB accrediting standards, DSI had to prepare and submit its procedures and protocols to ASCLD/LAB to assure ASCLD/LAB that DSI test results and reports would meet required standards of accuracy and reliability. DSI obtained ASCLD/LAB certification in 2003. On 27 October 2004, Plaintiff, then the sole director, officer, and shareholder of DSI, and Clark, President of AMI, executed a stock purchase agreement under which AMI would purchase all the stock of DSI and Plaintiff would remain employed by DSI for seven years pursuant to a term sheet appended to the stock purchase agreement (“Employment Agreement”). The Employment Agreement contained four sections relevant to this appeal as follows: 5. Initial Salary: One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($125,000.00) per year payable in equal monthly installments. 6. Salary Adjustments: The salary shall be adjusted annually to, at least, reflect any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index (all items) as calculated by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. There shall be no salary adjustment downward in any year in which the Consumer Price Index might decrease from the previous year. 7. Employment Position and Responsibilities: Employer shall engage and hire Employee for the position of Executive Director and Employee shall perform such duties as are customary by one holding such a position in a similar business or enterprise. 11. Termination of Employment: b. Employment shall terminate for just cause, including any violation of policies and procedures listed in the [DSI] employee handbook, or any terms of this agreement, or in the event the employee is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude or dishonesty. In any of these events of termination, [DSI] shall be obligated to pay Employee only such compensation as is due and payable through the date of termination. At the time of the agreement, DSI had an employee handbook, referenced in Section 11(b) of the Employment Agreement, which provided standards of conduct that Defendants assert support a contractual basis for Plaintiff’s termination. The relevant portion of this employee handbook reads as follows: 5.2 Rules of Conduct: . . . Although not all-inclusive, any of the following types of misconduct are considered unacceptable behavior and will result in disciplinary action up to and including immediate discharge. (17) Substandard performance on the job. The absence of any misconduct not listed above does not prevent its being considered a breach of our rules of conduct. If your appearance, performance, work habits, overall attitude, conduct, or demeanor become unsatisfactory in the judgment of the Company, based on violations either of the above or any other Company policies, rules or regulations, you may be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal. From the execution of the stock purchase agreement until the time of the events described hereinafter, the parties’ relationship appeared to be harmonious. In the spring of 2006, the Durham Police Department requested DSI to conduct DNA analysis in connection with the Duke Lacrosse Case. After Plaintiff agreed to conduct the testing, the State obtained a Court Order dated 5 April 2006 from Judge Ronald L. Stephens ordering: the oral, anal, vaginal and underwear swabs taken from the victim’s rape kit in this case, along with the 46 cheek swabbings taken from the group containing the suspects, be delivered to [DSI] ... for the purpose of Y STR DNA analysis, and if any male positive results are found among the victim’s swabs, to compare the DNA to the 46 cheek swabbings to determine if an identification can be made. Over the next two months, DSI staff, supervised by Plaintiff, completed the requested analysis. The test results supported two conclusions: (1) there was no match between any of the specimens provided by the lacrosse players and the alleged victim; and (2) the alleged victim had recent sexual contact with multiple men who were not among the specimens provided. Plaintiff, by affidavit, testified that in April 2006 he verbally conveyed both conclusions of the test results to District Attorney Mike Nifong (“Nifong”) and subsequently authored and signed a written report to Nifong dated 12 May 2006 providing the results of the analysis (the “12 May 2006 Report”). Plaintiff admits he is responsible for the creation of the 12 May 2006 Report and the report was his work product. While the 12 May 2006 Report can, in theory, be read to support the first conclusion of the analysis (that there was no match between any of the specimens provided by the accused and the accuser), the language used to convey both of Plaintiff’s conclusions is vague. Instead of explicitly stating both conclusions, Plaintiff used the following opaque language in the 12 May 2006 Report: “Results of DNA analysis: Individual DNA profiles for non-probative evidence specimens and suspect reference specimens are being retained at DSI pending notification of the client. Three of the reference specimens are consistent with DNA profiles obtained from some evidence items and the analysis of these specimens is below.” Specifically, Plaintiff’s use of the phrase “non-probative” in the 12 May 2006 Report obscured the actual test results. Although the test results exonerate the lacrosse players, subsequent to the State’s receipt of the 12 May 2006 Report, three of the 46 lacrosse players, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, and David Evans (collectively “the charged