The Plaintiffs in Fisher v. Communications Workers of America, 2008 NCBC 18 (N.C. Super. Ct. Oct. 30, 2008), a pending Business Court case involving the North Carolina Identity Theft Protection Act, are live and on YouTube, talking about their claims.
The Fisher case is the first court decision under the Act. It involves whether the
Today, in its Order and Opinion in Bolick v. Sipe, the North Carolina Business Court rejected a novel argument regarding the validity of post-employment consideration for a covenant not to compete. It also dealt with the issue of the validity of a summons issued in the wrong name.
On the non-compete side, Plaintiff signed the non-compete with
The North Carolina Wage and Hour Act does not apply to out-of-state employees working for North Carolina companies even if their employment agreements provides that the law of North Carolina applies, per the ruling of the North Carolina Court of Appeals today in Sawyer v. Market America, Inc.
Sawyer, a resident of Oregon, worked for
Today, in Eglinton v. Blue Ridge Bone & Joint Clinic, P.A., the Business Court dismissed Plaintiff’s claim that he had been dismissed from his employment in violation of the public policy of North Carolina.
Plaintiff, a doctor who had been employed by the Defendant medical practice, alleged that he had been forced to resign his
Warren v. Eli Research, Inc., April 28, 2008 (Diaz)(unpublished)
Inconsistent allegations in the Complaint doomed the claim for fraudulent inducement by one of the Plaintiffs in this case.
That Plaintiff, Hittle, alleged that the Defendant had promised her an annual salary of $150,000, guaranteed for 12 months, but that it had no intention of fulfilling this promise when made. The Defendant booted Hittle only a few months after she began employment.
What led to the granting of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss were Hittle’s allegations in the Complaint that she had begun her employment, worked for three months, been paid for that work, and that she was terminated for "financial reasons."
The Court held "it is patently inconsistent for Hittle to allege, on the one hand, that Defendant never intended to pay the wages promised, and on the other, that Defendant in fact performed in part and that it failed to complete performance for reasons unrelated to its intent." The Court held that partial performance of a contract demonstrates a party’s intention to fulfill the promise at the time it was made, undermining Hittle’s claim on its face.Continue Reading Fraud In The Inducement Claim Dismissed Due To “Patent Inconsistency” In Complaint