{
  "id": 3795500,
  "name": "REGINALD NEWBERNE v. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, an agency of the State of North Carolina, DIVISION OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, a principal subunit of an agency of the State of North Carolina, BRYAN E. BEATTY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, RICHARD W. HOLDEN, in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division of State Highway Patrol, C.E. MOODY, in his official capacity as Director of Internal Affairs for the Division of State Highway Patrol, and A.C. COMBS, in his individual and official capacity as First Sergeant with the Division of State Highway Patrol",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newberne v. Department of Crime Control & Public Safety",
  "decision_date": "2005-08-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 75A05",
  "first_page": "782",
  "last_page": "800",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "359 N.C. 782"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "606 S.E.2d 742",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468263
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "528 U.S. 1161",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        9688480,
        9688769,
        9688546,
        9688387,
        9688353,
        9688742,
        9688522,
        9688717,
        9688654,
        9688431,
        9688464,
        9688691,
        9688502,
        9688600,
        9688572,
        9688446
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/528/1161-06",
        "/us/528/1161-16",
        "/us/528/1161-09",
        "/us/528/1161-02",
        "/us/528/1161-01",
        "/us/528/1161-15",
        "/us/528/1161-08",
        "/us/528/1161-14",
        "/us/528/1161-12",
        "/us/528/1161-03",
        "/us/528/1161-05",
        "/us/528/1161-13",
        "/us/528/1161-07",
        "/us/528/1161-11",
        "/us/528/1161-10",
        "/us/528/1161-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 S.E.2d 78",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "82"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4707236
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7305",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_lexis",
      "reporter": "U.S. Dist. LEXIS",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "*15",
          "parenthetical": "magistrate judge"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 L. Ed. 2d 1079",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 U.S. 1260",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1108141,
        1108495,
        1107792,
        1108215,
        1108060,
        1107903
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/501/1260-06",
        "/us/501/1260-02",
        "/us/501/1260-01",
        "/us/501/1260-04",
        "/us/501/1260-05",
        "/us/501/1260-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "912 F.2d 832",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9048664
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "840-41",
          "parenthetical": "holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/912/0832-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E.2d 719",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "727"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575767
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "570-71"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0559-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E.2d 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "615"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 715",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573981
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "722"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0715-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "599 S.E.2d 888",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "893-94"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "358 N.C. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2987357
      ],
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "657-58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/358/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "567 S.E.2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "808-09"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N.C. App. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        9249985
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "313"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/152/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "554 S.E.2d 832",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "354 N.C. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        138401,
        138313,
        138378,
        138487,
        138394
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/354/0228-04",
        "/nc/354/0228-02",
        "/nc/354/0228-01",
        "/nc/354/0228-05",
        "/nc/354/0228-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "550 S.E.2d 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "535"
        },
        {
          "page": "535"
        },
        {
          "page": "535"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N.C. App. 383",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11437867
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "389"
        },
        {
          "page": "389"
        },
        {
          "page": "389"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/145/0383-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 115",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "116"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2549225
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "683"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.D. L. Rev. 316",
      "category": "journals:journal",
      "reporter": "S.D. L. Rev.",
      "year": 1993,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "326",
          "parenthetical": "stating that a \"common thread between the various state [whistleblower] laws is the requirement that an employee's complaint be made in good faith\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 S.E.2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 N.C. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2541726
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "692"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/328/0689-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "596 A.2d 396",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "403",
          "parenthetical": "holding that \"[w]hen the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination,\" Price Waterhouse applies rather than McDonnell Douglas"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 Conn. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        544971
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "204",
          "parenthetical": "holding that \"[w]hen the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination,\" Price Waterhouse applies rather than McDonnell Douglas"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/220/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "539 U.S. 90",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8897257
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2003,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring"
        },
        {
          "page": "96",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/539/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 F.3d 1137",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        7416163
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1142",
          "parenthetical": "stating that plaintiffs must present \" 'direct evidence that decisionmakers placed substantial negative reliance on an illegitimate criterion' \" in order \"[t]o earn a mixed-motive instruction\""
        },
        {
          "page": "1142"
        },
        {
          "page": "1141"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/67/1137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "469 U.S. 111",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11958809
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "121",
          "parenthetical": "stating that \"the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination\""
        },
        {
          "page": "533",
          "parenthetical": "stating that \"the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination\""
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/469/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 S.E.2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "332 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2505409,
        2504968,
        2504747,
        2505141,
        2504699
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/332/0345-01",
        "/nc/332/0345-02",
        "/nc/332/0345-05",
        "/nc/332/0345-04",
        "/nc/332/0345-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 S.E.2d 276",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "284",
          "parenthetical": "applying Mt. Healthy to a claim of civil conspiracy to discharge the plaintiff in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N.C. App. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5314074
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "509",
