Hanesbrands Inc. v. Fowler, 369 N.C. 216

Hanesbrands sued former employee Kathleen Fowler for breach of five stock grant agreements, seeking $462,366 in damages, and designated the action as a mandatory complex business case under N.C.G.S. § 7A-45.4.
The Chief Justice gave preliminary approval to the designation; Fowler filed an opposition, which the assigned Business Court Judge (Chief Special Superior Court Judge for Complex Business Cases) overruled.
Fowler appealed the overruling to the North Carolina Supreme Court under N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-45.4(e) and 7A-27(a), challenging the Business Court designation as immediately appealable.
The central procedural question was whether the interlocutory order overruling Fowler’s opposition affected a "substantial right" so as to permit an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court under § 7A-27(a).
Fowler argued that being forced to defend in the Business Court (a specialized forum) deprived her of the substantial right to have ordinary disputes heard as ordinary citizens and likened the ruling to a denial of change of venue.
The Court found Fowler failed to identify any specific material right that would be lost or how she would be injured absent immediate review, and noted statutory and rule-based mechanisms allow designation (mandatory or discretionary) without forum exclusions for individuals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Business Court’s overruling of an opposition to mandatory-complex designation is immediately appealable because it affects a "substantial right"	Hanesbrands: interlocutory order is appealable only if it meets § 7A-27(a); no further argument that defendant met that burden	Fowler: designation deprives her of the right to ordinary-court procedures and is analogous to denial of venue change, so it affects a substantial right	Court: Dismissed appeal — Fowler failed to show a specific material right or prejudicial injury warranting immediate interlocutory review

Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357 (N.C. 1951) (definition of interlocutory order)
City of Raleigh v. Edwards, 234 N.C. 528 (N.C. 1951) (interlocutory appeals require showing loss of substantial right)
Goldston v. Am. Motors Corp., 326 N.C. 723 (N.C. 1990) (dismissal of fragmentary interlocutory appeals absent substantial right)
Gilbert v. N.C. State Bar, 363 N.C. 70 (N.C. 2009) (definition of "substantial right")
Waters v. Qualified Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200 (N.C. 1978) (application of the substantial-right test depends on case facts and context)
Oestreicher v. Am. Nat’l Stores, Inc., 290 N.C. 118 (N.C. 1976) (construction of substantial-right concept)
Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005) (appellant’s burden to show grounds for interlocutory appeal)
Hoke Cty. Bd. of Educ. v. State, 198 N.C. App. 274 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) (appellate brief must demonstrate why order affects a substantial right)