 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Garland v. Hatley8/16/2005
An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority.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.
Lisa Garland ("plaintiff") appeals from an order granting Fred Hatley, the Clerk of Superior Court of Lincoln County, and the Administrative Office of the Courts (collectively, "defendants") summary judgment. We affirm.
I. Background
The Clerk of Superior Court of Burke County hired plaintiff as a deputy clerk in 1997. In October 2001, plaintiff interviewed with Pamela Huskey, Clerk of Superior Court for Lincoln County, and Assistant Clerk Teresa Peeler ("Peeler") and was subsequently hired. Peeler became plaintiff's direct supervisor in the criminal department of the Clerk's Office.
In February 2002, plaintiff was absent from work and used seventy hours of sick leave and over fourteen hours of vacation time due to an alleged illness. Plaintiff missed work again in April 2002 due to an alleged illness.
On or about 18 April 2002, Peeler advised plaintiff that the Clerk's Office needed an employee in her position who could be at work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. On 30 April 2002, Peeler informed plaintiff she would no longer be employed as of 1 May 2002. On 1 May 2002, Peeler was sworn in as the Interim Clerk of Superior Court for Lincoln County to complete the unexpired term of Clerk Pamela Huskey, who retired. No other staff member was terminated by Peeler.
Plaintiff filed a civil action against defendants alleging her termination from employment was retaliatory and violated 29 U.S.C.A. ยง 2615, The Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals.
II. Issues
Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because material issues of genuine fact exist regarding: (1) defendants' status as a covered employer under the FMLA; and (2) the Administrative Office of the Courts' status as an entity acting in the interest of an employer under the FMLA.
III. Standard of Review
The standard of review on appeal from a grant of summary judgment in a civil case is well-established.
Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact.
A defendant may show entitlement to summary judgment by (1) proving that an essential element of the plaintiff's case is non-existent, or (2) showing through discovery that the plaintiff cannot produce evidence to support an essential element of his or her claim, or (3) showing that the plaintiff cannot surmount an affirmative defense. Summary judgment is not appropriate where matters of credibility and determining the weight of the evidence exist.
Once the party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish a prima facie case at trial. To hold otherwise . . . would be to allow plaintiffs to rest on their pleadings, effectively neutralizing the useful and efficient procedural tool of summary judgment.
Draughon v. Ha
Page 1 2 3 North Carolina Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|