          "parenthetical": "applying Mt. Healthy to a claim of civil conspiracy to discharge the plaintiff in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/106/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "490 U.S. 228",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        605428
      ],
      "weight": 37,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "258"
        },
        {
          "page": "293",
          "parenthetical": "plurality opinion"
        },
        {
          "page": "258"
        },
        {
          "page": "293",
          "parenthetical": "plurality opinion"
        },
        {
          "page": "276"
        },
        {
          "page": "304-05",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "276"
        },
        {
          "page": "304",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "277"
        },
        {
          "page": "305",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "289",
          "parenthetical": "plurality opinion"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "289"
        },
        {
          "page": "247"
        },
        {
          "page": "285",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        },
        {
          "page": "247, 252"
        },
        {
          "page": "285, 289"
        },
        {
          "page": "271-76"
        },
        {
          "page": "301-04",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "278"
        },
        {
          "page": "306",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "252"
        },
        {
          "page": "289",
          "parenthetical": "plurality opinion"
        },
        {
          "page": "278-79"
        },
        {
          "page": "306",
          "parenthetical": "O'Connor, J., concurring in the judgment"
        },
        {
          "page": "278"
        },
        {
          "page": "306"
        },
        {
          "page": "280"
        },
        {
          "page": "307",
          "parenthetical": "Kennedy, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/490/0228-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "924 F.2d 948",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10545350
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/924/0948-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "429 U.S. 274",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8150
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "287"
        },
        {
          "page": "484",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/429/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "904 S.W.2d 629",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10018058
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "636",
          "parenthetical": "applying this burden-shifting analysis to a claim brought under a state statutory whistleblower provision"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/904/0629-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "450 U.S. 248",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6184064
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "252-53"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/450/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "411 U.S. 792",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        10002
      ],
      "weight": 9,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "802"
        },
        {
          "page": "677-78"
        },
        {
          "page": "804"
        },
        {
          "page": "679"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/411/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 L. Ed. 2d 1082",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 F.3d 38",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.3d",
      "case_ids": [
        11543479
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f3d/183/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "597 F. Supp. 575",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3710031
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "582"
        },
        {
          "page": "585"
        },
        {
          "page": "582"
        },
        {
          "page": "583"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/597/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 S.E.2d 432",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "439",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N.C. App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11712046
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "571",
          "parenthetical": "same"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/126/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "714 F. Supp. 146",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        7382035
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "151"
        },
        {
          "page": "151"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/714/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "448 S.E.2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "282",
          "parenthetical": "quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F. Supp. 146, 151 (M.D.N.C. 1987)"
        },
        {
          "page": "282"
        },
        {
          "page": "282"
        },
        {
          "page": "282",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. App. 581",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12136994
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "584",
          "parenthetical": "quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F. Supp. 146, 151 (M.D.N.C. 1987)"
        },
        {
          "page": "584"
        },
        {
          "page": "584"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/115/0581-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "330 N.W.2d 428",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12035933
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "444",
          "parenthetical": "stating the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nw2d/330/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12622",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_lexis",
      "reporter": "U.S. Dist. LEXIS",
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "No. Civ. 04-131-B-W"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9545",
      "category": "reporters:specialty_lexis",
      "reporter": "U.S. Dist. LEXIS",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "*25",
          "parenthetical": "recommended decision of magistrate judge"
        },
        {
          "page": "*24-25"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "678 F.2d 593",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1470572
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "599",
          "parenthetical": "stating the elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/678/0593-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "759 F.2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        388188
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "365-66",
          "parenthetical": "stating the elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-3 (1982)"
        },
        {
          "page": "365-66"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/759/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 U.S.C. \u00a7 2305",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "511 S.E.2d 304",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 89",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132320
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "517 S.E.2d 887",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "349 N.C. 353",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        571497,
        571644,
        571678
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/349/0353-01",
        "/nc/349/0353-02",
        "/nc/349/0353-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "501 S.E.2d 99",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "102"
        },
        {
          "page": "103",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.C. App. 649",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11652142
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "653"
        },
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/129/0649-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "388 S.E.2d 134",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "136"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "326 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307411
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/326/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "496 S.E.2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "580-81",
          "parenthetical": "citing Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551095
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "641-42",
          "parenthetical": "citing Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 S.E.2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "224"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 N.C. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4691903
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/314/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "558 S.E.2d 490",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "494",
