Wetherington v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety
368 N.C. 583
| N.C. | 2015Background
- Trooper Thomas Wetherington was investigated after inconsistent statements about how he lost his Patrol campaign hat during a traffic stop; the Patrol concluded he was willfully untruthful.
- Colonel Randy Glover (employer) dismissed Wetherington based on the Patrol’s truthfulness policy, which zero-tolerantly required termination for any violation in the Colonel’s view.
- An OAH ALJ found the misconduct proved and concluded dismissal was supported; the State Personnel Commission (SPC) adopted those findings and affirmed dismissal.
- Superior Court reversed, concluding the dismissal was arbitrary and capricious and not just cause; the Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court granted review and held that Colonel Glover misapprehended the law by treating dismissal as mandatory for any truthfulness-policy violation, an error of law requiring reversal/modification and remand for the agency to exercise proper discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Wetherington’s Argument | DPS’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency’s dismissal was affected by an error of law because the Colonel treated dismissal as mandatory for any truthfulness-policy violation | G’s dismissal violated law because the Colonel applied a per se rule and failed to exercise discretion | DPS argued dismissal was supported by findings of untruthfulness and the ALJ/SPC decision | Court held the Colonel misunderstood the law — he lacked discretion — so decision was affected by an error of law and must be remanded for discretionary reconsideration |
| Whether petitioner’s conduct constituted just cause for dismissal | Wetherington argued the facts and circumstances did not warrant termination (mitigating factors; hat was $50; inconsistent recollection) | DPS argued willful untruthfulness violated written work rules and supported dismissal | Court declined to decide on the merits; remanded so agency can re-evaluate discipline without applying a mandatory-dismissal rule |
Key Cases Cited
- N.C. Dep’t of Env’t & Nat. Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649, 599 S.E.2d 888 (N.C. 2004) (describes flexible, equitable "just cause" standard and de novo review when error of law is asserted)
- Meads v. N.C. Dep’t of Agric., 349 N.C. 656, 509 S.E.2d 165 (N.C. 1998) (de novo review principles for agency error of law)
- Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 565 S.E.2d 9 (N.C. 2002) (explains substitution of court judgment on de novo review)
- ACT-UP Triangle v. Comm’n for Health Servs., 345 N.C. 699, 483 S.E.2d 388 (N.C. 1997) (administrative-review standards cited in de novo-review framework)
- Crider v. Spectralite Consortium, Inc., 130 F.3d 1238 (7th Cir. 1997) (describes "just cause" as a flexible concept requiring case-by-case judgment)
- State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. Bird Oil Co., 302 N.C. 14, 273 S.E.2d 232 (N.C. 1981) (administrative-review authorities cited for standards of review)