Case law

Williams v. Guilford Technical Community College Board of Trustees

117 F. Supp. 3d 708 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 13, 2015

As for Williams’ Title VII claims, Defendants argue that “municipal corporations” are immune from punitive damages. … Although Williams claims the video camera was “hidden,” he clearly became aware of it at some point because he included the allegation in the complaint.

PINEHURST NEUROPSYCHOLOGY, PLLC v. FIRST CITIZENS BANK & TRUST COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2021

Pinehurst claims that the PPP provided for the allocation of “$349 billion in taxpayer funds to the [United States Small Business Association (“SBA”)] to make low interest ‘forgivable’ loans to qualifying small … “Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, [Plaintiffs] must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Spokeo, 136 S.

BURTON v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 22, 2020

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 14-33.) … Plaintiff’s arguments do not establish an entitlement to relief.

DEMOCRACY NORTH CAROLINA v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 14, 2020

(a), a witness absentee ballot must be “marked in the presence of one qualified witness.” … The Revised Memo’s run- around of the witness requirement clearly falls short of the valid statutory requirement previously upheld by this court.

WOOD v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2024

Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63. 7 A claimant thus can qualify as disabled via two paths through the SEP. … Plaintiff’s contentions do not establish a basis for remand.

LEDOUX v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 10, 2024

“These regulations establish a ‘sequential evaluation process’ to determine whether a claimant is disabled.” Id. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has established an error warranting remand.

DUNIVANT v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2021

Id. at 179.3 Step four then requites the ALJ to assess whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the clatmant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Because the number of marking clerk jobs clearly exceeds the number of jobs constituting a “significant numbet” in the national economy, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s finding at step five of the sequential analysis

GREGGS v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 15, 2024

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Here, the ALJ reviewed the evidence, explained his decision, and clearly explained the reasons for his determination. That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

BANKS v. ROSS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 2025

To the extent Plaintiff may be alleging exclusion from an unidentified transportation program, his allegations do not support a claim that he was qualified for the unidentified program, or that he was denied the ability … If Plaintiff believes that he can sufficiently allege a state law claim, he would need to set that claim out clearly in state court.

BANKS v. ROSS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 2025

To the extent Plaintiff may be alleging exclusion from an unidentified transportation program, his allegations do not support a claim that he was qualified for the unidentified program, or that he was denied the ability … If Plaintiff believes that he can sufficiently allege a state law claim, he would need to set that claim out clearly in state court.

Netherlands Insurance v. Cockman

342 F. Supp. 2d 396 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 21, 2004

Thus, the insured clearly had the opportunity to file a UM claim within the three-year period after the accident but did not exercise that opportunity. … Travelers’ active participation in the defense clearly indicated to all that Cockman had a UIM claim rather than a UM claim against Netherlands Insurance.

CRAWFORD v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2025

The ALJ teviewed the evidence, explained her decision, and clearly explained the reasons for her determination. That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. … Defendant, in turn, counters that the term “occasional” in the present case qualifies workplace changes, rather than situations or tasks.

BEATTY v. PRUITTHEALTH INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2022

“To establish a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove ‘(1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a ‘qualified individual’ for the employment … To establish an ADA hostile work environment claim, a plaintiff must sufficiently allege: (1) he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was subjected to

Salami v. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University

394 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 13, 2005

employment action, (3) he was performing his job duties at a level that met his employer’s legitimate expectations at the time of the adverse employment action, and (4) the job remained open or was filled by a similarly qualified … Based on a review of Plaintiffs second EEOC charge, the Court finds that Plaintiffs EEOC complaint clearly asserted claims of discrimination on the bases of national origin, religion, and retaliation.

CHAPPELL v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 2021

° A claimant thus can establish disability via two paths through the SEP. … The emphasized language reflects normal findings, which clearly predominate over the abnormal findings.

BOONE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2023

With respect to futility, leave to amend “should only be denied . . . when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Johnson v. … The elements required to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination are the same under Title VII and section 1981; therefore, the court considers these claims together.

BRANTMEIER v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2024

The parties have not clearly shown the number of markets at issue in their briefing or identified them individually. … But even in those sports there has been no showing that the prize money rules, which affect only elite athletes who qualify for professional competitions and win prize money, result in anticompetitive effect on the market

RHH LLC v. INNISFREE HOTELS, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2021

“[T]he plaintiff bears the burden of ‘clearly . . . alleg[ing] facts demonstrating that he is a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute.’” Payne, 947 F. … As far as whether this controversy qualifies as “localized,” Plant Genetic Sys., 933 F.

BOST v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 11, 2025

The Court finds that the ALJ in this case clearly provided the explanation absent in Pearson. Accordingly, the apparent conflict fails to merit remand. … This explanation, along with the ALJ’s acceptance of it, clearly satisfies the ALJ’s obligation under SSR 00-4p and the relevant case law regarding apparent conflicts.

MANNING

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2025

Defendant is arguing the merits by saying [Plaintiff] was not qualified anyway so it does not matter. … Supp. 1090, 1114 (EBE.D.N.cC. 1984) (“[T]he burden of showing that the requested discovery is not relevant to the issues in this litigation is clearly on the party resisting discovery