          "parenthetical": "citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 278, 333 S.E.2d 222, 224 (1985)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 N.C. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        220182
      ],
      "year": 2002,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "166",
          "parenthetical": "citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 278, 333 S.E.2d 222, 224 (1985)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/355/0161-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "355 U.S. 41",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6161830
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "45-46"
        },
        {
          "page": "84"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/355/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "525 S.E.2d 441",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "445",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102, 176 S.E.2d at 166 (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "351 N.C. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        1155610
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "337",
          "parenthetical": "quoting Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102, 176 S.E.2d at 166 (citation omitted)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/351/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "517 S.E.2d 121",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "124"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "350 N.C. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        132031
      ],
      "year": 1999,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "604-05"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/350/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "489 S.E.2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "888",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "347 N.C. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        551301
      ],
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "111",
          "parenthetical": "citations omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/347/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E.2d 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "163"
        },
        {
          "page": "166",
          "parenthetical": "citation omitted"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561932
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "98"
        },
        {
          "page": "102"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "606 S.E.2d 742",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2005,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "746"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N.C. App. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8468263
      ],
      "year": 2005,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/168/0087-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 1716,
    "char_count": 48037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.747,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.162044677142282e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9564602028921377
    },
    "sha256": "c498ee437d14788cead9366795a72e242e39114e69b0ac0ce674599ef65fa3b6",
    "simhash": "1:2bc8798e173a88d2",
    "word_count": 7565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:02.499353+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "REGINALD NEWBERNE v. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, an agency of the State of North Carolina, DIVISION OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, a principal subunit of an agency of the State of North Carolina, BRYAN E. BEATTY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, RICHARD W. HOLDEN, in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division of State Highway Patrol, C.E. MOODY, in his official capacity as Director of Internal Affairs for the Division of State Highway Patrol, and A.C. COMBS, in his individual and official capacity as First Sergeant with the Division of State Highway Patrol"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nOn 9 April 2002, plaintiff Trooper Reginald Newberne filed suit against the named institutional and individual defendants, alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment as a law enforcement officer with the State Highway Patrol in violation of the North Carolina Whistleblower Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84 to -88. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, which the trial court allowed in an order filed 29 January 2003. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, Newberne v. Dep\u2019t of Crime Control, 168 N.C. App. 87, 606 S.E.2d 742 (2005), and plaintiff appealed as a matter of right. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) (2003). We reverse.\nA motion to dismiss under N.C. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) \u201cis the usual and proper method of testing the legal sufficiency of the complaint.\u201d Sutton v. Duke, 277 N.C. 94, 98, 176 S.E.2d 161, 163 (1970). In reviewing a trial court\u2019s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, the appellate court must inquire \u201c \u2018whether, as a matter of law, the allegations of the complaint, treated as true, are sufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under some legal theory.\u2019 \u201d Meyer v. Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 111, 489 S.E.2d 880, 888 (1997) (citations omitted); see also Isenhour v. Hutto, 350 N.C. 601, 604-05, 517 S.E.2d 121, 124 (1999). \u201cRule 12(b)(6) \u2018generally precludes dismissal except in those instances where the face of the complaint discloses some insurmountable bar to recovery.\u2019 \u201d Energy Investors Fund, L.P. v. Metric Constructors, Inc., 351 N.C. 331, 337, 525 S.E.2d 441, 445 (2000) (quoting Sutton, 277 N.C. at 102, 176 S.E.2d at 166 (citation omitted)); cf. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80, 84 (1957). Dismissal is proper, however, \u201cwhen one of the following three conditions is satisfied: (1) the complaint on its face reveals that no law supports the plaintiff\u2019s claim; (2) the complaint on its face reveals the absence of facts sufficient to make a good claim; or (3) the complaint discloses some fact\" that necessarily defeats the plaintiff\u2019s claim.\u201d Wood v. Guilford Cty., 355 N.C. 161, 166, 558 S.E.2d 490, 494 (2002) (citing Oates v. JAG, Inc., 314 N.C. 276, 278, 333 S.E.2d 222, 224 (1985)); see also McAllister v. Khie Sem Ha, 347 N.C. 638, 641-42, 496 S.E.2d 577, 580-81 (1998) (citing Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 136 (1990)).\nIn applying this standard of review, we treat the allegations in plaintiffs complaint as true: From November 1989 until his termination on 10 April 2001, the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety (the Department) employed plaintiff as a sworn law enforcement officer in the State Highway Patrol (SHP). On 14 May 2000 at approximately 12:30 a.m., plaintiff arrived at a crime scene shortly after the arrest of Owen Jackson Nichols on suspicion of driving while impaired. Plaintiff did not directly participate in or witness Nichols\u2019s apprehension or arrest, which was effectuated by SHP Troopers B.O. Johnson, P.A. Collins, and J.R. Edwards.\nWhile speaking with another trooper at the scene, plaintiff was approached by Trooper P.A. Collins. Plaintiff noticed that Trooper Collins was rubbing his hand and asked whether he had been injured. Trooper Collins replied that he had jammed his hand after hitting Owen Nichols and that Trooper Edwards had \u201cpulled it back in place.\u201d When plaintiff advised Trooper Collins to seek medical treatment, Trooper Collins responded that he \u201cwouldn\u2019t know what to tell the sergeant\u201d and added that he could tell the sergeant he broke his hand during a fall. After stating once again that Trooper Collins should seek medical attention, plaintiff departed the crime scene.\nLater that day, Andy Nichols, the father of Owen Nichols, filed a complaint with the Internal Affairs Section of the SHP, alleging that Troopers Johnson, Collins, and Edwards had used excessive force in the apprehension and arrest of his son. Nearly a month later, on 13 June 2000, plaintiff\u2019s supervisor, First Sergeant A.C. Combs, asked plaintiff if he had been involved in the apprehension and arrest of Owen Nichols or if he had witnessed anyone using force on Owen Nichols. Plaintiff responded that he arrived on the scene only after Nichols had been placed under arrest and that he did not witness anyone using force on Nichols. Plaintiff also reported that Trooper Collins had apparently injured his hand during the incident. At the conclusion of this conversation, First Sergeant Combs instructed plaintiff to \u201cwrite what he saw\u201d in a statement and to submit that statement before the end of plaintiff\u2019s shift.\nPlaintiff became apprehensive about preparing the statement, fearing that \u201cbreaking the code of silence\u201d and disclosing facts concerning a potential abuse of authority by another officer might subject him to retaliation by First Sergeant Combs and others within the Department and the SHP. Plaintiff therefore complied with First Sergeant Combs\u2019s request by preparing a statement, incorporated by reference in plaintiff\u2019s complaint, limited to what he literally \u201csaw\u201d on the night in question. Plaintiff wrote in his statement that Trooper Collins had apparently injured his hand, but did not include Trooper Collins\u2019s oral comments concerning how he had incurred that injury.