North Carolina law provides a means for permanent state employees to challenge an adverse job action. A state Court of Appeals ruling July 20 clarifies under what circumstance the safeguards apply.
Michael Winbush was hired in 1994 as an athletic coach at Winston-Salem State University. In 2000, he was an assistant football coach and head women’s softball coach at the school. Winbush liked his job, and the university was pleased enough with his coaching accomplishments that it promised him a 10 percent pay increase effective July 1, 2000.
In June 2000, however, Winbush put on a football camp without obtaining the necessary approval from his supervisors. As a result of the infraction, WSSU’s athletic director stripped Winbush of his coaching responsibilities, denied him a scheduled raise, and reassigned him to oversee the school’s intramural sports program. Winbush’s technical job classification, “recreation worker II,” remained unchanged.
Winbush challenged the action. An administrative law judge sided with Winbush, recommending that he be reinstated to his coaching positions and get the promised pay increase. The State Personnel Commission rejected the ALJ’s recommendation and moved to uphold the university’s decision. Upon appeal to Superior Court, Judge Abraham Penn Jones ruled in March 2003 in favor of Winbush. The university then moved for review by the Court of Appeals.
University employees can challenge personnel actions only under provisions of the State Personnel Act. The act provides for review only if a permanent state employee is dismissed, demoted, or is suspended without pay. And that is what the Court of Appeals held is exactly what didn’t happen to Winbush. The appellate court found that because Winbush’s job classification and pay remained the same even after the athletic director’s action, Winbush could not prevail.
“In the instant case, petitioner’s paygrade remained the same,” wrote Judge Wanda Bryant for the Court of Appeals. “Furthermore, as the promised raise in salary had not yet come into effect at the time of his reassignment, petitioner has also failed to show a demotion through a decrease in pay. As such, petitioner was neither discharged nor demoted and is not entitled to relief under the SPA. Accordingly, the superior court erred in concluding that petitioner had been discharged without just cause.”
The case is Winbush v. Winston-Salem State Univ., (03-891). It can be found here.
Michael Lowrey is associate editor of Carolina Journal.