The opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA
No. COA18-820
Filed: 2 April 2019
Office of Administrative Hearings, No. 18 OSP 01836
ERIC ERICKSON, Petitioner,
v.
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondent.
Appeal by petitioner from final decision entered 8 May 2018 by Administrative
Law Judge Selina Malherbe in the Office of Administrative Hearings. Heard in the
Court of Appeals 27 February 2019.
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Assistant Attorney General Tamika L.
Henderson, for the State.
Humphrey S. Cummings for petitioner-appellant.
TYSON, Judge.
Eric Erickson (“Petitioner”) appeals a final decision from the Office of
Administrative Hearings (“OAH”), which dismissed his contested case petition for the
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. We reverse and remand.
I. Background
Petitioner worked for the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (“DPS”)
as a probation and parole officer in Charlotte. On 8 January 2018, Petitioner was
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
dismissed for cause from DPS. Petitioner initiated a challenge to his dismissal
through DPS’ internal grievance process on 23 January 2018.
“Step 1” of the grievance process consists of a mediation conference. Mediation
between Petitioner and DPS personnel was conducted on 21 February 2018. The
mediation conference ended in an impasse. Petitioner was provided with a copy of
DPS Form HR 556, which provides notice of an employee’s appeal to “Step 2” of DPS’
grievance process, if an impasse occurs at “Step 1.” The heading of the Form HR 556
provided to Petitioner states, in relevant part: “To appeal to Step 2 of the grievance
process, this form must be filed within five (5) calendar days following an impasse
in mediation. If this form is not received within this timeframe, it will not be
accepted.” (First and third emphasis supplied). Above the signature line for
employees, Form HR 556 states:
I understand that it is my responsibility to mail, email, or
hand deliver my Step 2 Appeal to the Grievance Intake
Coordinator to initiate the appeal process within five (5)
calendar days of the mediation impasse.
I understand that my signature acknowledges that I have
been advised of Step 2 appeal rights and timeframes.
(Emphasis supplied).
The Employee Grievance Policy section of the State Human Resources Manual,
included within the record on appeal, states, in relevant part: “At the end of the
mediation session, the agency shall inform the grievant of the Step 2 grievance process
and that the filing must be received by the agency within 5 calendar days of the date
-2-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
of mediation.” (Emphasis supplied). State Human Resources Manual, Employee
Grievance Policy, § 7, at 38.
Petitioner’s evidence tends to show he signed and dated DPS Form HR 556 on
Wednesday, 21 February 2018, but did not file, submit, or mail it on that date.
Petitioner purportedly mailed the form on Friday, 23 February 2018. DPS received
the form on Tuesday, 27 February 2018, allegedly one day too late to effectuate Step
2. In a letter dated 27 February 2018, DPS advised Petitioner that his Form HR 556
was “untimely received” and that he had “no further appeal rights through the
Formal Internal Grievance Process.” In response to correspondence from Petitioner’s
counsel, DPS sent two subsequent letters re-stating that his Step 2 request was
untimely and that he had no further appeal rights through DPS’ internal grievance
process.
On 23 March 2018, Petitioner filed a petition for a contested case hearing with
OAH. DPS filed a motion to dismiss based upon N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.02; the
doctrine of sovereign immunity; and Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and
12(b)(3). DPS attached to its motion to dismiss the affidavit of Tracy Perry, the DPS
Grievance Intake Coordinator. Included as an exhibit to the affidavit was, among
other things, a photocopy of the front of the envelope inside which Petitioner had
mailed the completed, dated, and signed Form HR 556.
-3-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
On 8 May 2018, an administrative law judge (the “ALJ”) issued a final decision
granting DPS’ motion to dismiss Petitioner’s contested case petition based upon a
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The ALJ’s final decision concluded Petitioner had
failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Petitioner filed notice of appeal to this
Court.
II. Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction lies in this Court from a final decision of OAH pursuant to N.C.
Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-29(a) and 126-34.02(a) (2017).
III. Notice of Appeal
Petitioner’s notice of appeal contained in the record on appeal has neither been
file-stamped nor time-stamped to indicate when Petitioner filed it with OAH. DPS
has not raised an argument regarding this deficiency in the notice of appeal nor filed
a motion to dismiss. Rule of Appellate Procedure 18 governs appeals from OAH and
does not specifically state whether the notice of appeal has to be filed with OAH, as
Rule 3 requires with notices of appeal in civil cases from superior or district court.
See N.C. R. App. P. 18.
However, Rule 18(b)(1) provides: “The times and methods for taking appeals
from an administrative tribunal shall be as provided in this Rule 18 unless the
General Statutes provide otherwise[.]” N.C. R. App. Proc. 18(b). Rule 18(c)(9)
requires that the record on appeal contain: “a copy of the notice of appeal from the
-4-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
administrative tribunal[,]” and Rule 18(e) provides: “Further procedures for
perfecting and prosecuting the appeal shall be as provided by these rules for appeals
from the courts of the trial divisions.” N.C. R. App. P. 18(c) and (e)
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.02(a) specifically provides that a notice of appeal from
a contested case “shall be filed with [OAH] and served on all parties to the contested
case hearing.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.02(a).
