222 N.C. App. 359
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- Jane Doe sued the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention; negligent infliction of emotional distress; and state constitutional claims for education rights and safety.
- Priode, a band teacher at South Mecklenburg High School, allegedly sexually abused Doe; he later pled guilty to taking indecent liberties with a child.
- Board moved to dismiss constitutionally based claims under Rule 12(b)(6) and the negligence claims under sovereign/governmental immunity; the trial court dismissed some claims and denied others relying on Craig.
- Trial court denied the Board’s immunity defense as to constitutional claims, and certified the order for immediate appeal under Rule 54(b).
- On appeal, the court addressed whether the Board could appeal an interlocutory order and whether Doe stated viable constitutional claims under the NC Constitution.
- The court reversed the trial court on the constitutional claims, concluding Doe failed to state constitutionally based claims, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Board’s interlocutory appeal proper? | Board has substantial immunity rights; appeal warranted. | Interlocutory order affects immunity; appeal proper. | Appeal properly before court. |
| Do Doe’s NC constitutional claims state a claim after Craig? | Craig allows colorable constitutional claims despite immunity. | Craig does not substantively validate claims; improper. | No, the constitutional claims fail as pled. |
| Does Craig control the substantive viability of the constitutional claims here? | Craig supports proceeding with colorable constitutional claims. | Craig does not address substantive merits; not controlling. | Craig does not control substantive viability; independent analysis required. |
| Are NC Const. Art. I, §15 and Art. IX, §1 claims viable as pled? | Board violated education rights and opportunities under Leandro standards. | No express NC constitutional right to damages from local boards for negligent supervision. | Not stateable; claims fail on face. |
| Is NC Const. Art. I, §19 claim viable? | Due process/closure rights entitle damages for abuse in education setting. | Negligent acts alone do not implicate due process; no damages here. | Not stateable; claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- Craig v. New Hanover Cty. Bd. of Educ., 363 N.C. 334 (2009) (colorable constitutional claims allowed where immunity blocks common law claims)
- Corum v. University of North Carolina, 330 N.C. 761 (1992) (constitutional direct action allowed; immunity context)
- Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (negligence alone not a due process violation)
- Leandro v. State of North Carolina, 346 N.C. 336 (1997) (education quality standards; substantive rights to education)
- Meherrin Indian Tribe v. Lewis, 197 N.C. App. 380 (2009) (immunity and Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal interplay)