The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the North Carolina Industrial Commission in Ray v. NC Department of Transportation.  The case involved the death of a motorist and her passengers in 2002 when an eroded section of pavement caused her vehicle to go off the roadway, she corrected, and hit an oncoming car head on.  The plaintiff alleged that that NC DOT was negligent in maintaining the roadway and not repairing the eroded section which they knew was dangerous or should have known was a dangerous to motorists.  The Commission dismissed the case based on the public duty doctrine which can be used as a defense by the State of North Carolina from certain tort claims.  Reversing, the Court of Appeals concluded:

“ This case does not involve a failure to inspect or to police, but a failure to repair a defective section of roadway. There is no “hazard created by others” or important discretionary decision which requires the government to be protected under the public duty doctrine.”

Burton Craige wrote an amicus brief on behalf of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice for this case.  The brief can be accessed here.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, Results Tags: Appeals, Briefs, Burton Craige, Case Commentary, Industrial Commission, NC Court of Appeals, NCAJ, North Carolina, Personal Injuries, public duty doctrine, Results

In Rawls v. Yellow Transportation, the Industrial Commission concluded that plaintiff Veran Rawls suffered a compensable injury by accident in 2005 and has been totally disabled since that time.   Defendants appealed.  Hank Patterson and Narendra Ghosh, representing Mr. Rawls, filed this brief in the Court of Appeals.  Summary of the brief: Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Briefs, Causation, Hank Patterson, Industrial Commission, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Truck Accident, Workers' Compensation

In International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 289 v. Verizon South, Inc., the Union has filed suit in federal court (Middle District of North Carolina) to compel the company to engage in arbitration regarding the termination of an employee.  On behalf of the Union, Patterson Harkavy has filed this response brief and this reply brief.  Mike Okun and Narendra Ghosh are representing the Union.

This is a summary of the Union’s argument:  Because national labor policy strongly favors arbitration as the means for resolving labor disputes, courts must apply a presumption of arbitrability to collective bargaining agreements that contain arbitration provisions, and direct the parties to arbitrate unless the parties have expressly agreed not to arbitrate a particular matter.  Any doubt or ambiguity regarding arbitrability is to be resolved in favor of arbitration. 

Here, the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and separate settlement agreement for grievant Brian Pollard require arbitration of the grievance regarding Pollard’s termination because Pollard was not a “new employee” when he was rehired in 2010.  Moreover, to the extent the settlement agreement is ambiguous about permitting Pollard’s grievance to be arbitrated, that ambiguity must be construed in favor of arbitration.  Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss should be denied, and plaintiff’s motion to compel arbitration – filed this same day – should be granted.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Briefs, Compel Arbitration, IBEW, Labor and Employment, Labor Arbitration, MDNC, Michael Okun, Narendra Ghosh, Unions

In, Cape Fear Public Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1328, the Wilmington transit authority is challenging a labor arbitration that was in favor of the Union, and which ordered a terminated employee be put back to work.  This case is before Judge Boyle in federal court (EDNC).  On behalf of the Union, Patterson Harkavy has filed the following brief, response brief, and reply brief.  Mike Okun and Narendra Ghosh are representing the Union.

Here is a summary of the Union’s position: 

First, plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed for failure to timely effect service because plaintiff did not properly serve defendant before the 120-day deadline elapsed, and had no good cause for its failure to do so.  Second, plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed because plaintiff CFPTA was not a party to the arbitration decision that it seeks to vacate, has no standing to challenge the decision, and has provided no relevant authority to demonstrate that it is permitted to bring this suit under 28 U.S.C. § 185. 

Third, plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed for failure to state a valid claim to vacate the arbitration decision.  The arbitrator correctly determined that Professional Transit Management of Wilmington, Inc. (“PTM”) violated the controlling collective bargain agreement (“CBA”) in terminating the grievant, and to the extent there was ambiguity in the operative language of the CBA, the arbitrator’s interpretation cannot be disturbed by the Court.  Under the standard enunciated by the Supreme Court, plaintiff has also failed to show how the arbitrator’s decision to reinstate the grievant violates any clearly established public policy.  For all these reasons, the Court should award defendant its reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in this litigation because plaintiff’s motion to vacate the arbitration award has no arguable basis in the law.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: ATU, Briefs, EDNC, Judge Boyle, Labor and Employment, Labor Arbitration, Michael Okun, Narendra Ghosh, Unions

Burton Craige recently submitted an amicus brief with attorney Andrew J. Schwaba on behalf of the North Carolina Advocates for Justice in Jenkins v. Hearn Vascular Surgery P.A., addressing the question: “Is a child injured by prenatal medical malpractice barred from bringing a cause of action if the negligence occurred early in the pregnancy?”  A copy of the brief may be viewed here.

Summary of the Brief:  “Decades ago, North Carolina joined nearly every other state in recognizing that survivors of prenatal medical malpractice can bring negligence claims against the doctors responsible for their injuries and birth defects. … Our courts did not make recovery dependent on a fetus’s gestational age at the time of the negligence.

The question of whether North Carolina’s Wrongful Death Act, N.C.G.S. § 28A-18-2 creates a cause of action for the wrongful death of a nonviable fetus has no relation to claims of common law negligence.  When it is reasonably foreseeable that negligent care could injure a woman’s future child, doctors have the duty to avoid negligently placing the future child at risk of injury.  This duty does not depend on whether a fetus has reached the stage of viability.  Accepting a contrary rule would run counter to North Carolina law, break ranks with every other state, and deny a remedy to injured children who will suffer their entire lives because of avoidable medical negligence.”