\nDespite having strictly followed First Sergeant Combs\u2019s instructions to write what he \u201csaw,\u201d plaintiff remained troubled about whether he should also have included Trooper Collins\u2019s admission that he had struck Owen Nichols, notwithstanding plaintiff\u2019s fear of retaliation and reprisal. Accordingly, plaintiff sought the counsel of another trooper with the SHP, Sergeant Montgomery, in whom plaintiff confided both his fear of retaliation and his desire to \u201cdo the right thing.\u201d Shortly after soliciting and receiving Sergeant Montgomery\u2019s advice, plaintiff approached First Sergeant Combs on 20 June 2000 and told him there were \u201cthings he didn\u2019t know\u201d about the events of 14 May 2000. First Sergeant Combs directed plaintiff to prepare an amended statement including everything he knew about the incident, and plaintiff prepared and submitted his amended statement later that day. In the amended report, which is incorporated by reference in plaintiff\u2019s complaint, plaintiff disclosed the details of his conversation with Trooper Collins at the crime scene, including Trooper Collins\u2019s alleged statements, \u201cI hit the subject and jammed my hand\u201d and \u201cIt just happened, I should know better.\u201d\nOn 15 September 2000, defendant Captain C.E. Moody, SHP Director of Internal Affairs, filed a personnel complaint against plaintiff based on information provided to him by First Sergeant Combs. The personnel complaint alleged that plaintiff had engaged in a \u201cSerious Personal Conduct Violation\u201d of the SHP Policy Manual\u2019s Directive No. H.l Section VI, the so-called \u201cTruthfulness Directive.\u201d On 10 April 2001, plaintiff was terminated from his employment with the Department and the SHP, ostensibly based on his violation of the Truthfulness Directive. Although at least some of the troopers directly involved in Owen Nichols\u2019s detention and arrest were disciplined for misconduct following an investigation into the 14 May 2000 incident, plaintiff was the only trooper whose employment was terminated.\nBased on the factual allegations summarized above, plaintiff asserted a claim for damages under the North Carolina Whistleblower Act, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84 to -88. In stating his claim for relief, plaintiff expressly contended that defendants \u201cdischarged [p]laintiff because [p]laintiff reported to his superiors, both verbally and in writing, information in the Amended Statement that supports a contention that the Troopers violated State or federal law, rule or regulation and exercised gross abuse of authority in the apprehension and arrest of Owen Nichols.\u201d Plaintiff further asserted that defendants \u201cdiscriminated against [p]laintiff for submitting the Amended Statement\u201d in that plaintiffs dismissal was \u201cgrossly inequitable in comparison with the treatment and/or sanctions received by [the] other Troopers who were disciplined for the same and/or more severe misconduct but were not terminated.\u201d Plaintiff also contended that his termination \u201cwas pretextual in the perceived need to protect the Department and Division from a potential civil law suit by Owen Nichols for the use of excessive force.\u201d\nI.\n1989, the General Assembly amended Chapter 126 of the North Carolina General Statutes, the State Personnel Act (SPA), by enacting Senate Bill 125, entitled \u201cAn Act to Encourage Reporting of Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in State Government and Endangerment to the Public Health and Safety, and to Protect Informant State Employees from Retaliation,\u201d and popularly known as the \u201cWhistleblower Act.\u201d Caudill v. Dellinger, 129 N.C. App. 649, 653, 501 S.E.2d 99, 102, disc. rev. denied, 349 N.C. 353, 517 S.E.2d 887 (1998), aff\u2019d in part and disc. rev. improvidently allowed, 350 N.C. 89, 511 S.E.2d 304 (1999) (per curiam). Now codified as Article 14 of Chapter 126, the Whistleblower Act declares that\n[i]t is the policy of this State that State employees shall be encouraged to report verbally or in writing to their supervisor, department head, or other appropriate authority, evidence of activity by a State agency or State employee constituting:\n(1) A violation of State or federal law, rule or regulation;\n(2) Fraud;\n(3) Misappropriation of State resources;\n(4) Substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety; or\n(5) Gross mismanagement, a gross waste of monies, or gross abuse of authority.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84(a) (2003). The Whistleblower Act further provides, in pertinent part, that\n[n]o head of any State department, agency or institution or other State employee exercising supervisory authority shall discharge, threaten or otherwise discriminate against a State employee regarding the State employee\u2019s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because the State employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or in writing, any activity described in G.S. 126-84, unless the State employee knows or has reason to believe that the report is inaccurate.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-85(a) (2003).\nThis Court has not previously had occasion to review claims brought under the Whistleblower Act. Based on our careful reading of the statute, however, we hold that the Act requires plaintiffs to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the following three essential elements: (1) that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff in his or her employment, and (3) that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken against the plaintiff. This parsing of the statute is consistent with numerous state and federal court decisions identifying the essential elements of comparable whistleblower provisions in various state and federal statutes. See, e.g., Moon v. Transp. Drivers, Inc., 836 E2d 226, 229 (6th Cir. 1987) (stating the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim under section 405(a) of 49 U.S.C. \u00a7 2305(a) (1982)); Ross v. Commc\u2019ns Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365-66 (4th Cir. 1985) (stating the elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-3 (1982)); Goff v. Cont\u2019l Oil Co., 678 F.2d 593, 599 (5th Cir. 1982) (stating the elements of a retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981); Eaton v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. W., LLC, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9545, at *25 (D. Me. May 19, 2005) (recommended decision of magistrate judge) (stating the elements of a claim brought under Maine Whistleblower Protection Act), aff\u2019d, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12622 (D. Me. June 24, 2005) (No. Civ. 04-131-B-W); Hubbard v. UPI, 330 N.W.2d 428, 444 (Minn. 1983) (stating the elements of a retaliatory discharge claim brought under the Minnesota Human Rights Act). See generally Michael Delikat et al., Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims, in Employment Law Yearbook, \u00a7 14:3, at 806-07 (Timothy J. Long, ed., 2005) (discussing the elements of retaliation claims under the whistleblower provisions of several federal statutes, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Pay Act) [hereinafter Delikat, Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims],\nWe note that in the first North Carolina appellate decision to address the Whistleblower Act, the Court of Appeals articulated the third element differently, stating that a plaintiff must show that \u201c \u2018the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse action.\u2019 \u201d Kennedy v. Guilford Technical Cmty. Coll., 115 N.C. App. 581, 584, 448 S.E.2d 280, 282 (1994) (quoting McCauley v. Greensboro City Bd. of Educ., 714 F. Supp. 146, 151 (M.D.N.C. 1987)); see also Caudill, 129 N.C. App. at 655, 501 S.E.2d at 103 (quoting Kennedy in stating the elements of a whistleblower claim); Hanton v. Gilbert, 126 N.C. App. 561, 571, 486 S.E.2d 432, 439 (1997) (same). In support of this formulation of the causation element, the Court of Appeals relied on a federal case arising from a retaliation claim brought under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1983 for alleged violations of the plaintiff\u2019s constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Kennedy, 115 N.C. App. at 584, 448 S.E.2d at 282 (citing McCauley, 714 F. Supp. at 151). Citing another federal case arising in a different context, the Court of Appeals then described a burden-shifting proof scheme for the causation element. The Court stated that upon the plaintiff\u2019s \u201cpresentation of a prima facie case of retaliation . . . \u2018the burden of production shifts to the defendant to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse [employment] action.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 584-85, 448 S.E.2d at 282 (quoting Melchi v. Burns Int'l Sec. Servs., Inc., 597 F. Supp. 575, 582 (E.D. Mich. 1984)). The Court further stated that \u201cif the defendant-employer meets its burden, the plaintiff must then come forward with evidence to show \u2018that the legitimate reason was a mere pretext for the retaliatory action.