Yan-Min Wang v. Unc-Ch School of Medicine
216 N.C. App. 185
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wang, a part-time EPA Non-Faculty research scientist at UNC-Chapel Hill, was not reappointed after Dr. Snider expressed concerns about interactions and funding.
- A mentoring committee and a memorandum of understanding were created, but Wang refused to sign the MOU and Snider declined further reappointment after a dispute over genotyping results and communication tone.
- Wang filed a grievance alleging retaliation for whistleblowing about lab genotyping and sought reinstatement, damages, and grievance-procedure reforms; the Board of Governors denied relief.
- The trial court reversed the BOG on several grounds, finding Whistleblower Act applicability, protected activity, and due-process/equal-protection violations, and ordered reinstatement and fees.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded to develop adequate facts on whistleblower and First Amendment claims, while upholding the discrimination ruling against Wang.
- Petitioner was not a career state employee and, under NC law, EPA Non-Faculty employees are generally not covered by the State Personnel Act, but the court addressed the statutory interaction with the Whistleblower Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of the Whistleblower Act | Wang is protected as an EPA Non-Faculty employee under §126-5(c5). | Whistleblower Act limits do not apply to non-career EPA employees per §126-5(c1). | Whistleblower Act applies to Wang; remand for adequate findings on protected conduct. |
| Validity of whistleblower retaliation claim | Protected conduct (reporting lab genotyping issues) caused adverse action (non-renewal). | No clear causation or protected activity proven; no retaliation. | Remanded for proper factual development; the trial court erred by substituting its own findings. |
| Discrimination claims | Wang suffered discrimination based on age, sex, and national origin. | BOG findings supported no discrimination or retaliation. | BOG’s discrimination findings affirmed; Court reversed trial court on this issue. |
| Constitutional due process and equal protection | Grievance procedures violate state constitutional due process and equal protection. | Procedures are constitutionally adequate for EPA Non-Faculty; no rights violation. | Petitioner not entitled to due process or equal protection relief; remand for whistleblower/First Amendment issues. |
| Standard of review on agency decision | Trial court properly used full-record review to evaluate BOG's merits. | De novo review appropriate for mixed law/fact issues; BOG findings must stand if supported by record. | Remand to apply proper standard; affirm/reverse consistent with holdings on Whistleblower and First Amendment issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Summons of Ernst & Young, 363 N.C. 612 (2009) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Holt v. Albemarle Reg'l Health Servs. Bd., 188 N.C.App. 111 (2005) (prima facie showing under Whistleblower Act)
- Savings & Loan Assoc. v. Savings & Loan Comm., 43 N.C.App. 493 (1979) (need for remand when record insufficient for review)
- Sack v. N.C. State Univ., 155 N.C.App. 484 (2002) (substantial evidence standard on agency findings)
- Clayton v. Branson, 170 N.C.App. 438 (2005) (equal protection require identification of similarly situated class)
- Teague v. N.C. Dept. of Transp., 177 N.C.App. 215 (2009) (procedural due process and property interest analysis)