In appeals from the trial court division and other administrative tribunals, this
Court has held the appellant’s failure to include a file-stamped copy of the notice of
appeal in the record on appeal is a jurisdictional defect, because this Court cannot
determine if the notice of appeal was timely filed. See, e.g., Bradley v. Cumberland
Cty., __ N.C. App. __, 822 S.E.2d 416, 420 (2018) (dismissing appeal from Industrial
Commission where notice of appeal did not have “a time stamp, file stamp, or any
other designation” showing the Commission had received notice of appeal); ” Brooks,
Comm’r of Labor v. Gooden, 69 N.C. App. 701, 707, 318 S.E.2d 348, 352 (1984)
(“Without proper notice of appeal, this Court acquires no jurisdiction.” (citations
omitted)).
No prior case deals with the absence of a file stamped notice of appeal from
OAH under Rule 18. However, because lack of a file-stamped notice of appeal is a
jurisdictional defect in civil appeals under Rule 3 and the statute requires that notices
of appeal be filed with OAH within “30 days of receipt of the written notice of final
-5-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
decision[,]” we discern no reason why notices of appeal from OAH should not be
required to bear a filed and stamped verification confirming the date and time the
notice of appeal was filed with OAH. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.02(a).
In response to an inquiry regarding OAH’s policy and procedures on notices of
appeal, OAH indicated that when a party emails OAH a notice of appeal, the party
does not receive any confirmation, file-stamp, or notation from OAH. OAH considers
the sent date and time on the email to be the file-stamp for purposes of noting when
the notice of appeal is filed.
When a party files a notice of appeal through OAH’s electronic filing portal, an
electronic date and time stamp will be affixed to the filing. OAH provided this Court
a copy of Petitioner’s notice of appeal, which included the email through which
Petitioner had sent the notice of appeal as an attachment.
Petitioner failed to include a copy of this accompanying email in the record. “It
is well established that the appellant bears the burden of showing to this Court that
the appeal is proper.” Johnson v. Lucas, 168 N.C. App. 515, 518, 608 S.E.2d 336, 338,
aff’d per curiam, 360 N.C. 53, 619 S.E.2d 502 (2005). At oral argument before this
Court, Petitioner made a motion to treat his notice and record on appeal as a petition
for a writ of certiorari.
Due to Petitioner’s lack of knowledge regarding OAH’s policy of not adding a
file-stamp to emailed notices of appeal, and DPS’ failure to file a motion to dismiss or
-6-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
to argue the notice of appeal was not timely filed, we find Petitioner would suffer
manifest injustice were we to dismiss Petitioner’s appeal.
“Rule 2 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure permits this Court
to suspend or vary the requirements of the Rules to prevent manifest injustice to a
party, or to expedite decision in the public interest.” Brown v. City of Winston-Salem,
171 N.C. App. 266, 269, 614 S.E.2d 599, 601 (2005) (quotation marks and brackets
omitted). To prevent manifest injustice, we invoke Rule 2 to treat Petitioner’s appeal
as a petition for a writ of certiorari and review Petitioner’s arguments on the merits.
See Sarno v. Sarno, __ N.C. App. __, __, 804 S.E.2d 819, 823 (2017) (treating appeal
as petition for writ of certiorari despite defect in notice of appeal); Luther v. Seawell,
191 N.C. App. 139, 142, 662 S.E.2d 1, 3 (2008) (“This Court does have the authority
pursuant to North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 21(a)(1) to treat the
purported appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant it in our discretion.”
(citations and quotation marks omitted)).
IV. Standard of Review
“ ‘Our standard of review of a motion to dismiss for lack of [subject matter]
jurisdiction . . . is de novo.’ ” Hunt v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, __ N.C. App. __, __,
817 S.E.2d 257, 260 (2018) (quoting Brown v. N.C. Dep’t of Pub. Safety, __ N.C.
App.__, __, 808 S.E.2d 322, 324 (2017)). “Under a de novo review, the court considers
the matter anew and freely substitutes its own judgment for that of the [ALJ].” In re
-7-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
Appeal of the Greens of Pine Glen Ltd. P’ship, 356 N.C. 642, 647, 576 S.E.2d 316, 319
(2003) (citation omitted).
V. Analysis
Petitioner argues OAH erroneously dismissed his contested case for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction due to his failure to exhaust available administrative
remedies. We agree.
Under the North Carolina Human Resources Act:
Any State employee having a grievance arising out of or
due to the employee’s employment shall first discuss the
problem . . . with the employee’s supervisor . . . . Then the
employee shall follow the grievance procedure approved by
the State Human Resources Commission. The proposed
agency final decision shall not be issued nor become final
until reviewed and approved by the Office of State Human
Resources. The agency grievance procedure . . . and review
shall be completed within 90 days from the date the
grievance is filed.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-34.01 (2017) (emphasis supplied).
