Timothy Hadley v. Duke Energy Progress, LLC
677 F. App'x 859
| 4th Cir. | 2017Background
- Timothy Hadley, pro se, sued his employer claiming (1) ARRA whistleblower retaliation, (2) retaliation under North Carolina’s REDA for an internal complaint about wage/hour matters, and (3) wrongful discharge in violation of North Carolina public policy.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer and denied Hadley’s Rule 59(e) motion; Hadley appealed.
- To succeed under ARRA §1553, Hadley had to show he made a protected disclosure (a reasonable belief of gross mismanagement/waste), suffered a reprisal, and the disclosure contributed to the reprisal.
- Under REDA, protected activity includes filing or initiating an inquiry regarding wage/hour claims, but North Carolina appellate precedent requires more than informal complaints to a supervisor.
- North Carolina’s public-policy wrongful-discharge claim requires reliance on a specific state statute or constitutional provision; mere federal-law violations or contract breaches do not suffice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ARRA whistleblower: whether Hadley made a protected disclosure of gross mismanagement/waste of ARRA funds | Hadley contends his reports showed gross mismanagement/waste of ARRA grant funds and thus were protected | Employer argues Hadley’s complaints did not objectively show gross mismanagement or waste and thus were not protected disclosures | Court: No protected disclosure; objective evidence lacking, so ARRA claim fails |
| REDA retaliation: whether an internal complaint to management constitutes protected activity | Hadley asserts his internal complaint initiated protected inquiry under REDA | Employer relies on NC Court of Appeals precedent requiring more than internal complaints to supervisors | Court: Followed Pierce; internal complaint to supervisors insufficient—REDA claim fails |
| Wrongful discharge / NC public policy exception to at-will employment | Hadley argues termination violated public policy tied to ARRA noncompliance | Employer contends alleged ARRA grant-term violations are not NC public policy violations and do not invoke the exception | Court: No specific NC statute or constitutional provision alleged; ARRA-related allegations at most breach of contract—public-policy claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Reyazuddin v. Montgomery Cty., 789 F.3d 407 (4th Cir. 2015) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment allocation of burdens)
- White v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 391 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (definition of gross mismanagement for whistleblower claims)
- Livingston v. Wyeth, Inc., 520 F.3d 344 (4th Cir. 2008) (reasonable-belief requirement for whistleblower statutes)
- Pierce v. Atlantic Group, Inc., 724 S.E.2d 568 (N.C. Ct. App. 2012) (REDA requires more than internal supervisory complaints)
- Coman v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 381 S.E.2d 445 (N.C. 1989) (public-policy exception to at-will employment is narrow)
- Garner v. Rentenbach Constructors Inc., 515 S.E.2d 438 (N.C. 1999) (breach of contract insufficient to establish public-policy violation)