Walker v. TOWN OF STONEVILLE
712 S.E.2d 239
N.C. Ct. App.2011Background
- Walker, a former Eden police lieutenant, retired in 1994 under LGERS and later worked for Town of Stoneville without LGERS enrollment or benefits, under a salary-cap arrangement.
- Town's Finance Officer advised Walker he could work without jeopardizing retirement benefits if: (1) no regular benefits, (2) not enrolled in LGERS, (3) salary within the LGERS salary cap.
- Walker worked from 1996–2007, eventually becoming police chief, with annual salary determined under the cap and hours reportedly not triggering LGERS enrollment.
- In 2006, LGERS determined Walker exceeded 1,000 hours per year, terminating retirement benefits and requiring reimbursement; Town later enrolled him in LGERS and treated him as regular employee in 2007.
- Walker was demoted in 2007, and terminated in 2008 after an SBI inquiry and further disputes over sick leave and compensation; he sued Town for negligent misrepresentation and wrongful discharge.
- Trial court granted directed verdicts and JNOV against Walker on some claims; jury returned verdict for Walker on negligent misrepresentation, later reversed and remanded; wrongful discharge claim was also resolved against Walker on directed verdict, then remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the negligent misrepresentation claim properly submitted to the jury? | Walker asserts substantial evidence supported justifiable reliance on Town's LGERS guidance. | Stoneville contends insufficient evidence for reasonable reliance and proper directed verdict. | Court reinstates jury verdict; reversal of directed verdict/JNOV; remands for further proceedings on misrepresentation. |
| Was Walker's claim of wrongful discharge supported by evidence that Stoneville regularly employed 15+ employees? | Walker provided substantial evidence that Town regularly employed 15 or more employees under 143-422.2. | Town contends insufficient proof of regular employment under the payroll method. | Trial court erred; remanded to determine eligibility under 143-422.2. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Traditional Log Homes, Inc., 70 N.C.App. 303, 319 S.E.2d 290 (1984) (directed verdict standard; evidence review)
- Douglas v. Doub, 95 N.C.App. 505, 383 S.E.2d 423 (1989) (directed verdict standard)
- Simms v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. of Am., 140 N.C.App. 529, 537 S.E.2d 237 (2000) (negligent misrepresentation elements)
- Raritan River Steel Co. v. Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, 322 N.C. 200, 367 S.E.2d 609 (1988) (negligent misrepresentation standard)
- White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Bullock, 161 N.C. 1, 76 S.E. 634 (1912) (reasonableness of reliance; unequal footing)
- Walters v. Metro. Educ. Enters., 519 U.S. 202 (1997) (payroll method; counting employees on payroll)
- Gibson, N.C. Dept. of Corr. v., 308 N.C. 131, 301 S.E.2d 78 (1983) (use of Title VII guidance in discrimination)
- Patterson v. L.M. Parker & Co., 2 N.C.App. 43, 162 S.E.2d 571 (1968) (regularly employed concept; constancy of employment)
- Eastway Wrecker Serv. v. City of Charlotte, 165 N.C.App. 639, 599 S.E.2d 410 (2004) (reliance and inquiry in discrimination)