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 585, 448 S.E.2d at 282 (quoting Melchi, 597 F. Supp. at 582). Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded, \u201c \u2018[the] plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of proving that the [adverse employment action] would not have occurred had there been no protected activity\u2019 engaged in by the plaintiff.\u201d Id. (quoting Melchi, 597 F. Supp. at 583).\nAlthough the Court of Appeals was correct to hold that courts should generally apply a burden-shifting approach when analyzing the causation element of a whistleblower claim, the analysis set forth in Kennedy conflates two distinct proof schemes which apply under different factual circumstances. Moreover, for the reasons detailed below, the Kennedy formulation of the causation element applies only when the plaintiff presents direct evidence of the defendant\u2019s retaliatory animus. We therefore decline to follow Kennedy\u2019s articulation of the elements of a whistleblower claim. We also take this opportunity to clarify the proof schemes that may apply to claims under the Whistleblower Act and to offer guidance to our trial courts in analyzing the causation element.\nThere are at least three distinct ways for a plaintiff to establish a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action under the Whistleblower Act. First, a plaintiff may rely on the employer\u2019s \u201cadmi[ssion] that it took adverse action against [the plaintiff] [solely] because of the [plaintiff\u2019s] protected activity.\u201d Delikat, Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims, \u00a7 14:6, at 838. Such \u201csmoking gun\u201d evidence is rare, Thomas v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F.3d 38, 58 n.12 (1st Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1161, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1082 (2000), as \u201cfew employers openly state that they are terminating employees [solely] because of their whistleblowing activities.\u201d Daniel P. Westman & Nancy M. Modesitt, Whistleblowing: The Law of Retaliatory Discharge Ch. 9 \u00a7 III.A-4, at 232 (2d ed. 2004) [hereinafter Westman & Modesitt, Whistleblowing].\nSecond, a plaintiff may seek to establish by circumstantial evidence that the adverse employment action was retaliatory and that the employer\u2019s proffered explanation for the action was pretextual. See Delikat, Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims, \u00a7\u00a7 14:6,14:6.2, at 838-55. Cases in this category are commonly referred to as \u201cpretext\u201d cases. Id. \u00a7 14:6.2, at 839. They are governed by the burden-shifting proof scheme developed by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981). See, e.g., Ross, 759 F.2d at 365-66 (applying this burden-shifting analysis to a claim of retaliatory harassment and discharge brought under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 2000e-3(a)); Tex. Dep\u2019t of Human Servs. v. Hinds, 904 S.W.2d 629, 636 (Tex. 1995) (applying this burden-shifting analysis to a claim brought under a state statutory whistleblower provision).\nUnder the McDonnell Douglas/Burdine proof scheme, once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of unlawful retaliation, the burden shifts to the defendant to articulate a lawful reason for the employment action at issue. See Burdine, 450 U.S. at 252-53, 67 L. Ed. 2d at 215 (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 677-78). If the defendant meets this burden of production, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the defendant\u2019s proffered explanation is pretextual. Id. (citing McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 804, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 679). The ultimate burden of persuasion rests at all times with the plaintiff. Id.\nThird, when \u201cthe employer claims to have had a good reason for taking the adverse action but the employee has direct evidence of a retaliatory motive,\u201d a plaintiff may seek to prove that, even if a legitimate basis for discipline existed, unlawful retaliation was nonetheless a substantial causative factor for the adverse action taken. Delikat, Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims, \u00a7\u00a7 14:6, 14:6.1, at 838-39. Cases in this category are commonly referred to as \u201c \u2018mixed motive\u2019 \u201d cases. Id. (citations omitted); see also Westman & Modesitt, Whistleblowing Ch. 9 \u00a7 IV.A, at 234-35. Such cases are governed by the proof scheme endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 50 L. Ed. 2d 471 (1977), superceded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 954 n.7 (9th Cir. 1991), and extended to Title VII actions in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 104 L. Ed. 2d 268 (1989). Delikat, Retaliation and Whistleblower Claims, \u00a7 14:6.1, at 838-39; cf. Lenzer v. Flaherty, 106 N.C. App. 496, 509, 418 S.E.2d 276, 284 (1992) (applying Mt. Healthy to a claim of civil conspiracy to discharge the plaintiff in retaliation for her exercise of free speech rights), disc. rev. denied, 332 N.C. 345, 421 S.E.2d 348 (1992).\nUnder the Mt. Healthy/Price Waterhouse analysis, once a plaintiff has carried his or her burden to show that protected conduct was a \u201c \u2018substantial\u2019 \u201d or \u201c \u2018motivating\u2019 \u201d factor for the adverse employment action, the defendant must prove \u201cby a preponderance of the evidence that it would have reached the same decision as to [the employment action at issue] even in the absence of the protected conduct.\u201d Mt. Healthy, 429 U.S. at 287, 50 L. Ed. 2d at 484 (citation omitted); see also Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 258, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 293 (plurality opinion). In contrast to the \u201cpretext\u201d analysis described in McDonnell Douglas and Burdine, the ultimate burden of persuasion in a \u201cmixed motive\u201d case may be allocated to the defendant once a plaintiff has established a prima facie case. Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 258, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 293 (plurality opinion); id. at 276, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 304-05 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). In order to shift the burden to the defendant, however, the plaintiff must first demonstrate \u201cby direct evidence that an illegitimate criterion was a substantial factor in the decision.\u201d 490 U.S. at 276, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 304 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment) (emphasis added); see also TWA v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121, 83 L. Ed. 2d 523, 533 (1985) (stating that \u201cthe McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination\u201d); Fuller v. Phipps, 67 F.3d 1137, 1142 (4th Cir. 1995) (stating that plaintiffs must present \u201c \u2018direct evidence that decisionmakers placed substantial negative reliance on an illegitimate criterion\u2019 \u201d in order \u201c[t]o earn a mixed-motive instruction\u201d) (citation omitted), overruled in part by Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 156 L. Ed. 2d 84 (2003); Eaton, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9545 at *24-25 (applying the McDonnell Douglas proof scheme to a whistleblower claim in the absence of direct evidence of retaliation); Miko v. Comm\u2019n on Human Rights & Opportunities, 220 Conn. 192, 204, 596 A.2d 396, 403 (1991) (holding that \u201c[w]hen the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination,\u201d Price Waterhouse applies rather than McDonnell Douglas). \u201cDirect evidence\u201d has been defined as \u201cevidence of conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged [retaliatory] attitude and that bear directly on the contested employment decision.\u201d Fuller, 67 F.3d at 1142. In the context of the Price Waterhouse proof scheme, direct evidence does not include \u201cstray remarks in the workplace, .... statements by nondecisionmakers, or statements by decisionmakers unrelated to the decisional process itself.\u201d Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 277, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 305 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case including \u201cdirect evidence\u201d on the causation element, the defendant carries the burden to \u201cshow that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision.\u201d Id. at 252, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 289 (plurality opinion).\nWe agree with the United States Supreme Court that the essential differences between \u201cpretext\u201d and \u201cmixed-motive\u201d cases necessitate application of different proof schemes, and therefore follow Price Waterhouse in holding that claims under the North Carolina Whistleblower Act may be subject to either form of analysis, depending on the evidence presented in each individual case. As the Price Waterhouse plurality noted, \u201c[t]he very premise of a mixed-motives case\u201d is that the defendant possessed both legitimate and unlawful motives for the adverse employment action taken. Id. at 252, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 289. \u201cWhere a decision was the product of a mixture of legitimate and illegitimate motives, ... it simply makes no sense to ask whether the legitimate reason was \u2018the \u201ctrue reason\u201d \u2019 for the decision \u2014 which is the question asked by Burdine.