Driskell v. Summit Contracting Grp., Inc.
325 F. Supp. 3d 665
W.D.N.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff Justin Driskell worked for Summit Contracting Group as an Assistant Superintendent in June–July 2015 and was involved in a physical altercation with supervisor Daniel Rhyner; he was later discharged.
- A jury found for Driskell on a REDA claim and a wrongful-discharge-in-violation-of-public-policy claim, awarding $65,000 on those claims, and awarded $4,000 each on battery and negligent supervision/retention.
- The Court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict but later determined the tort awards (battery; negligent supervision/retention) were barred by the North Carolina Workers’ Compensation Act and therefore vacated those tort awards.
- Post-trial, Summit moved for judgment as a matter of law or new trial, to require election of remedies, and to stay execution; Driskell moved for amended findings and additional relief (interest, reinstatement or front pay).
- The Court denied judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as to the REDA and public-policy claims, granted judgment as a matter of law to defendant on the tort claims (workers’ comp exclusivity), awarded prejudgment interest (8% on $65,000) and post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. §1961, ordered Driskell to elect remedies within 14 days, and granted Summit’s stay by supersedeas bond.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| REDA — protected activity, adverse action, causation, pretext | Driskell says repeated reports of safety risks to CEO and threat to file police/OSHA/worker’s comp claim were protected; termination was retaliatory and pretextual | Summit contends no protected activity, no adverse action (Plaintiff resigned on application), no causation or pretext, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Court held sufficient evidence for jury on protected activity, adverse action, causation (temporal proximity), and pretext; Rule 50 denied on REDA claim |
| Wrongful discharge (public policy) — whether reporting assault/safety violations states claim | Driskell identifies state statutes and argues reporting safety and assault implicates public policy protecting reporting of statutorily prohibited conduct | Summit argues these reports do not state a recognized public-policy wrongful-discharge claim and relitigates sufficiency | Court found Driskell presented sufficient evidence and legal basis to submit wrongful-discharge claim to the jury; Rule 50 denied on this claim |
| Tort claims (battery; negligent supervision/retention) — workers’ comp exclusivity | Driskell pursued tort recovery against employer for coworker battery and negligent supervision/retention | Summit argues NCWCA is exclusive remedy for work-related injuries; plaintiff cannot show employer alter-ego/intent to injure | Court held the altercation was work-related and NCWCA bars these tort claims; defendant entitled to JMOL on tort counts |
| Prejudgment and postjudgment interest; election of remedies | Driskell sought prejudgment interest (8%) and relief including reinstatement or front pay; he also sought amended judgment | Summit argued prejudgment interest discretionary and other relief unwarranted; sought stay and bond | Court amended judgment to add prejudgment interest at North Carolina 8% on $65,000 ($6,695.89), ordered post-judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. §1961, and directed plaintiff to elect between REDA and public-policy recovery within 14 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Belk, Inc. v. Meyer Corp., 679 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 2012) (Rule 50 legal-standard for JMOL)
- Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (U.S. 2008) (procedural prerequisites for post-trial JMOL)
- Tools USA & Equip. Co. v. Champ Frame Straightening Equip., Inc., 87 F.3d 654 (4th Cir. 1996) (standard for when JMOL is appropriate)
- Pierce v. Atlantic Group, Inc., 219 N.C. App. 19 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishing mere internal complaints from protected REDA activity)
- Abels v. Renfro Corp., 335 N.C. 209 (N.C. 1993) (employer anticipation of workers’ compensation claim can support retaliatory-discharge claim)
- Hamby v. Williams, 196 N.C. App. 733 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (N.C. Gen. Stat. §24-5(b) requires prejudgment interest in non-contract actions)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (forum law governs certain substantive issues in diversity cases)