{ "id": 8524878, "name": "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA", "name_abbreviation": "Meyers v. Department of Human Resources", "decision_date": "1992-03-17", "docket_number": "No. 913SC170", "first_page": "665", "last_page": "669", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "105 N.C. App. 665" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483395, 2487363, 2483437, 2485934, 2485213 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0247-05", "/nc/324/0247-02", "/nc/324/0247-01", "/nc/324/0247-04", "/nc/324/0247-03" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526614 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 S.E.2d 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "43 N.C. App. 493", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552836 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/43/0493-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483395, 2487363, 2483437, 2485934, 2485213 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0247-05", "/nc/324/0247-02", "/nc/324/0247-01", "/nc/324/0247-04", "/nc/324/0247-03" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526614 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0193-01" ] }, { "cite": "377 S.E.2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "324 N.C. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2483395, 2487363, 2483437, 2485934, 2485213 ], "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/324/0247-05", "/nc/324/0247-02", "/nc/324/0247-01", "/nc/324/0247-04", "/nc/324/0247-03" ] }, { "cite": "374 S.E.2d 280", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "283" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "92 N.C. App. 193", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526614 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "198" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/92/0193-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 428, "char_count": 10255, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.443863630215163e-07, "percentile": 0.9451576134361501 }, "sha256": "5b72afd5708837bfdb60c219c2e1a817ec92b256ca2df406b7bdf69da23a3938", "simhash": "1:afa240b3643f27ba", "word_count": 1627 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:40.355340+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge WELLS concurs.", "Judge Walker dissents." ], "parties": [ "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "LEWIS, Judge.\nRespondents argued that the Superior Court of Craven County lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case under the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45, which was recodified as N.C.G.S. 150B effective 1 January 1986. They argue that this case commenced prior to the 1 January 1986 effective date of Chapter 150B and therefore is governed by 150A. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45 requires that any appeal from the State Personnel Commission be brought in Wake County Superior Court. Plaintiff, a resident of Craven County, argues that his filing in Craven County Superior Court was not an extension of the original case filed in 1983 but rather a separate \u201ccontested case\u201d which he filed 9 January 1990 for reinstatement, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of his record and that it falls under the new statute N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45. Under the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43 and \u00a7 150B-45, plaintiff would then be an aggrieved person who had the right to seek judicial intervention and Craven County Superior Court would have jurisdiction since the new statute allows review in Wake County or in the county of plaintiff\u2019s residence.\nWith plaintiff\u2019s argument, we agree. Upon dismissal of the action, ordered by this Court, Meyers v. Dep\u2019t of Human Resources, 92 N.C. App. 193, 374 S.E.2d 280 (1988), disc. rev. denied, 324 N.C. 247, 377 S.E.2d 754 (1989), plaintiff\u2019s contested case came to an end. Though not specifically articulated, implied in this Court\u2019s prior ruling was a return to the status quo as it existed prior to the demotion proceedings. After dismissal, there remained no reason to deprive plaintiff of his prior job status. The only impediment remained in the Commission\u2019s refusal to reinstate plaintiff. Now plaintiff seeks to enforce the remedy implied in this Court\u2019s dismissal order. We find the trial judge was correct in findings of fact 6(ee) of his order, that \u201cunder the provisions of North Carolina Administrative Code \u00a7 .0432, the State Personnell [sic] Commission is required to reinstate Meyers, grant him back pay and attorney\u2019s fees. . . .\u201d In addition, all records of these proceedings should be expunged from his personal record. To rule otherwise would be futile. The Commission has already refused to consider plaintiff\u2019s petitions. Requiring plaintiff to seek relief within the agency grievance procedures would be time consuming.\nWe distinguish this case from Community Sav. & Loan Ass\u2019n. v. North Carolina Sav. & Loan Commission, 43 N.C. App. 493, 259 S.E.2d 373 (1979), in that the case at bar has been to the Court of Appeals and the Personnel Commission has refused to act on the intent of the order of this Court.\nThe trial court reviewed the record and found that the Personnel Commission\u2019s decision was \u201carbitrary and capricious.\u201d The trial court then went forward with very specific orders to correct the deficiencies of the Commission\u2019s actions. We agree that the Commission\u2019s refusal to take any action on plaintiff\u2019s petitions was arbitrary and capricious.\nThe Commission argues that it is not a necessary party. As it is the quasi-judicial branch of the agency, it had the power to act on plaintiff\u2019s petitions. It had not only the power, but the duty to do so as these actions were implied in the order of dismissal which it was directed to carry out.\nThe trial court\u2019s order of 10 October 1990 is\nAffirmed.\nJudge WELLS concurs.\nJudge Walker dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "LEWIS, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge WALKER\ndissenting.\nI respectfully dissent from that portion of the majority opinion which holds that upon dismissal of the personnel action by the State Personnel Commission, petitioner\u2019s contested case came to an end.\nWhen petitioner\u2019s initial personnel action was previously before this Court it reversed the petitioner\u2019s demotion and mandated \u201cthat the matter be remanded to the [State Personnel] Commission with instructions that the action be dismissed due to lack of proper notice under Section 126-35.