Brent Adams Firm To Challenge RIF Law

Michael Byrne
Michael Byrne
Contributor
Posted by Michael ByrneJanuary 11, 2008 2:57 PM

For many years, career state employees separated from employment under a Reduction-In-Force, or "RIF," could bring an action in the Office of Administrative Hearings appealing such separations. These RIF appeal rights were a necessary protection for state employees. In the past, supervisors at some agencies allegedly used the RIF process, intended to rid the public payroll of redundant personnel, as a method of "getting rid of" employees who'd done nothing to deserve a disciplinary dismissal.

Unfortunately, in 2003 the North Carolina Court of Appeals held in Feinstein v. UNC, 161 N.C. App. 700, 590 S.E.2d 401 (2003), review denied, 358 N.C. 380, 598 S.E.2d 380 (2004) that state employees could not appeal RIF decisions on the basis that they were (a) made without "just cause" (the same basis as a disciplinary dismissal appeal), or (b) based on procedural defects (such as failing to follow the RIF process according to state personnel regulations).

The Feinstein ruling removed a long-standing appeal right essential to state employee protection. There is, of course, nothing wrong with RIFs in principle; agencies must have the ability to rid themselves of truly redundant employees. But what of a circumstance where, say, a supervisor simply disliked or failed to get along with an employee? A purported "RIF" is a golden opportunity for such a supervisor to dismiss that employee even though that employee has done nothing wrong. In short, the RIF process by its very nature is open to abuse. And after Feinstein, state employees were powerless to fight unfair RIF decisions except when based on discrimination or opposition to discrimination.

On behalf of a client RIFd from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, the Brent Adams firm will, in the coming months, make an all-out effort to get the Feinstein decision overruled. Simply put, the two governing statutes in the North Carolina State Personnel Act (General Statutes Chapter 126), which sets out the appeals rights of career state employees, clearly provide for appeals of RIF decisions to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) and beyond.

G.S. 126-34.1 provides for an appeal to OAH for an "alleged violation" of G.S. 126-35, the "just cause" statute:

(a) A State employee or former State employee may file in the Office of Administrative Hearings a contested case under Article 3 of Chapter 150B of the General Statutes only as to the following personnel actions or issues:

(1) Dismissal, demotion, or suspension without pay based upon an alleged violation of G.S. 126-35, if the employee is a career State employee.

G.S. 126-35, in turn, provides:

(a) No career State employee subject to the State Personnel Act shall be discharged, suspended, or demoted for disciplinary reasons, except for just cause.

While on its face a RIF is not "disciplinary reason" for dischage from employment, G.S. 126-35 also adds the following critical element:

(c) For the purposes of contested case hearings under Chapter 150B, an involuntary separation (such as a separation due to a reduction in force) shall be treated in the same fashion as if it were a disciplinary action.

A "contested case hearing," of course, is a hearing in OAH. Thus, it is clearly an "alleged violation" of G.S. 126-35 to allege an "involuntary separation" due to a RIF, as under the very terms of the statute in question a RIF and a disciplinary dismissal are the same thing - both triggering employee appeal rights under G.S. 126-34.1.

What all this adds up to, the Brent Adams firm will argue, is that the Court of Appeals was wrong when it decided Feinstein five years ago. Accordingly, the firm is bringing this RIF case through the lower courts in an effort to convince the Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court, that the case should be overruled.

If this effort succeeds, state employees will regain a critical protection against arbitrary and capricious dismissals couched as "RIF" decisions. The case will be argued in Wake County Superior Court in early March. We'll keep you posted.

0 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard Raleigh

InjuryBoard Raleigh RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board Raleigh is brought to you by Brent Adams and Associates

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Brent Adams and Associates (866) 735-1102 Ext 645 www.brentadams.com
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Raleigh, Durham,Apex, Fayetteville, Dunn, Cary, Chapel Hill, Henderson, Oxford, Research Triangle, Roxboro, Sanford, Smithfield, Warrenton, Clinton, Elizabethtown, Fort Bragg, Hamlet, Hope Mills, Lillington, Lumberton, Pinehurst, Rockingham, Southern Pines
2920 Highwoods BlvdSuite 125, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address