With regards to the “grievance procedure approved by the State Human
Resources Commission,” id., the “Employee Grievance Policy,” included within the
State Human Resources Manual, states “Each agency shall adopt the Employee
Grievance Policy as approved by the State Human Resources Commission.” State
Human Resources Manual, Employee Grievance Policy, § 7, at 26.
Specifically, with regards to grievance appeal rights, the Employee Grievance
Policy provides: “At the end of the [Step 1] mediation session, the agency shall inform
-8-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
the grievant of the Step 2 grievance process and that the filing must be received by
the agency within 5 calendar days of the date of mediation.” Id. at 34. (emphasis
supplied).
The Employee Grievance Policy clearly places the burden upon agencies,
including DPS, to inform employees of the Step 2 grievance process and the
timeframe for when Step 2 filings must be received.
At the conclusion of the Step 1 mediation conference, DPS provided Petitioner
their standard Form HR 556 to appeal to Step 2 of the grievance process. DPS Form
HR 556 contains contradictory and ambiguous language regarding the timeframe an
employee has to submit the form. A black-bordered box at the top of the form states:
“To appeal to Step 2 of the grievance process, this form must be filed within five (5)
calendar days following an impasse in mediation. If this form is not received within
this timeframe, it will not be accepted.” (Emphasis supplied).
In the signature section of Form HR 556, the form reads: “I understand that it
is my responsibility to mail, email, or hand deliver my Step 2 Appeal to the Grievance
Intake Coordinator to initiate the appeal process within five (5) calendar days of the
meditation impasse.” The discrepancies and inconsistencies between “filed,”
“received,” “mail,” and “initiate” within Form HR 556 are insufficient to inform an
employee of whether the form has to be mailed, filed, or received within five days of
a mediation impasse. DPS Form HR 556 fails to satisfy DPS’ burden to inform
-9-
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
Petitioner “of the Step 2 grievance process and that the filing must be received by the
agency within 5 calendar days of the date of mediation[,]” as required by the State
Human Resources Commission’s Employee Grievance Policy.
In other contexts, this Court has construed ambiguous language against the
drafting party, and in favor of the non-drafting party. See, e.g., Novacare Orthotics &
Prosthetics E., Inc. v. Speelman, 137 N.C. App. 471, 476, 528 S.E.2d 918, 921 (2000)
(“[W]hen an ambiguity is present in a written instrument, the court is
to construe the ambiguity against the drafter—the party responsible for choosing the
questionable language.” (citation omitted)). Defendant had no role in drafting Form
HR 556, and the Employee Grievance Policy places an affirmative duty on state
agencies to inform employees of their Step 2 appeal rights and the applicable
timeframes. We construe the ambiguities and discrepancies contained within Form
HR 556 against DPS and in favor of Petitioner.
Viewed in the light most favorable to him, Petitioner complied with DPS’
instructions to “mail” or “file” Form HR 556 within “five calendar days” of the impasse
of Step 1 mediation. Petitioner stated in his affidavit, submitted to OAH, that he had
mailed Form HR 556 “to the designated address in Raleigh on February 23, 2018.”
This act occurred within five calendar days of the mediation impasse on 21 February.
DPS contends they received Petitioner’s Form HR 556 a day late, on 27
February. At oral argument before this Court, DPS’ counsel conceded Petitioner
- 10 -
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
would have had to have mailed Form HR 556 before 27 February for DPS to have
received it by that date. DPS Grievance Intake Coordinator Perry noted on the
envelope in which Petitioner had mailed his Form HR 556, that the envelope has “No
postal markings.” While the envelope does not bear a cancellation or post mark, it
does bear an electronically printed barcode and nine-digit ZIP code. The envelope
also shows Petitioner correctly labeled the mailing address of the Grievance Intake
Coordinator, as was listed on Form HR 556, and affixed proper postage.
Petitioner substantially complied with the instructions on Form HR 556, and
initiated Step 2 of DPS’ grievance procedure by mailing Form HR 556 within five
calendar days of the impasse at Step 1 mediation. Petitioner was entitled to proceed
to Step 2 of DPS’ grievance procedure. We reverse OAH’s order granting DPS’ motion
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
By refusing Petitioner’s timely mailed Form HR 556, DPS prevented Petitioner
from obtaining a “final agency decision” “reviewed and approved by the Office of State
Human Resources” to vest OAH with jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s contested case.
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 126-34.01, 126-34.02. We reverse and remand the matter to OAH,
with instructions to order DPS to permit Petitioner to proceed to Step 2 of DPS’
internal grievance process. We express no opinion on the relative merits of the
parties’ claims or assertions regarding Petitioner’s dismissal.
- 11 -
ERICKSON V. NCDPS
Opinion of the Court
VI. Conclusion
Petitioner timely mailed a completed and signed Form HR 556 to “initiate”
Step 2 of DPS’ internal grievance procedure. The ALJ erred in concluding Petitioner
had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and in granting DPS’ motion to
dismiss. We reverse the ALJ’s order and remand with instructions for OAH to order
DPS to allow Petitioner to proceed to Step 2 of DPS’ internal grievance process. It is
so ordered.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Judges STROUD and ARROWOOD concur.
- 12 -