Vincoli v. StateÂ
2016 N.C. App. LEXIS 1102
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Vincoli, a career state employee with the NC Department of Public Safety, was designated "managerial exempt" by the Governor in Oct 2013 and was later terminated. He sought to challenge the exempt designation and termination.
- Prior to 2013, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.1(c) expressly allowed contested-case appeals to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) to challenge exempt status; that provision was repealed and replaced by § 126-34.02 in 2013.
- § 126-34.02 omitted the explicit right to an OAH contested-case hearing to contest exempt designations and included a provision excluding unspecified issues from contested-case jurisdiction.
- Vincoli filed a contested-case petition at OAH invoking § 126-5(h) (which provides that disputes over whether an employee is subject to Chapter 126 shall be resolved under Article 3 of Chapter 150B). OAH dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on the 2013 repeal.
- Vincoli then sued in superior court under the North Carolina Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, claiming the statute as applied violated his constitutional due-process and takings rights; the trial court granted Vincoli summary judgment, declared § 126-34.02 unconstitutional as applied, enjoined enforcement, and ordered an OAH hearing.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that § 126-5(h) independently provides an avenue for a contested-case hearing at OAH to resolve whether an employee is subject to Chapter 126 (and thus may contest exempt status), rendering the trial court's constitutional ruling unnecessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vincoli may obtain a contested-case hearing at OAH to challenge his exempt designation | Vincoli: § 126-5(h) remains effective and authorizes contested-case proceedings at OAH to resolve disputes about whether an employee is subject to Chapter 126 | State: 2013 Act repealed the specific appeal right; § 126-34.02 excludes exempt-designation challenges, so OAH lacks jurisdiction | Held: § 126-5(h) provides a statutory right to resolve that dispute in OAH; Vincoli is entitled to pursue a contested-case hearing |
| Whether repeal of § 126-34.1(c) violated Vincoli's due process or effected an uncompensated taking | Vincoli: repeal deprived his vested property interest and due process rights; constitutional claim supports relief | State: repeal did not violate due process or amount to an uncompensated taking; legislative process sufficed | Court: did not reach constitutional questions because statutory avenue (§ 126-5(h)) resolved the case |
| Whether the trial court erred by ordering an OAH hearing and enjoining enforcement of § 126-34.02 | State: trial court lacked authority because OAH lacks jurisdiction under the revised statute; separation-of-powers concerns | Vincoli: relief appropriate because he was unlawfully denied a hearing | Held: trial court erred to the extent it rested on finding no statutory remedy; court reversed and remanded (statutory remedy exists) |
| Whether OAH dismissal should be reviewed despite Vincoli missing the appeal to Court of Appeals of OAH decision | State: OAH's dismissal was correct and final if not appealed | Vincoli: still may seek declaratory relief to vindicate rights | Held: appellate court resolved the question by construing § 126-5(h) to preserve OAH jurisdiction; outcome reversed trial judgment that blocked a statutory hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 347 N.C. 614, 499 S.E.2d 180 (1998) (describes contested-case process and judicial review under Chapter 150B)
- Batten v. N.C. Dep't of Correction, 326 N.C. 338, 389 S.E.2d 35 (1990) (recognizes § 126-5(h) as an example of contestable personnel matters despite administrative-exclusion provisions)
- Empire Power Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Env't, Health & Nat. Res., 337 N.C. 569, 447 S.E.2d 768 (1994) (explains that specific statutory provisions can give hearing rights despite general APA exclusions)
- Jordan v. N.C. Dep't of Transp., 140 N.C. App. 771, 538 S.E.2d 623 (2000) (holds that challenges to exempt policymaking designations are to be pursued under § 150B and cites § 126-5(h))
- State v. Crabtree, 286 N.C. 541, 212 S.E.2d 103 (1975) (courts avoid deciding constitutional questions when a case can be resolved on other grounds)