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: amicus brief, Briefs, Burton Craige, Medical Malpractice, NC Court of Appeals, NCAJ, Negligence, North Carolina, Personal Injuries

In the case of Pascoe v. Furniture Brands International, Judge Frank Whitney in the Western District of North Carolina denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims of sexual harassment today.  The case will now proceed to trial, which is scheduled for later this month.  Ann Groninger and Joshua Van Kampen represent the plaintiffs, Pam Pascoe and Margaret Tambling, against their former employers in this case.

Judge Whitney did not issue a written decision, but plaintiff’s memorandum in opposition to summary judgment well describes this case:

This case raises a very poignant and present question, which is the extent of an employer’s liability under state and federal law for the conduct of a seemingly mentally unstable supervisor who tormented his female employees with threats of violence, including gun violence, surveillance of their homes, and numerous bizarre sexual comments. Regrettably, the conduct at issue in this case is a cautionary tale of an employer that flubbed the handling of a potentially dangerous situation by initially ignoring glaring warning signs, subsequently severely under-reacting to them, and which ultimately chose to circle the wagons around the proverbial outlaw, rather than act as a responsible member of our corporate community. Thankfully, Spicer did not turn his guns on these women as he said he might, but plaintiffs feared that he was fully capable of physically harming them. They have carried emotional scars left by Mr. Spicer’s conduct; injuries made worse by their employer’s betrayal of them. Defendants may aim to use their summary judgment motions to establish a low water mark of the protections afforded women in the workplace in North Carolina; however, plaintiffs respectfully submit that they have marshaled sufficient facts to permit a jury to answer that question.

Categories: Judicial Decisions, News of the Firm Tags: Ann Groninger, Briefs, Discrimination, Joshua Van Kampen, Judge Whitney, Labor and Employment, Results, Sexual Harassment, Summary Judgment, Title VII, Western District of North Carolina

The following briefs opposing defendants’ motion to dismiss have recently been filed in Dail, v. City of Goldsboro, et al.: Plaintiff’s First Response Brief and Plaintiff’s Second Response Brief.  Mr. Dail was convicted of a crime he did not commit and subsequently imprisoned for 18 years.  He was exonerated in 2007 when DNA evidence proved his innocence.  This evidence – which was later recovered – had been improperly handled and allegedly destroyed in 1995 by the City of Goldsboro.  The case is now before Judge Boyle in federal court (EDNC). Mr. Dail is represented by Burton Craige and Narendra Ghosh of Patterson Harkavy, as well as Spencer Parris and Christopher Olson at Martin & Jones.  More on the case can be found here.  This a summary of Plaintiff’s argument:

Dail has properly stated cognizable claims for relief arising from his wrongful incarceration. Dail has stated a valid claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018 (1978), because Defendants had a policy or practice of failing to properly inventory and safeguard evidence, including the evidence that ultimately exonerated Dail. Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct arbitrarily denied Dail’s liberty interest and resulted in his continued wrongful incarceration. Unlike the plaintiff in District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial District v. Osborne, 129 S. Ct. 2308 (2009), the principal case upon which Defendants rely, Dail has not impermissibly used § 1983 to seek access to potential evidence, but instead properly invokes § 1983 to redress Defendants’ unconstitutional failure to reasonably maintain evidence.

Dail has also properly brought state law claims for negligence and obstruction of justice, which are not time-barred. Those claims did not accrue until August 27, 2007, when Defendants first notified Dail of the results of the DNA testing, or on August 28, 2007, when Dail was finally released from custody, and thus were timely filed on August 26, 2010. Finally, Dail has stated valid claims under the North Carolina Constitution based on Defendants’ violations of his rights to procedural due process and entitlement to exculpatory evidence.

This case presents weighty issues of constitutional significance in an evolving area of law. Consideration of the merits of the claims asserted in this action should follow development of a full factual record.

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Briefs, Burton Craige, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, EDNC, Exoneration, Narendra Ghosh, Negligence, Personal Injuries, Wrongful Conviction, Wrongful Incaceration

In Evans v. Hendrick Automotive Group, we have filed this brief with the North Carolina Court of Appeals in this workers’ compensation case.  Ms. Evans was an office manager for a Hendrick dealership in Texas.  She was injured during a business trip to Charlotte, while she was walking back from an employer-sponsored dinner to her hotel.  The primary issue is whether the Industrial Commission correctly concluded that Ms. Evans’ accident arose out of and was in the course of her employment.  Valerie Johnson and Narendra Ghosh are representing Ms. Evans.

Here is the summary of our argument:  Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Briefs, Business Trip, Charlotte, Compensable Injury, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Valerie Johnson, Workers' Compensation

In Simmons v. United Mortgage and Loan Investment, LLC, we have filed this reply brief with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in this wage and hour case.  See here for a summary of the case.   Ann Groninger, Burton Craige, and Narendra Ghosh are representing the plaintiffs, who are seeking to remedy the company’s failure to pay overtime to themselves and other Junior Asset Managers.  Here is a summary of our argument to the Court:

Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Ann Groninger, Appeals, Briefs, Burton Craige, Class Action, Collective Action, FLSA, Fourth Circuit, Labor and Employment, Narendra Ghosh, NC Wage and Hour Act, Overtime, Wage and Hour

In Garner v. Capital Area Transit, we have filed this brief with the North Carolina Court of Appeals in this workers’ compensation case.  Ms. Garner is a bus driver with Capital Area Transit in Raleigh who was injured was injured when another bus hit the bus she was driving.  The primary issue is whether the Industrial Commission had any basis for ignoring the doctor’s opinion that the accident aggravated Ms. Garner’s pre-existing back condition.  Valerie Johnson and Narendra Ghosh are representing Ms. Garner. Read more…

Categories: News of the Firm Tags: Appeals, Briefs, Industrial Commission, Narendra Ghosh, NC Court of Appeals, Valerie Johnson, Workers' Compensation