Walker V. NC. Dept. of Human Resources

100 N.C. App. 498, 397 S.E.2d 350 (1990)

 

Background

Co-petitioners, Walker and Camp, were long time employees and counselors with the division of vocational rehabilitation services. Both petitioners’ were given verbal warnings and eventually their third and final written warning before being terminated. The manager for both counselors entered into performance contracts with them prior to termination. Both counselors performed satisfactorily within their performance contracts other than failing to meet two or three items of a ten to fifteen item checklist. Neither petitioner had any complaints from the public, school personnel or other counselors.

Relevancy for School Disciplinary Hearings

Establishes standard of review pursuant to N.C.G.S. 150B-51.

Held

N.C.G.S. 150E-51(b) states the proper standard of review to be applied depends on the issues presented on appeal. If it is alleged the agency’s decision is based on an error of law a de novo review is required. A review of whether the agency’s decision is supported by the evidence, or is arbitrary or capricious, requires the “whole record test.”

Petitioners argue the commission’s findings were not supported by the evidence presented, and therefore a whole record review should have been used by the Superior court. Neither party raised any issues of law in regards to the commission’s original ruling therefore the appellate court determined the Superior Court was compelled to use the review of the whole record to determine if the commission’s ruling was supported by substantial evidence. On appellate review the Court determined the evidence reveals the opposite of poor job performance or lack of effort to comply with job requirements. The court determined the evidence indicated the petitioner’s reason for being behind in paperwork was due to extraneous forces (understaffed and an office fire). The court also determined that failure to fulfill certain quotas and complete certain tasks to the complete satisfaction of a supervisor is not enough. The agency must show that these quotas and job requirements were reasonable, and if so, that the employee made no reasonable effort to meet them. Evidence indicated each petitioner put in extra effort to comply with their manager’s requirements, but realities of their caseload hampered their ability to meet these requirements.