Retaliation Cases

<bold>1. Immunity; Nurses — sovereign immunity —</bold> <bold>Board of Nursing — wrongful termination</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's complaint against the N.C. Board of Nursing (Board) for wrongful termination on the basis of sovereign immunity because the legislative enactment, governmental appointment of members to defendant Board, and public purpose performed by the Board make the Board an agency of the state entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity.</block_quote> <bold>2. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to make assignment of error in brief</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiff contends the trial court erred by relying on documentation submitted by defendant Board of Nursing (Board) in determining whether it is a state agency, this assignment of error is dismissed because: (1) this argument does not relate to plaintiff's assignments of error, and thus, is not a matter properly before the Court of Appeals; and (2) this assignment of error is irrelevant when the Court of Appeals has already determined that the Board is a state agency solely by examining the statutes.</block_quote> <bold>3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to raise issue</bold> <block_quote> Although the dissent contends that plaintiff's complaint for wrongful termination states a claim for relief under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>9-32</cross_reference> which would waive sovereign immunity, this issue is not reached because it was never raised by the parties or addressed<page_number>Page 46</page_number> by the trial court, and plaintiff failed to allege in her complaint that sovereign immunity had been waived.</block_quote> <bold>4. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues —</bold> <bold>failure to state legal basis</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiff contends the trial court erred by failing to hear or consider plaintiff's other arguments regarding issues rel

<bold>1. Public Officers and Employees — reinstatement</bold> <bold>to former position — Whistleblower Act — employee</bold> <bold>grievance matters</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by concluding the Whistleblower Act does not apply to plaintiff employee's 1998 suit seeking reinstatement to his former position even though plaintiff contends it constitutes reporting to "another appropriate authority" the violation of a rule or regulation under the Whistleblower Act, because: (1) the lawsuit did not concern matters affecting general public policy; (2) the definition of a protected activity is<page_number>Page 111</page_number> not extended to individual employment actions that do not implicate broader matters of public concern; and (3) the General Assembly did not intend N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>126-84</cross_reference> to protect a State employee's right to institute a civil action concerning employee grievance matters.</block_quote> <bold>2. Public Officers and Employees — unlawful retaliation</bold> <bold>and discrimination — legitimate nonretaliatory reasons</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant employer North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) based on its conclusion that there was no genuine issue of material fact in a suit where plaintiff employee alleged unlawful retaliation and discrimination by NCDOT based on plaintiff's reporting and litigating unlawful and improper actions and seeking injunctive relief, damages, payment of back wages, full reinstatement of fringe benefits, costs, and attorney fees, because: (1) assuming arguendo that plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, NCDOT presented legitimate nonretaliatory reasons for all of the actions it has taken; and (2) plaintiff acknowledged in his deposition testimony that there were legitimate explanations for the actions he alleged were retaliatory.</block_quote> <bold>3. Public Officers and Employees —