Woody v. AccuQuest Hearing Ctr.

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: July 19, 2022
• Docket: 21-563
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

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

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

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

“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

¶ 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

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

¶ 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

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

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

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

¶ 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

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

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

¶ 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

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

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

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

¶ 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

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

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

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

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.