Keyes v NC DOT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure. NO. COA06-1649 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 4 December 2007 JAMES ALBERT KEYES, Petitioner, v. Beaufort County No. 06 CVS 540 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Court of Appeals Respondent. Appeal by petitioner from judgment entered 31 July 2006 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr., in Beaufort County Superior Court. Slip Opinion Heard in the Court of Appeals 23 August 2007. McCotter, Ashton & Smith, P.A., by Rudolph A. Ashton, III, and Stephen A. Graves, for petitioner. Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General Alexandra M. Hightower, for respondent. ELMORE, Judge. James Albert Keyes (petitioner) appeals a superior court order affirming a final decision and order by the North Carolina State Personnel Commission (the SPC). determined that sufficient to petitioner warrant his had The SPC s decision and order engaged dismissal in from willful the misconduct North Department of Transportation (NCDOT or respondent). Carolina -2On 14 October 2004, petitioner was a full-time employee of respondent, and had worked in that capacity for more than twentyfour months. As a transportation worker, petitioner had operated heavy equipment and trucks, which required him to have a North Carolina Commercial Driving License (CDL). From January of 2004 until 14 October 2004, petitioner was assigned to work as a flagger crew member, and was supervised by Ronnie Whitley. Through a computer program operated by a human resources officer, petitioner was selected for random drug and alcohol testing on 14 October 2004. However, shortly after his arrival at work, petitioner informed his immediate supervisor that there was a problem at his home involving a leaking hot water heater that he had to attend to immediately. Whitley then directed petitioner to see supervisor Stan Paramore. Petitioner explained his situation, and Paramore advised petitioner that he had been selected for random drug and alcohol testing. needed to go home. Petitioner reiterated that he The County Maintenance Engineer, Woody Jarvis, was then summoned, and both Jarvis and Paramore told petitioner that he could go home after completing the urine test. Jarvis advised petitioner that failure to take the test could result in petitioner s dismissal. Petitioner refused to take the test and went home. Respondent terminated petitioner s employment because of his refusal to take the test. Petitioner appealed his dismissal, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) determined that respondent had failed to carry its burden of proof by a preponderance of the -3evidence that petitioner was discharged for just cause. The ALJ ordered respondent to reinstate petitioner to the same or similar position, and awarded petitioner back pay, return of lost benefits, and attorneys fees. Respondent appealed to the SPC, which rejected the ALJ s decision and found that respondent had met its burden. Petitioner appealed the SPC s decision to the superior court, which affirmed the SPC s decision in a two page order. Our review of the superior court s order is governed by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-52, which states, in relevant part, The scope of review to be applied by the appellate court under this section is the same as it is for other civil cases. In cases reviewed under G.S. § 150B-51(c), the court s findings of fact shall be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. (2005). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-52 Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-52, our review of a trial court s consideration of a final agency decision is to determine whether the trial court committed any errors of law which would be based upon its failure to properly apply the review standard set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51. Sherrod v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 105 N.C. App. 526, 530, 414 S.E.2d 50, 53 (1992). Our review of the superior court s order for errors of law is a twofold task: (1) determining whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review and, if appropriate, (2) deciding whether the court did so properly. Ramsey v. N.C. Div. of Motor Vehicles, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___, 647 S.E.2d 125, 128 (2007) (citations and quotations omitted). -4Therefore, our first task is to determine whether the superior court exercised the appropriate scope of review. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(c) states that when a superior court reviews 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 s 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 s final decision. The court shall determine whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought in the petition, based upon its review of the official record. The court reviewing a final decision under this subsection may adopt the administrative law judge s decision; may adopt, reverse, or modify the agency s decision; may remand the case to the agency for further explanations under G.S. 150B-36(b1), 150B-36(b2), or 150B-36(b3), or reverse or modify the final decision for the agency s failure to provide the explanations; and may take any other action allowed by law. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(c) (2005). The case at bar is a contested case in which the SPC did not adopt the ALJ s decision. Accordingly, the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(c) apply. It is unclear from the record and order which standard of review the superior court applied. The order states that the superior court conducted a Chapter 150B, Article 4 review and considered the record, the briefs, and the arguments of counsel. The transcript from the proceeding shows that the superior court judge asked counsel, Is this a review or de novo? and the -5assistant attorney general replied, Both. She later clarified, There are eight findings of fact that [petitioner] complains of which have to be reviewed under the whole record test, conclusions of law which have to be reviewed de novo. two The superior court did not indicate whether it applied both standards or only the de novo standard. Furthermore, the superior court did not make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by section 150B-51(c). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-51(c) (2005). Accordingly, because it is not clear whether the superior court reviewed the case de novo, and because the superior court did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law in accordance with section 150B-51(c), we remand this case to the trial court for a de novo review of the record and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with this opinion. Royal v. Dep't of Crime Control & Pub. Safety, 175 N.C. App. 242, 245, 622 S.E.2d 723, 725 (2005). Remanded. Judges STEELMAN and STROUD concur. Report per Rule 30(e).

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.