\u201d Id. at 247, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 285 (citation omitted). Thus, rather than require a plaintiff to \u201csqueeze [his or] her proof into Burdine\u2019s framework,\u201d it is appropriate, once a plaintiff has established that an unlawful motive was present, to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the unlawful motive was not a but-for cause of the adverse employment action. Id. at 247, 252, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 285, 289. Shifting the burden of persuasion to the defendant is justified only when the plaintiff presents direct evidence of an impermissible motive, however, because (1) the defendant is not \u201centitled to . . . [a] presumption of good faith where there is direct evidence that it has placed substantial reliance on factors whose consideration is [statutorily] forbidden,\u201d and (2) \u201c[a]s an evidentiary matter, where a plaintiff has made this type of strong showing of illicit motivation, the factfinder is entitled to presume that the employer\u2019s [retaliatory] animus made a difference to the outcome, absent proof to the contrary from the employer.\u201d Id. at 271-76, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 301-04 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). Thus, only when such \u201cdirect evidence\u201d is presented do plaintiffs \u201cqualify for the more advantageous standards of liability applicable in mixed-motive cases.\u201d Fuller, 67 F.3d at 1141.\nTherefore, claims brought under the Whistleblower Act should be adjudicated according to the following procedures. First, the plaintiff must endeavor to establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the statute. Cf. Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 278, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 306 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment). The plaintiff should include any available \u201cdirect evidence\u201d that the adverse employment action was retaliatory along with circumstantial evidence to that effect. Cf. id. Second, \u201c[t]he defendant should . . . present its case, including its evidence as to legitimate ... reasons for the employment decision.\u201d Id. Third, \u201c[o]nce all the evidence has been received, the court should determine whether the McDonnell Douglas or Price Waterhouse framework properly applies to the evidence before it.\u201d Id. If the plaintiff has demonstrated that he or she engaged in a protected activity and the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff in his or her employment, and if the plaintiff has further established by direct evidence that \u201c \u2018the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the adverse [employment] action,\u2019 \u201d Kennedy, 115 N.C. App. at 584, 448 S.E.2d at 282 (citation omitted), then the defendant bears the burden to \u201cshow that its legitimate reason, standing alone, would have induced it to make the same decision.\u201d Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 252, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 289 (plurality opinion). If, however, \u201cthe plaintiff has failed to satisfy the Price Waterhouse threshold, the case should be decided under the principles enunciated in McDonnell Douglas and Burdine, with the plaintiff bearing the burden of persuasion on the ultimate issue whether the employment action was taken [for retaliatory purposes].\u201d Id. at 278-79, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 306 (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring in the judgment).\nApplying this analytical framework to the allegations in the instant complaint, we conclude that it is premature to determine whether the instant case should be analyzed according to the \u201cpretext\u201d model of McDonnell Douglas and Burdine or the \u201cmixed-motive\u201d analysis of Mt. Healthy and Price Waterhouse. As the trial court\u2019s choice between these two analytical models depends on the nature of both the plaintiff\u2019s and the defendants\u2019 evidence, a trial court may not make a final determination as to which of these two proof schemes applies until \u201call the evidence has been received.\u201d Id. at 278, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 306. Indeed, because \u201c[djiscovery often will be necessary before the plaintiff can know whether both legitimate and illegitimate considerations played a part in the [adverse employment] decision,\u201d id. at 247 n.12, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 285 n.12, a plaintiff may not be in a position to specify whether the claim is based on the \u201cmixed motive\u201d or \u201cpretext\u201d theory of causation when drafting a complaint. We therefore echo the words of the Price Waterhouse plurality in saying that \u201c[n]othing in this opinion should be taken to suggest that a case must be correctly labeled as either a \u2018pretext\u2019 case or a \u2018mixed-motives\u2019 case from the beginning.\u201d Id.) see also Fuller, 67 F.3d at 1142 n.2 (stating that \u201ca plaintiff need not decide at the outset whether to classify his case as a \u2018pretext\u2019 or a \u2018mixed-motive\u2019 case\u201d and that the trial court judge should \u201cmake[] this determination after evaluating the evidence\u201d). Accordingly, a trial court ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a whistleblowing claim should look at the face of the complaint to determine whether the factual allegations, if true, would sustain a claim for relief under any viable theory of causation. See, e.g., Lynn v. Overlook Dev., 328 N.C. 689, 692, 403 S.E.2d 469, 471 (1991).\nII.\nWe next address defendants\u2019 argument that plaintiff\u2019s claim is subject to dismissal because it \u201cdoes not contain facts sufficient to show that [plaintiff] was engaged in [a] \u2018protected activity,\u2019 \u201d the first element of a whistleblower claim. Emphasizing plaintiff\u2019s omission of the details of his conversation with Trooper Collins in his initial report, defendants assert that \u201c[p]laintiff\u2019s lying and misleading inaccuracies were the reason he was disciplined.\u201d Defendants further contend that \u201c[l]ying to a supervisor is not [w]histle-blowing and is certainly not a \u2018protected activity\u2019 \u201d under the Whistleblowing Act. Finally, defendants contend that \u201c[p]laintiff\u2019s [c]omplaint d[oes] not contain facts sufficient to show that his dismissal was for any reason other than his own untruthfulness\u201d in his initial report. We disagree.\nAs an initial matter, even assuming plaintiff\u2019s initial report contained \u201cmisleading inaccuracies,\u201d we do not agree with defendants\u2019 contention that any \u201cadmission of untruthfulness\u201d on the part of the plaintiff necessarily constitutes \u201ca complete bar to recovery\u201d under the Whistleblower Act. The Whistleblower Act prohibits employment retaliation against a state employee who files a report alleging certain categories of misconduct or mismanagement by other state employees or agencies \u201cunless the State employee knows or has reason to believe that the report is inaccurate.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-85(a). The plain meaning of this proviso is that the Act does not apply to employees who make allegations of mismanagement or wrongdoing which they know or should know to be false. In other words, the Act does not protect false whistleblowing allegations, unless the plaintiff had no reason to know of their falsehood. Cf Westman & Modesitt, Whistleblowing Ch. 2 \u00a7 II.E.2, at 52 (noting that \u201cfalse [whistleblowing] allegations serve no public interest\u201d); Lois A. Lofgren, Whistleblower Protection: Should Legislatures and the Courts Provide a Shelter to Public and Private Sector Employees Who Disclose the Wrongdoing of Employers?, 38 S.D. L. Rev. 316, 326 (1993) (stating that a \u201ccommon thread between the various state [whistleblower] laws is the requirement that an employee\u2019s complaint be made in good faith\u201d). Nothing in the language or legislative history of the Act suggests that the General Assembly intended to render the Act inapplicable when an employee\u2019s whistle-blowing allegation appears in a supplemental or' amended report, rather than an initial report. Indeed, such a construction would undermine the legislatively declared policy of this state that the reporting of various forms of governmental mismanagement and wrongdoing shall be \u201cencouraged.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84(a). Moreover, as a simple matter of logic, the failure to make an allegation of wrongdoing in an initial report does not render an amended or supplemental report which contains such an allegation \u201cinaccurate\u201d under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-85(a).\nMore importantly, defendants\u2019 assertion that the \u201clying and misleading inaccuracies\u201d in plaintiff\u2019s initial report were the true reason for plaintiff\u2019s dismissal is merely a factual allegation \u2014 one that is directly contradicted by the factual allegations in plaintiff\u2019s complaint. In ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a trial court must \u201ctake all allegations of fact in the complaint as true.