\u201d Meyers v. Dept. of Human Resources, 92 N.C.App. 193, 198, 374 S.E.2d 280, 283 (1988), disc. review denied, 324 N.C. 247, 377 S.E.2d 754 (1989). On or about 9 January 1990 petitioner filed a second petition for dismissal of the personnel action, reinstatement, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of his record. On 9 February 1990 the Commission ordered that the personnel action be dismissed due to lack of proper notice under G.S. 126-35, but petitioner\u2019s other claims were not addressed.\nApparently the State Personnel Commission misconstrued this Court\u2019s instruction to \u201cdismiss\u201d the personnel \u201caction\u201d as ordering. the dismissal of petitioner\u2019s \u201ccase.\u201d Since petitioner\u2019s \u201ccase\u201d was not limited solely to the personnel action but was comprised of other pending claims which had arisen out of the same occurrence, including his claims for back pay, attorney\u2019s fees, and expungement of his record, it is my view that petitioner\u2019s contested case survived despite dismissal of the personnel action.\nHaving determined that petitioner\u2019s contested case continued and was commenced prior to 1 January 1986, G.S. 150A-45 would govern. Pursuant to this statute, Wake County Superior Court would be the proper forum in which to seek judicial review of the decision of the State Personnel Commission concerning petitioner\u2019s claims for reinstatement, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees, and expungement of his record. Craven County Superior Court would not have subject matter jurisdiction and petitioner\u2019s petition for judicial review, having been improperly filed, should have been dismissed.\nIn my judgment proper disposition of this case would require that the Commission\u2019s order dismissing the personnel action due to lack of proper notice under G.S. 126-35 be affirmed and the case remanded to Wake County Superior Court with directions to remand it to the State Personnel Commission for petitioner\u2019s reinstatement to a position comparable to the one he held on 19 October 1983. At that time the Commission must act upon petitioner\u2019s petition for back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of the record.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge WALKER" } ], "attorneys": [ "David P. Voerman for plaintiff-appellee.", "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Norma S. Harrell, for the State Personnel Commission.", "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Ann Reed, for the Department of Human Resources." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BRUCE McKINNON MEYERS v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, and THE STATE PERSONNEL COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA\nNo. 913SC170\n(Filed 17 March 1992)\n1. Administrative Law and Procedure \u00a7 64 (NCI4th)\u2014 judicial review of agency decision \u2014 applicable statute \u2014 place for seeking review\nPlaintiffs contested case filed in 1983 came to an end when the State Personnel Commission dismissed the personnel action against him pursuant to a Court of Appeals decision reversing his demotion and ordering that the action be dismissed due to a lack of proper notice. Therefore, plaintiff\u2019s January 1990 petition to the State Personnel Commission for reinstatement to his supervisory position, back pay, attorney fees and expungement of his record was a separate case rather than an extension of his initial case, and plaintiff was not required to seek review of the Commission\u2019s decision in the Wake County Superior Court under former N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150A-45 but could seek review in the superior court of the county of his residence under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-45, which became effective on 1 January 1986.\nAm Jur 2d, Administrative Law \u00a7 737.\n2. State \u00a7 12 (NCI3d)\u2014 State Personnel Commission \u2014 demotion reversed \u2014reinstatement, back pay, attorney fees, and expungement\nThe State Personnel Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to grant plaintiff\u2019s petition for reinstatement to his supervisory position, back pay, attorney fees and expungement of his record after the Court of Appeals reversed plaintiff\u2019s demotion and ordered that the personnel action against him be dismissed due to lack of proper notice.\nAm Jur 2d, Civil Service \u00a7 68.\nJudge WALKER dissenting.\nAppeal by respondents from an order filed on 13 November 1990 in CRAVEN County Superior Court by Judge Frank R. Brown. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 November 1991.\nPlaintiff, Bruce Meyers, was dismissed from State employment in October of 1983. He appealed his dismissal pursuant to the grievance procedures of the Department of Human Resources. Subsequent to a hearing, the hearing officer issued a report, on 20 July 1984, which recommended that plaintiff be reinstated because the dismissal was not in accordance with State policy. The dismissal was set aside but plaintiff was then demoted to a lower level, non-supervisory position. The demotion was appealed but the State Personnel Commission held, on 5 December 1985, that the action was justified. Plaintiff then appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Wake County, which dismissed the Petition for Judicial Review in light of its finding that the decision of the State Personnel Commission was proper in law and fact. Plaintiff appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals which reversed with instructions that the action against plaintiff be \u201cdismissed\u201d due to lack of proper notice. Meyers v. Dep\u2019t of Human Resources, 92 N.C. App. 193, 374 S.E.2d 280 (1988), disc. rev. denied, 324 N.C. 247, 377 S.E.2d 754 (1989).\nOn 9 January 1990 Mr. Meyers petitioned the State Personnel Commission for dismissal of the personnel action, reinstatement, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of his record. The State Personnel Commission dismissed the personnel action but took no action with regard to reinstatement, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of the record. This left plaintiff in a lower level position with lower pay and with essentially no remedy despite a Court of Appeals ruling in his favor.\nOn 8 March 1990, plaintiff filed a petition in Craven County Superior Court seeking judicial review of the decision of the State Personnel Commission in regard to reinstatement in his supervisory position, back pay, attorney\u2019s fees and expungement of his record. After a hearing on 8 October 1990, the trial court found that the State Personnel Commission had acted arbitrarily and capriciously and granted the plaintiff the relief sought. Respondents appeal.\nDavid P. Voerman for plaintiff-appellee.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General Norma S. Harrell, for the State Personnel Commission.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Senior Deputy Attorney General Ann Reed, for the Department of Human Resources." }, "file_name": "0665-01", "first_page_order": 693, "last_page_order": 697 }