supervisor’s knowledge can be imputed to the company/employer
How later courts described this case
- supervisor’s knowledge can be imputed to the company/employer
- allegation that agency decision is based upon an error of law requires de novo review
- “error of law . . . exists if a conclusion of law ... is not supported by the findings of fact”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Judge JOHN
concurring in the result.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s assertion that the standard of this Court’s review is governed by application of N.C.G.S. § 150B-51(b) (1991) to the decision of the Review Board. Rather, the standard under N.C.G.S. § 150B-52 (1991) (providing for “appeal to the appellate division from the final judgment of the superior court”) is “the same ... as it is for other civil cases,” In re Kozy, 91 N.C. App. 342, 344 , 371 S.E.2d 778, 779-80 (1988), disc. review denied, 323 N.C. 704 , 377 S.E.2d 225 (1989); that is, consideration of “whether the trial court committed any errors of law.” American Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Ingram, 63 N.C. App. 38, 41 , 303 S.E.2d 649, 651 (emphasis added) (citations omitted), disc. review denied, 309 N.C. 819 , 310 S.E.2d 348 (1983).
Moreover, Brooks, Com’r of Labor v. Grading Co., 303 N.C. 573, 579-81 , 281 S.E.2d 24, 28-29 (1981) cited by the majority, itself relies heavily upon Savings and Loan League v. Credit Union Comm., 302 N.C. 458, 463-64 , 276 S.E.2d 404, 407-09 (1981). In that case, the Supreme Court remarked that the Court of Appeals “recogniz[ed] that its review was governed by [then] G.S. 150A-51,” but then chided this Court for “failing] to specify under which of the above listed standards it reviewed the decisions of the superior court and the Commission.” Id. at 464 , 276 S.E.2d at 409 (emphasis added). The Savings and Loan League Court thereafter began its own analysis by deciding whether the superior court applied the correct standard in reviewing the agency’s actions. Id.
*719 Nonetheless, because in the case sub judice appellant’s assignment of error properly raises a question of law, see Employment Security Com. v. Kermon, 232 N.C. 342, 345 , 60 S.E.2d 580, 583 (1950), which requires de novo review, Brooks, Com’r. of Labor v. Rebarco, Inc., 91 N.C. App. 459, 464 , 372 S.E.2d 342, 345 (1988), and because I believe the majority in conducting such a review has reached the proper conclusion in its opinion, I concur in the result therein.