\u201d Cage v. Colonial Bldg. Co., 337 N.C. 682, 683, 448 S.E.2d 115, 116 (1994). Although plaintiff acknowledged in his complaint that the professed reason for his dismissal was his purported violation of the Truthfulness Directive, he also expressly alleged that the actual reason for his termination was his disclosure of a possible abuse of authority in his amended statement. Specifically, plaintiff alleged that \u201c[defendants discharged [p]laintiff because [p]laintiff reported to his superiors, both verbally and in writing, information in the Amended Statement that supports a contention that the [tjroopers violated State or federal law, rule or regulation and exercised gross abuse of authority in the apprehension and arrest of Owen Nichols.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Accordingly, plaintiff has stated a claim for relief under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84(a)(1) and (5), and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of plaintiff\u2019s whistleblower claim.\nIII.\nFinally, we address defendants\u2019 argument that dismissal was proper because plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies in the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) before filing his complaint in the trial court. Defendants contend that plaintiff\u2019s petition for a contested case hearing, which was filed in the OAH prior to the initiation of the instant lawsuit, \u201cwas a [w]histleblower action.\u201d Defendants further assert that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the instant complaint. Based on these contentions, defendants argue that plaintiffs claim is barred by the doctrine of administrative exhaustion. We disagree.\nAs the Court of Appeals has correctly noted, \u201c[t]wo statutes provide avenues to redress violations of the Whistleblower statute.\u201d Swain v. Elfland, 145 N.C. App. 383, 389, 550 S.E.2d 530, 535, cert. denied, 354 N.C. 228, 554 S.E.2d 832 (2001). First, the Whistleblower Act expressly provides that \u201cany State employee injured by a violation of G.S. 126-85 may maintain an action in superior court.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-86 (2003). Second, the SPA provides that state employees may file a petition for a contested case hearing in the OAH for \u201c[a]ny retaliatory personnel action that violates G.S. 126-85,\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-34.1(a)(7) (2003). Viewing these two statutes in pari materia, we agree with the Court of Appeals that they \u201care not irreconcilable,\u201d but \u201ccreate alternative means for an aggrieved party to seek relief.\u201d Wells v. N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr., 152 N.C. App. 307, 313, 567 S.E.2d 803, 808-09 (2002). In other words, a \u201cstate employee may choose to pursue a [w]histleblower claim in either [a judicial or an administrative] forum, but not both.\u201d Swain, 145 N.C. App. at 389, 550 S.E.2d at 535.\nWe agree with defendants that, as a general proposition, if a state employee chooses to forego the judicial forum and initiates a whistleblower claim in the OAH, the employee\u2019s only recourse to superior court is to petition for judicial review of the final agency decision of the State Personnel Commission (SPC) pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 150B-43 (2003). As the Court of Appeals reasoned, to allow a plaintiff to \u201cmaintain an administrative action and an action in superior court simultaneously .... would allow plaintiff two bites of the apple, could lead to the possibility that different forums would reach opposite decisions, [and could] engender needless litigation in violation of the principles of collateral estoppel.\u201d Swain, 145 N.C. App. at 389, 550 S.E.2d at 535. In addition, the General Assembly has prescribed specific procedures for the adjudication and appeal of administrative complaints filed under the SPA and the North Carolina Administrative Procedure Act (APA). See generally N.C. Dep\u2019t of Env\u2019t & Natural Res. v. Carroll, 358 N.C. 649, 657-58, 599 S.E.2d 888, 893-94 (2004). Specifically, an employee who opts to file a retaliation claim as an administrative action with the OAH has a right to appeal an adverse decision to the SPC. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-36(b) (2003). The final agency decision of the SPC is subject to judicial review upon petition of either party in the Superior Court of Wake County or the county where the petitioner resides. N.C.G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 126-37(b2), 150B-45 (2003). As we have previously stated, \u201c[t]he avoidance of untimely intervention in the administrative process is a long recognized policy of judicial restraint.\u201d Presnell v. Pell, 298 N.C. 715, 722, 260 S.E.2d 611, 615 (1979). Moreover, \u201c[t]his policy acquires the status of a jurisdictional prerequisite when the legislature has explicitly provided the means by which a party may seek effective judicial review of particular administrative action.\u201d Id. Thus, when an employee opts to avail himself or herself of the administrative procedures for adjudicating whistleblower claims as set forth in the SPA and APA, such procedures are normally \u201c \u2018the exclusive means for obtaining . . . judicial review.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting Snow v. N.C. Bd. of Architecture, 273 N.C. 559, 570-71, 160 S.E.2d 719, 727 (1968)).\nWe disagree, however, with the factual predicate of defendants\u2019 argument \u2014 that plaintiff \u201craised a [w]histleblower claim at the OAH.\u201d The only evidence of record concerning plaintiff\u2019s administrative action is a copy of his petition for a contested case hearing, a standard form document. In that petition, plaintiff indicated two distinct grounds for his request for an administrative hearing by checking the appropriate choices printed on the form. First, plaintiff indicated that he was \u201cdischarge[d] without just cause.\u201d Second, plaintiff indicated that he was terminated due to \u201cdiscrimination and/or retaliation for opposition to alleged discrimination,\u201d and that \u201cthe type of discrimination\u201d was \u201c[r]ace.\u201d In his only textual elaboration of the basis for his petition, plaintiff simply stated, \u201cI was dismissed as a Highway Patrolman without just cause based upon a complete misinterpretation of my actions and statements re: a case of excessive force.\u201d\nNowhere in his petition did plaintiff reference the Whistleblower Act or allege that his employment was terminated in retaliation for his reporting a potential abuse of authority by other officers in the SHP. Although plaintiffs allegation that he was dismissed \u201cwithout just cause based upon a complete misinterpretation of [his] actions and statements\u201d is not inconsistent with the factual allegations in his subsequently filed whistleblower claim, the language in his petition in no way states a claim under the Whistleblower Act. Indeed, of the eleven specific statutory grounds for filing a contested case under the SPA, see N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-34.1 (2003), plaintiffs petition states only two: (1) that he was terminated without \u201cjust cause\u201d in violation of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-35, and (2) that he was terminated because of his race in violation of Chapter 168A. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-34.1(a)(1), (2). Conspicuously absent from plaintiffs petition is any allegation that his dismissal constituted a \u201cretaliatory personnel action that violates [the Whistleblower Act],\u201d an entirely separate statutory ground for seeking an administrative hearing in the OAH. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-34.1(a)(7). Accordingly, the doctrine of administrative exhaustion does not prevent plaintiff from filing a whistleblower claim in superior court.\nIn conclusion, plaintiff\u2019s allegations are sufficient to overcome defendants\u2019 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Moreover, plaintiff is not barred from bringing his claim by the doctrine of administrative exhaustion. The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded to that Court for consideration of plaintiffs remaining assignment of error.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.\n. We note that the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overruled Goff in Carter v. South Central Bell, 912 F.2d 832, 840-41 (5th Cir. 1990) (holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 115 L. Ed. 2d 1079 (1991). As noted by the District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, however, Carter itself was superceded by statute when Congress amended section 1981 by enacting the Civil Eights Act of 1991. Wilson v. Shell Oil Co., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7305, at *15 (E.D. La. May 18, 1995) (magistrate judge).\n. In a case of first impression brought under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-36, which prohibits retaliation against state employees for their opposition to certain forms of discrimination, this Court \u201clook[ed] to federal decisions for guidance in establishing evidentiary standards and principles of law to be applied in discrimination cases.