Case law

Holley v. North Carolina Department of Administration

846 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 2012

To evaluate Lassiter, Holley, and the other six highly qualified applicants, the NCDOA established an interview panel composed of James Westbrook (“West-brook”) (Caucasian male), James Staton (“Staton”) (African-American … This first sentence clearly indicates that supervisory experience and training would be preferred.

Waller v. Sprint Mid Atlantic Telecom

77 F. Supp. 2d 716 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 11, 1999

Sprint attempted to place Waller in numerous positions within the company, but he was either not the most qualified for the job, or the job was a union job and Waller was not a member of the union and could not be considered … Courts must strike a careful balance “between chilling Title VII claims, so central to the concept of equal opportunity, and saying that accusations, no matter how unfounded, may be brought, immune from the usual rules of

Martin v. Airborne Express

16 F. Supp. 2d 623 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 8, 1996

Section 213 moderates the sweeping § 207 mandate by granting exemptions for qualified employers. Id. § 213. … Initially, an employee is obligated to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination. Id.

SOHO Wilmington LLC v. Water Street Ventures, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 23, 2020

“[B]oth qualified and absolute immunity are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded.” Bentley v. Cleveland Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 41 F.3d 600, 604'(4th Cir. 1994). … In Sales, defendants pleaded a qualified immunity defense, but did not press that defense until the case was remanded to the district court. See Sales, 224 F.3d at 296. Not so here.

Hughes v. Bedsole

913 F. Supp. 420 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 1994

Personal grievances concerning working conditions do not qualify as matters of public concern. Lewis v. Blackburn, 759 F.2d 1171 (4th Cir.1985). … Be these things as they may, in order to establish a claim based on handicap discrimination the plaintiff must first offer evidence that she in fact qualified as a handicapped person under the federal Vocational Rehabilitation

Hall v. Liles

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 20, 2023

Both sets of defendants argue that Eleventh Amendment, absolute, qualified, and public official immunity bar plaintiff's claims, that his claims are untimely, and that plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege his claims … “In general, to establish a continuing violation the plaintiff must establish that the unconstitutional or illegal act was a fixed and continuing practice.” Nat’ Adver. Co. v.

Faulk

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2026

“Section 7422(a) of the Internal Revenue Code waives sovereign immunity only when a taxpayer has filed a qualifying tax-refund claim with the IRS.” Griffin, 2022 WL 1101817, at *4.; see also Pond y. … United States, 132 F.R.D. 414, 417 (M.D.N.C. 1990) (“The taxpayer has the burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction over its action.”).

United States v. Haynes

202 F. Supp. 3d 533 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 18, 2016

The court reasoned defendant’s prior conviction for common law robbery under North Carolina law qualified as a “crime of violence.” … Second, the ACCA’s residual clause left “uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony.” Id. at 2558 .

United States v. Kelly

277 F. 485 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 1921

however strong, but upon the finding by the judge, or other judicial officer, of the fact that the belief of the applicant is founded upon “probable cause,” which is declared essential by the Constitution and the statute, clearly … Is the immunity confined to papers? This question does not appear to have been expressly decided. In Weeks’ Case, 232 U. S. 383 , 34 Sup. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652 . L. R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann.

Allen v. Cooper

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2024

In addition, sovereign immunity under “[t]he Eleventh Amendment bars suits against a state or its agencies, unless the state has waived its immunity, or Congress has exercised its power under section 5 of the Fourteenth … Amendment to override that immunity.”

Wilson v. Lyng

662 F. Supp. 1391 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 1987

Under the program, qualifying households are issued coupons which can be used to purchase food in retail food stores. 7 U.S.C.A. § 2016 . … This Act established a disqualification penalty for certain households.

Pierce v. King

918 F. Supp. 932 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1996

The Torcasio decision, however, addressed the question of the ADA’s applicability to state prisons only in the context of whether state officials could claim qualified immunity from suit under the ADA and the Rehabilitation … Congress must act clearly and with narrow precision if it wishes to regulate the inter-state commerce aspects of state prison labor.

Ward v. Security Atlantic Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

858 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2012

A creditor must provide notice of a borrower’s right to rescind in a separate document that "clearly and conspicuously disclose[s]” the right to rescind. 15 U.S.C. § 1635 (a). … Plaintiffs’ Qualified Written Request is attached as Exhibit A. See [DE-15.1]. .

Allen v. McCrory

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 18, 2021

It is well-established that sovereign immunity is not absolute, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was “enacted after the Eleventh Amendment and specifically designed to alter the federal-state balance.” College Sav. … After considering the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and noting that it “quite clearly contemplate[d] limitations on [States’} authority,” the Supreme Court concluded that whatever amount of sovereign immunity the States

Bryan v. United States Secretary of Health & Human Services

758 F. Supp. 1092 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 10, 1990

The precise time period in issue and the exact amount of damages which the Plaintiff is claiming are not clearly stated in the Complaint. … Part B establishes a voluntary program of "supplemental medical insurance” covering physician’s charges and other medical services. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395k, and 1395l.

Kelly v. United States

809 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2011

“A defense is insufficient if it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Spell v. McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1112 (E.D.N.C.1984). … It is well-established under North Carolina law that liability waivers are generally enforceable. See Hall v.

SMD Software, Inc. v. Emove, Inc.

945 F. Supp. 2d 628 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2013

The proponent of the expert testimony bears the burden of establishing its admissibility by a preponderance of proof. Cooper v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 259 F.3d 194, 199 (4th Cir.2001). … In this case, Didow’s opinions regarding defendants’ failure to meet the FTC standards for claim substantiation do-not establish a violation of the Lanham Act.

Harr v. North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 14, 2023

Generally, the party asserting sovereign immunity bears the burden of demonstrating that immunity; however, “a court ought to consider the issue of Eleventh Amendment immunity at any time, even sua sponte.” McCray v. … The OAH does not “qualify as a ‘person’ subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983” and is entitled to sovereign immunity from Harr’s request for monetary damages. Allen v. N. Carolina Off.

North Carolina Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake

482 F. Supp. 2d 686 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 11, 2007

Plaintiff North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee (“NCRLPAC”) is a political action committee established by NCRL. … “[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, to be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes entitlement to the relief sought.” Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns.

Barringer-Willis v. Healthsource North Carolina Inc.

14 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 17, 1998

“[T]he force of ERISA’s preemption is strong and its scope wide, (citation omitted) Congress clearly intended to occupy the field and to exclude *782 from the field any effort by the states to regulate ERISA matters.” … Therefore, the first question the Court must address is whether the plan qualifies as an “employee benefit plan” within the meaning of ERISA.