{ "id": 4161525, "name": "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitioners-Appellants v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Rainey v. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction", "decision_date": "2008-10-07", "docket_number": "No. COA05-1609-2", "first_page": "243", "last_page": "245", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "193 N.C. App. 243" } ], "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": "652 S.E.2d 251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639664 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "252", "parenthetical": "Rainey II" }, { "page": "252" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/652/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "640 S.E.2d 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12637766 ], "weight": 14, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Rainey I" }, { "page": "797" }, { "page": "793" }, { "page": "793" }, { "page": "793" }, { "page": "793-94" }, { "page": "794" }, { "page": "794" }, { "page": "797" }, { "page": "794" }, { "page": "795" }, { "page": "795" }, { "page": "795", "parenthetical": "quotations and citation omitted" }, { "page": "797" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/640/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3741433 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "680", "parenthetical": "Rainey II" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 N.C. App. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8375839 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "Rainey I" }, { "page": "669" }, { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/181/0666-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 328, "char_count": 6919, "ocr_confidence": 0.739, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.13572509439739536 }, "sha256": "6f209730338e25a5e24d6ff7033b80f3253a1a9b5dca752e45303efd94809d6b", "simhash": "1:0010f779c5b62f5e", "word_count": 1117 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:30:29.332614+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitioners-Appellants v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ELMORE, Judge.\nOn 9 November 2007, the North Carolina Supreme Court published an opinion reversing this Court\u2019s opinion in Rainey v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Pub. Instruction, 181 N.C. App. 666, 640 S.E.2d 790 (2007) (Rainey I). Subsequently we filed an order stating that we would reconsider the case as directed by the opinion of the Supreme Court without additional briefs or oral arguments. We have reconsidered the case as directed and, except as herein modified, the opinion we filed on 20 February 2007 remains in full force and effect.\nIn Rainey I, we reversed a superior court order affirming a Final Decision by the State Board of Education. Id. at 676, 640 S.E.2d at 797. Madeline Davis Tucker (petitioner) achieved certification by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (the National Board) in 2000. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-296.2(b) requires the State to \u201c[pay] a significant salary differential to teachers who attain national certification from [the National Board.]\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-296.2(a) (2005). After petitioner received her certification, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (respondent) informed her that she would not receive the National Board salary increase. Rainey I, 181 N.C. App. at 669, 640 S.E.2d at 793. Petitioner appealed respondent\u2019s decision by filing a petition for a contested case hearing in 2002. Id. at 669, 640 S.E.2d at 793.\nAt the administrative hearing, respondent argued that petitioner was not a \u201cteacher\u201d for purposes of the statute and thus was not entitled to the salary increase for \u201cteachers.\u201d Id. at 669-70, 640 S.E.2d at 793. The administrative law judge (ALT) reversed respondent\u2019s decision and ordered that petitioner receive the salary increase. Id. at 670, 640 S.E.2d at 793-94. The State Board of Education (the State Board) did not adopt the AU\u2019s decision and affirmed respondent\u2019s original decision. Id. at 670, 640 S.E.2d at 794. Petitioner appealed to the superior court, which affirmed the State Board\u2019s decision. Id. at 670, 640 S.E.2d at 794. Petitioner then appealed to this Court, which reversed the superior court. Id. at 676, 640 S.E.2d at 797.\nIn reaching our decision, we applied N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(c), which was added to the North Carolina Administrative Procedures Act in 2000. Id. at 660, 640 S.E.2d at 794. That section states, in relevant part:\nIn reviewing a final decision in a contested case in which an administrative law judge made a decision, in accordance with G.S. 150B- 34(a), and the agency does not adopt the administrative law judge\u2019s decision, the court shall review the official record, de novo, and shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law. In reviewing the case, the court shall not give deference to any prior decision made in the case and shall not be bound by the findings of fact or the conclusions of law contained in the agency\u2019s final decision.\nN.C. Gen. Stat: \u00a7 150B-51(c) (2005).\nPetitioner assigned error to the superior court\u2019s \u201capplication of the standard of review, arguing that the trial court improperly applied the de novo standard of review by deferring to respondent\u2019s construction of the statute at issue.\u201d Rainey I, 181 N.C. App. at 672, 640 S.E.2d at 795. We held that the trial court erred by giving deference to the State Board\u2019s \u201cdemonstrated expertise and consistency in applying various statutes.\u201d Id. at 672, 640 S.E.2d at 795. We decided the case on the merits, however,, explaining that \u201cthe trial court\u2019s erroneous . . . application of the de novo standard of review in no way interfere[d] with our ability to assess how that standard should have been applied to the particular facts of this case Id. at 673, 640 S.E.2d at 795 (quotations and citation omitted). On the merits, we held that petitioner satisfied the statutory requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 115C-296.2 and reversed the superior court. Id. at 676, 640 S.E.2d at 797.\nRespondent appealed to our Supreme Court, which reversed and remanded the case for our consideration. Rainey v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Pub. Instruction, 361 N.C. 679, 680, 652 S.E.2d 251, 252 (2007) (Rainey II). The Supreme Court\u2019s opinion was limited to our discussion of the superior court\u2019s de novo review. The Court explained that N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 150B-51(c) \u201cdoes not bar the trial court from considering the agency\u2019s expertise and previous interpretations of the statutes it administers, as demonstrated in rules and regulations adopted by the agency or previous decisions outside of the pending case.\u201d Id. at 681, 652 S.E.2d at 252.\nWe have reconsidered our opinion in Rainey I as directed by the Supreme Court in Rainey II, and hold that our analysis of the superior court\u2019s deference to the State Board\u2019s \u201cdemonstrated expertise and consistency in applying various statutes\u201d was in error. However, because we reviewed the merits of the case without further consideration of the trial court\u2019s standard of review, the remainder of the opinion and its disposition are unaffected by our error.\nAccordingly, we hold that the superior court did not err in granting deference to the State Board\u2019s \u201cdemonstrated expertise and consistency in applying various statutes,\u201d and, for the reasons otherwise stated in Rainey I, we reverse the order of the superior court.\nReversed.\nChief Judge MARTIN and Judge STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ELMORE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West and Pamela A. Scott, for petitioners.", "Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Grumpier, for respondents." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ALICE BINS RAINEY, MICHELE R. ROTOSKY and MADELINE DAVIS TUCKER, Petitioners-Appellants v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION and STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondents-Appellees\nNo. COA05-1609-2\n(Filed 7 October 2008)\nAdministrative Law\u2014 superior court deference to demonstrated expertise and consistency of Board of Education \u2014 erroneous standard of review did not affect remainder of case\nThe Court of Appeals reconsidered its opinion in Rainey I, as directed by our Supreme Court, and held that its analysis concluding the superior court should not have given deference to the State Board of Educations\u2019s demonstrated expertise and consistency in applying various statutes, regarding pay increases for teachers who attain national certification, was erroneous. However, it reviewed the merits of the case without further consideration of the trial court\u2019s standard of review and concluded the remainder of the opinion in Rainey I, and its disposition, are unaffected by the error.\nAppeal by petitioner from order and judgment entered 7 September 2005 by Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr., in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 January 2007.. Opinion filed by the Court of Appeals 20 February 2007. Heard in the Supreme Court 16 October 2007. Opinion filed by the Supreme Court 9 November 2007 reversing the Opinion of the Court of Appeals. Remanded to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration.\nPoyner & Spruill LLP, by Thomas R. West and Pamela A. Scott, for petitioners.\nAttorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Laura E. Grumpier, for respondents." }, "file_name": "0243-01", "first_page_order": 275, "last_page_order": 277 }