The case involves a former program analyst at Rack Room Shoes who alleged he was passed over for promotions in favor of younger, less experienced employees, subjected to poor evaluations and discipline after filing an EEOC age discrimination charge, and ultimately terminated, claiming violations of the ADEA, Title VII (including retaliation and later national origin), and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part while allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint. It dismissed the ADEA claims against the individual supervisors Snider and Borden because they do not qualify as employers under the statute per Fourth Circuit precedent, dismissed the emotional distress claims against all defendants for lack of sufficiently outrageous conduct or alleged severe mental distress under North Carolina law, but permitted the Title VII claims to proceed against the company.
In Turner v. Randolph County, a former Building Codes Enforcement Officer sued the county and several supervisors, alleging that she faced a sexually hostile work environment after complaining about harassment by her supervisors, followed by retaliation including negative evaluations, warnings, and suspension after she filed an EEOC charge. She brought claims under Title VII for hostile environment and retaliation, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), and state-law claims for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss only the conspiracy claim, finding that the plaintiff alleged no agreement involving anyone outside the county employees themselves, and denied dismissal of the remaining claims, including after the plaintiff amended her complaint to plead waiver of governmental immunity through insurance coverage.
In Caldwell v. Linker, a former instructor at Randolph Community College sued college officials and the Board of Trustees after her one-year employment contract was not renewed following disputes over harassment allegations, a conditional renewal offer, and her termination, which involved being escorted off campus by law enforcement. The plaintiff raised claims including due process violations, false imprisonment, breach of contract, conversion, discrimination, and negligent oversight by the Board. The court granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing those six claims. It reasoned that the plaintiff lacked a protected property interest in continued employment under her fixed-term contract, that no genuine issues of material fact existed to support the tort or discrimination claims, and that the Board had no knowledge of any failure to follow grievance procedures.
This case involves a trademark dispute between May Apparel Group, a North Carolina children's clothing manufacturer using the marks "PEACHES 'N CREAM" (registered since 1985) and "JUST PEACHY," and Ava Import-Export, a California company marketing clothing under the mark "PEACHY KIDS" (owned by its CEO and registered in 1990). The plaintiff alleged infringement and sought to cancel the defendant's registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1119. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss Count V seeking cancellation because the mark's owner was not a party and could not be added due to lack of personal jurisdiction in North Carolina. It denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the infringement claim, finding that likelihood of confusion remained a genuine issue of material fact under the Fourth Circuit's multi-factor test, and denied the plaintiff's motion to amend and add the owner as a party on jurisdictional grounds.
The case involved a federal prisoner's petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his convictions for drug conspiracy, money laundering conspiracy, and obstruction of justice. He argued that an earlier administrative forfeiture of $4,104 in cash by the IRS barred the criminal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause, citing Supreme Court decisions like United States v. Halper and Austin v. United States. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the forfeiture involved proceeds of illegal activity rather than punishment, the petitioner had defaulted and made no claim in the forfeiture proceeding, and the civil and criminal matters involved different elements so double jeopardy protections did not apply.
This case involved a dispute over whether L. Dan Winstead Jr. and related plaintiffs were liable for federal employment and unemployment taxes on wages paid to day laborers who assisted tenants in growing tobacco under a sharecropping arrangement on Winstead's land from 1980 to 1982. The plaintiffs sued the IRS for a refund of assessed taxes and penalties, arguing they were not the employers of the day laborers and that a statutory exemption for sharecropper arrangements applied. The court granted summary judgment to the government on the issue of liability, holding that Winstead qualified as the employer under 26 U.S.C. § 3401(d)(1) because he controlled the payment of wages to the laborers, and that the agricultural exemption in 26 U.S.C. § 3121(b)(16) did not apply since the day laborers were paid hourly rather than sharing in crop proceeds. The court denied summary judgment on the amount of damages due to factual disputes over the calculations of taxes, interest, and penalties, and it also denied the plaintiffs' motions for reconsideration and certification of an interlocutory appeal.