players”), were indicted by the State for first degree forcible rape, first degree sexual offense, and kidnapping. In response to discovery motions, the State provided the results of the lab tests to the attorneys representing the charged players in October 2006. On 14 December 2006, Nifong informed Plaintiff that the attorneys representing the charged players made a motion that Plaintiff be tendered as a witness at a hearing scheduled for 15 December 2006. As the author of the 12 May 2006 Report, Plaintiff was encouraged by Nifong and Clark, then President of DSI, to testify as to the report’s findings. Plaintiff was reluctant to testify at the hearing and cited that he would not be able to review the “volume of documents” needed for adequate trial preparation in time for his testimony. Through Plaintiffs testimony at the 15 December 2006 hearing, it became clear that the 12 May 2006 Report was flawed. The following exchange between Plaintiff and an attorney for one of the charged players illustrates the central flaw of the report: Q. Let me direct your attention to what is exhibit Attachment No. 15 of Defendants’ Exhibit No. 1. The bottom number is 3883. A. I’m there. Q. Does that appear to be the protocols for your lab— A. Yes. Q. —on how you run your lab? A. Yes. Q. Do you rely on those protocols routinely to maintain your accreditation with ASCLD/LAB? A. Yes. Q. I’d like to direct your attention to standards for reports. It says, No. 4, item reports shall include . . . A. I’m there. Q. Doesn’t it say, Results for each DNA test? A. Yes. Q. You didn’t include the results for each DNA test in your report dated May 12; is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. So you violated this protocol of your own lab? A. That’s correct. Q. And you violated this protocol of your own lab because the district attorney told you to; is that correct? A. No. It’s not just because the district attorney told me to. And, you know, I don’t know a better way to say this. You know, we, we legitimately — and it may not hold any weight in your legal arena, but we were legitimately concerned about a report that could become explosive if it had overly detailed all those profiles from all those players in it, okay. Now, so we agreed with Mr. Nifong that we would report just the stuff that matched so that it would, so the report was limited in its scope. However, it’s not a — and by the letter of the law, by the letter of the wording of the standard, you’re absolutely correct. It diverges from the letter of that standard, okay. But we do indicate on the report that there is additional information. We would be glad to provide this information if you would like. But at this point on this report, it was limited. This, I don’t have another explanation for it. I don’t have a legal justification for it or a reason, okay. It was just trying to do the right thing. And that information is still available and it was available to you when we released the full documents. Q. Okay. Were [the prosecuting attorneys] aware that all the testing that you had done excluded Reade Seligmann with a hundred percent scientific certainty as of the date you wrote your report? A. I believe so. Q. Did you have a specific discussion with them about whether that information excluding Reade Seligmann should be included in the report? A. Not with that specific name, No. We never mentioned that specific name. Q. How about any defendant? A. We never, I actually don’t recall using any defendant’s names.... Q. Did your report set forth the results of all of the tests and examinations that you conducted in this case? A. No. It was limited to only some results. Q. Okay. And that was an intentional limitation arrived at between you and representatives of the State of North Carolina not to report on the results of all examinations and tests that you did in this case? A. Yes. Plaintiff’s 15 December 2006 testimony regarding the incomplete 12 May 2006 Report created substantial adverse reactions to DSI in the news media. The national television news program 60 Minutes produced a segment on the Duke Lacrosse Case. DSI asked Plaintiff to appear on 60 Minutes to answer questions from CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl. Plaintiff reluctantly agreed to do so. During the interview, Plaintiff made the following statements: [Leslie Stahl]: So . . . when you produced other reports if you have found information about other [suspects,] other people who aren’t suspects, you would leave it out of the report? Have you done this before? [Plaintiff]: No. I . . . wouldn’t leave it — we haven’t done that before, and I wouldn’t leave it out. [Leslie Stahl]: [D]id you just completely, totally, you, yourself, take it on yourself, all you, no influence from the District Attorney; and not put every single thing that a lot of other forensic specialists, who we’ve talked to, say should have been in that report? [Plaintiff]: It was an error by me. [Leslie Stahl]: Your error? [Plaintiff]: It was my error. [Leslie Stahl]: Not the District Attorney? [Plaintiff]: No, I’m the person that wrote that report, and — and the District [Attorney] at no time explicitly told me to include, to exclude in that report. On 10 January 2007, prior to the airing of the 60 Minutes interview on 11 February 2007, Plaintiff composed an amended laboratory report that corrected the errors in the 12 May 2006 Report. This 10 January 2007 report explicitly stated the DNA evidence provided by Nifong did not match any of the lacrosse players’ DNA. After reviewing these events, on 25 July 2007 ASCLD/LAB issued a report confirming the validity of allegations made against DSI concerning its 12 May 2006 Report; ASCLD/LAB asserted DSI inappropriately characterized certain DNA samples as non-probative. ASCLD/LAB also noted that DSI had taken actions to correct the 12 May 2006 Report. Following the broadcast of the 60 Minutes interview and other public comments about DSI, Plaintiff’s workload and DSI’s revenues declined. Defendants directly attribute this decline to Plaintiffs 12 May 2006 Report. Additionally, the charged players filed a civil action for damages against DSI and Plaintiff, which, according to the record, remains unresolved. