For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED.
Hill v. Medford, 357 N.C. 650 (2003)
Dec. 5, 2003
·
Supreme Court of North Carolina
·
No. 389A03
357 N.C. 650
THOMAS WILLIAM HILL v. BOBBY MEDFORD, Individually and as Sheriff of Buncombe County; and WESTERN SURETY COMPANY
No. 389A03
(Filed 5 December 2003)
Employer and Employee— termination of deputy sheriff — at-will employee — public policy violation — breach of contract
The decision of the Court of Appeals in this case is reversed for the reason stated in the dissenting opinion that an at-will employee (a deputy sheriff) who alleges wrongful discharge by his employer (the sheriff) for reasons that violate public policy does not have a claim for breach of contract against the employer on that basis. The deputy sheriff may only maintain a tort claim against the sheriff limited to the amount of the sheriffs bond.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 158 N.C. App.-, 582 S.E.2d 325 (2003), affirming an order entered 8 May 2002 by Judge James Baker, Jr., in Superior Court, Buncombe County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 November 2003.
Long, Parker, Warren & Jones, PA., by Robert B. Long, Jr., and W. Scott Jones, for defendant-appellants.
Carter & Kropelnicki, P.A., by Steven Kropelnicki, Jr., for plaintiff-appellee.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by Mark A. Davis, for amicus curiae North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.