\u201d N.C. Dep\u2019t of Corr. v. Gibson, 308 N.C. 131, 136, 301 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1983). Like Gibson, the instant \u201ccase is one of first impression in this jurisdiction!,] and we [therefore] look to federal decisions for guidance in establishing evidentiary standards and principles of law to be applied.\u201d Id.\n. Because there was no majority opinion in Price Waterhouse, Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s concurring opinion, which represented the narrowest ground for decision, constitutes the holding of that case. See Price Waterhouse, 490 U.S. at 280, 104 L. Ed. 2d at 307 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citing Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s concurring opinion for the proposition that the \u201cactual holding of today\u2019s decision\u201d is that \u201c[t]he shift in the burden of persuasion occurs only where a plaintiff proves by direct evidence that an unlawful motive was a substantial factor actually relied upon in making the decision\u201d (emphasis added)).\n. We acknowledge that, subsequent to the United States Supreme Court\u2019s decision in Price Waterhouse, \u201cCongress codified a new evidentiary rule for mixed-motive cases arising under Title VII\u201d of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that abrogates Justice O\u2019Connor\u2019s direct evidence requirement and permits plaintiffs to avail themselves of the mixed-motive standard in Title VII actions without direct evidence of unlawful discrimination. Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 102 156 L. Ed. 2d 84, 96 (2003) (O\u2019Connor, J., concurring). This statutory amendment, however, applies only to claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Id.\n. Plaintiff concedes in his complaint that he did not disclose the details of his conversation with Trooper Collins in his initial statement, but nonetheless maintains that his initial statement was \u201ctruthful and complied with the instruction of [First Sergeant] Combs that [he] memorialize what [he] saw at the [ijncident.\u201d Because it is not necessary to our disposition of this case, we do not address whether plaintiff\u2019s initial report is best characterized as \u201cmisleading\u201d and \u201cinaccurate\u201d or \u201ctruthful\u201d in light of First Sergeant Combs\u2019s alleged instructions.\n. Neither the record on appeal nor the allegations in plaintiff\u2019s complaint reveal anything about the procedural history of plaintiff\u2019s administrative action other than the fact that a petition for contested case hearing was filed.\n. In holding that the doctrine barred plaintiff\u2019s action, the Court of Appeals noted that \u201c[p]laintiff admits in his complaint that he \u2018did not exhaust his potential administrative remedies.\u2019 \u201d Newberne, 168 N.C. App. at-, 606 S.E.2d at 746. Taken in context, however, this statement in plaintiff\u2019s complaint strongly supports his assertion that he did not allege a violation of the Whistleblower Act in his administrative action. Plaintiff stated that he \u201cdid not exhaust his potential administrative remedies for his claim of retaliation in that the same would have been futile and inadequate\u201d because \u201c[h] ad plaintiff filed a petition for Contested Case Hearing for retaliation,\u201d he would have been (1) \u201cdeprived of his right to a trial by jury,\u201d (2) \u201cdeprived of his right to sue any defendant individually,\u201d and (3) \u201cdeprived of his right to be awarded treble damages against individuals found to be in willful violation.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Thus, plaintiffs complaint is entirely consistent with his contention on appeal that his petition for a contested case hearing did not state a claim of retaliation under the Whistleblower Act, in addition to explaining his reasons for not doing so.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Allen and Pinnix, PA., by J. Heydt Philbeck, for plaintiff - appellant.",
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Donald K. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellees.",
      "Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Mark A. Davis, for North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.",
      "The McGuinness Law Firm, by J. Michael McGuinness, for North Carolina Troopers Association, amicus curiae.",
      "Ferguson Stein Chambers Gresham & Sumter, PA, by Luke Largess, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, and Shelagh Rebecca Kenney for American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amici curiae.",
      "Thomas A. Harris, General Counsel, for State Employees Association of North Carolina, Inc., amicus curiae."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "REGINALD NEWBERNE v. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, an agency of the State of North Carolina, DIVISION OF STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, a principal subunit of an agency of the State of North Carolina, BRYAN E. BEATTY, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Crime Control and Public Safety, RICHARD W. HOLDEN, in his official capacity as Commanding Officer of the Division of State Highway Patrol, C.E. MOODY, in his official capacity as Director of Internal Affairs for the Division of State Highway Patrol, and A.C. COMBS, in his individual and official capacity as First Sergeant with the Division of State Highway Patrol\nNo. 75A05\n(Filed 19 August 2005)\n1. Public Officers and Employees\u2014 Whistleblower Act \u2014 elements and procedure\nThe North Carolina Whistleblower Act requires plaintiffs to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, that the defendant took adverse action against the plaintiff in his or her employment, and that there is a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action taken against the plaintiff. Procedurally, the plaintiff first tries to establish a prima facie case, of retaliation under the statute, the defendant then presents its case, including its evidence as to legitimate reasons for the employment decision, and the court determines the framework to apply to the evidence before it.\n2. Public Officers and Employees\u2014 whistleblowing claim\u2014 sufficiency of allegations\nA trial judge ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss a whistleblowing claim should look at the face of the complaint to determine whether the factual allegations, if true, would sustain a claim for relief under any viable theory of causation. A whistleblowing case need not be correctly labeled for \u201cpretext\u201d or \u201cmixed motive\u201d analysis from the beginning; rather, the trial judge should make this determination after evaluating the evidence.\n3. Public Officers and Employees\u2014 whistleblower \u2014 highway patrol trooper\nA highway patrol trooper stated a claim for relief under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 126-84(a)(l) and (5), and the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs whistleblower claim, where the trooper initially omitted from a report another trooper\u2019s statement about using undue force, subs\u00e9quently filed an amended report including the statement, and was discharged for untruthfulness. Nothing in the language or legislative history of the Whistleblower Act suggests that the General Assembly intended to render the Act inapplicable when an employee\u2019s whistleblowing allegation appears in a supplemental or amended report, rather than an initial report.\n4. Public Officers and Employees\u2014 whistleblower \u2014 superior court claim \u2014 administrative exhaustion\nThe doctrine of administrative exhaustion did not prevent a highway patrol trooper from filing a whistleblower claim in superior court even though he had previously filed a petition for a contested case hearing in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Although the allegations in plaintiff\u2019s petition were not inconsistent with the factual allegations in his complaint, the language in his petition in no way states a claim under the Whistleblower Act. The Whistleblower Act and the State Personnel Commission provide alternative means for an aggrieved party to seek relief.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 168 N.C. App. 87, 606 S.E.2d 742 (2005), affirming an order entered on 29 January 2003 by Judge Henry W. Hight, Jr. in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 May 2005.\nAllen and Pinnix, PA., by J. Heydt Philbeck, for plaintiff - appellant.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Donald K. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellees.\nWomble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, by Mark A. Davis, for North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, amicus curiae.\nThe McGuinness Law Firm, by J. Michael McGuinness, for North Carolina Troopers Association, amicus curiae.\nFerguson Stein Chambers Gresham & Sumter, PA, by Luke Largess, for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, and Shelagh Rebecca Kenney for American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, amici curiae.\nThomas A. Harris, General Counsel, for State Employees Association of North Carolina, Inc., amicus curiae."
  },
  "file_name": "0782-01",
  "first_page_order": 820,
  "last_page_order": 838
}