Coach Loses Novel Argument that He Did Not Have to Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Bringing Wrongful Termination Claim to Court
A North Carolina state appeals court has affirmed a ruling in favor of Fayetteville State University (FSU), which was the target of a former coach’s wrongful termination suit. In so ruling, the panel of judges agreed with the trial court that the coach failed to exhaust administrative remedies available under university employment policies, as N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-43 (2013) required, before going to the courts.
Plaintiff Eric Tucker had a written employment contract and had been employed as the head coach of the FSU women’s basketball team for 16 years. During his tenure, he never had any negligent evaluations, reprimands, or warnings. He also won 2,999 games.
In 2009, FSU’s new Chancellor, Dr. James Anderson, said he would have zero tolerance for coaches using profanity at players, staff members, and/or fans. In April of that year, FSU’s Department of Police and Public Safety investigated allegations regarding plaintiff’s inappropriate language toward team members, assault of a team member, and threats to terminate team members’ athletic scholarships. As a result of the report, Anderson decided there were grounds for termination. FSU subsequently informed Tucker that he could either resign his position or FSU would begin the process of terminating his employment. In a letter dated April 21, 2009, the plaintiff notified the FSU athletic director of his decision to retire. On July 1, 2009, the plaintiff did in fact retire, even though his contract did not expire until June 10, 2010.
On April 12, 2013, Tucker sued the school and the Chancellor, claiming they breached his employment contract because it lacked just cause to terminate his employment, and forced him to resign against his will. The defendants moved to dismiss. Tucker alleged that “the grievance system set up by the defendants does not allow for the plaintiff to receive the compensatory damages to which he is entitled based upon the alleged breach of contract and the resulting damage to the plaintiff’s ability to engage in his profession.”
The defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, pursuant to N.C.R Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(2) on the grounds that plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and sovereign immunity. The defendants also included a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the breach of plaintiff’s employment contract.
On November 8, 2013, the trial court entered an order dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, a ruling that Tucker appealed.
Upon review, the appeals court noted that “before a party may ask the courts for relief from a university decision: (1) the person must be aggrieved; (2) there must be a contested case; and (3) the administrative remedies provided by the University must be exhausted.” Huang v. N.C. State University, 107 N.C. App. 710, 713, 421 S.E.2d 812, 814 (1992).
In the instant case, Tucker was entitled to all of the procedures available in the employment policies of the university. “Those procedures included,” according to the appeals court, “a written grievance to the Director of Human Resources, a hearing before a grievance committee, and ultimately review of the grievance by the University of North Carolina Board of Governors. Once plaintiff completed that process, he would have been entitled to judicial review of the decision pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-43.
“Nevertheless, the plaintiff elected not to pursue any of the administrative remedies available to him, arguing that the administrative remedies provided by FSU were so inadequate that he essentially had no effective administrative remedies. The plaintiff contends that due to his unique position as a basketball coach, the outcome of any administrative remedy ‘would have been so unfair to the team and the coach as to render such procedures virtually meaningless.’ Specifically, the plaintiff contends that, as a basketball coach, proceeding with an administrative remedy would cause damage to the basketball team, and ‘a coach who has formed close bonds with the players on his team could not be reasonably expected to damage the team in that manner.’
“The plaintiff correctly relies on Huang for the proposition that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies ‘when the only remedies available from the agency are shown to be inadequate.’ … Huang, as a tenured professor, filed a complaint in superior court seeking compensatory damages rather than pursuing administrative remedies, believing them to be inadequate. Id. at 712, 421 S.E.2d at 814. The plaintiff, like Huang, is an aggrieved party in a contested case. Unlike Huang, the plaintiff supports his argument with his loyalty to the basketball team. However, the plaintiff provides no authority to support his contention that his loyalty to the basketball team satisfies his burden of showing the inadequacy of the administrative remedy. Since the plaintiff submitted a letter indicating his decision to retire rather than requesting a hearing, then filed a complaint, plaintiff not only failed to meet his burden of showing that the administrative remedies were inadequate, but also essentially avoided the exhaustion rule.
“Therefore, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and properly dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint.”
Eric Tucker v. Fayetteville State University and James A. Anderson; Ct. App. N.C.
NO. COA14-178, 2014 N.C. App. LEXIS 1268
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff-appellant) McGeachy, Hudson & Zuravel, by Donald C. Hudson. (for defendant-appellees) Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Special Deputy Attorney General Kimberly D. Potter.
