Court Rulings

<bold>1. Appeal and Error — appealability —</bold> <bold>interlocutory order — substantial right</bold> <block_quote> Although plaintiff's appeal from the trial court's order dismissing his claim under the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act is an appeal from an interlocutory order<page_number>Page 816</page_number> based on the fact that two claims remain at the trial level, plaintiff is entitled to immediate appeal based on a substantial right, because: (1) plaintiff's North Carolina Disabilities Act claim and his claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, which remains at the trial court level, unquestionably involve the same facts and circumstances; and (2) if the appeal is refused, two trials and possibly inconsistent verdicts could result.</block_quote> <bold>2. Disabilities — North Carolina Persons with</bold> <bold>Disabilities Protection Act — Americans with Disabilities</bold> <bold>Act — Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claim</bold> <bold>commenced — concurrent jurisdiction not allowed</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claim under the North Carolina Persons with Disabilities Protection Act (NC Disabilities Act) pursuant to N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>168A-11</cross_reference>(c) after plaintiff commenced an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claim, because: (1) the General Assembly has disallowed concurrent jurisdiction over an NC Disabilities Act claim and an Americans with Disabilities Act claim that arises out of the same facts and circumstances; (2) plaintiff's claim was still being investigated at the EEOC at the time of his state court filing thus making it fall within the NC Disabilities Act's language of "commenced federal administrative proceedings" and thereby removing it from the subject matter jurisdiction of the state court; and (3) the fact that defendant's motion to dismiss was not heard until after the EEOC had issued plaintiff's righ

<bold>1. Contracts — breach — vesting of profit</bold> <bold>sharing rights</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a breach of contract case by concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the date that plaintiff's profit sharing rights vested, because: (1) the profit sharing rights vested three years subsequent to the associate becoming affiliated with the pertinent realty company, plaintiff's own affidavit states she formally affiliated herself with the realty company on 10 November 2000 which was her official start date, and plaintiff's relationship with the realty company was terminated on 5 November 2003; and (2) the undisputed evidence established that the 5% interest was scheduled to vest on the same date as the profit sharing rights.</block_quote> <bold>2. Contracts — breach — summary judgment —</bold> <bold>individual liability</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a breach of contract case by concluding that defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law regarding whether defendant realtor could be held individually liable, because: (1) plaintiffs did not allege any facts to support a claim of tortious conduct by defendant realtor; and (2) at the summary stage, plaintiffs cannot rely on the allegations of their complaint, but need to present specific facts to support their claim.</block_quote><page_number>Page 105</page_number> <bold>3. Contracts — breach — consideration</bold> <block_quote> The trial court did not err in a breach of contract case by granting summary judgment in favor of defendants under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>1A-1</cross_reference>, Rule 56(c) even though plaintiffs contend they established the essential elements of their claim for breach of an implied promise not to wrongfully frustrate the vesting of the 5% ownership interest, because: (1) although plaintiff realtor's contribution of her time and knowledge as a real estate entrepreneur could constitute valid conside