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, DSI began looking for a new lab director to replace Plaintiff in the spring of 2007. While DSI was securing a replacement lab director, Plaintiff continued to serve as lab director and to testify in various legal proceedings relating to the Duke Lacrosse Case. Plaintiff was scheduled to receive a “milestone” payment of $160,000 in January 2008, if he remained employed until that date, pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement. On 11 October 2007, Clark wrote a letter to Plaintiff terminating his employment for just cause pursuant to clause 11(b) of the Employment Agreement. The letter states, in part: While I know for certain that the allegations against you, the company and myself are completely false, your failure to adequately explain DSI’s role in this case to the public and to the lacrosse families during the multiple times you have testified has directly lead to the dire situation the company currently faces. Based on our conversations, I also know that you fully understand and acknowledge that your poor communications have put you, DSI and myself in this ridiculous situation. This letter will serve as notice that DSI is terminating your employment immediately. Standing alone, your misstatement that you committed an alleged “big error” in the handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, as you characterized it on national television during a 60 Minutes interview, constitutes just cause for ending your employment as Executive Director of the lab pursuant to the Employment Agreement the company entered into with you in October of 2004. As we have discussed many times and you have consistently told me, there in fact was no “big error.” Some months after sending the letter, Defendants sent Plaintiff a check in the amount of $6,554.24, which Defendants contend was the amount due to Plaintiff pursuant to the Employment Agreement, including any salary adjustment due to a rise in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). Plaintiff disputes that this is the correct amount owed to him, alleging DSI improperly calculated the amount due under the CPI salary adjustment contract provisions. Plaintiff contends he is due $10,627 for CPI adjustments dating from January 2006. Plaintiff filed claims for relief against Defendants on 11 August 2008 in Alamance County Superior Court. The Complaint alleges five claims for relief: breach of an employment contract against AMI and DSI, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing against AMI and DSI, violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act against AMI and DSI, tortious interference with contract against AMI and Clark, and conspiracy to engage in wrongful conduct against all of the defendants. Defendants’ Answer denied the allegations and asserted 24 affirmative defenses. After thorough discovery, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 12 October 2009 and Plaintiff filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 9 March 2010 based upon his claim for violation of the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. Both Motions were supported by extensive affidavits and depositions and were heard before Judge J.B. Allen on 15 March 2010. The trial court denied Plaintiff’s Motion and granted Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Plaintiff timely appealed the Order. II. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review This Court has jurisdiction to hear the matter pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b) (2009). We review the trial court’s Order granting summary judgment de novo. Forbis v. Neal, 361 N.C. 519, 524, 649 S.E.2d 382, 385 (2007). The standard of review for a summary judgment motion is whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Oliver v. Roberts, 49 N.C. App. 311, 314, 271 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1980), cert. denied, 276 S.E.2d 283 (1981). “In ruling on the motion, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, who is entitled to the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts proffered.” Averitt v. Rozier, 119 N.C. App. 216, 218, 458 S.E.2d 26, 28 (1995). Summary judgment may be properly shown by a party: “ ‘(1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff’s case is non-existent, or (2) showing through discovery that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim, or (3) showing that the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense.’ ” Kinesis Adver., Inc. v. Hill, 187 N.C. App. 1, 10, 652 S.E.2d 284, 292 (2007) (quoting Draughon v. Harnett Cty. Bd. of Educ., 158 N.C. App. 705, 708, 582 S.E.2d 343, 345 (2003), aff'd, 358 N.C. 137, 591 S.E.2d 520 (2004), reh’g denied, 358 N.C. 381, 597 S.E.2d
Similar Rulings
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.