IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA14-966

Filed: 21 April 2015

Mecklenburg County, No. 13 CVS 9560

TERRI YOUNG, Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL BAILEY, in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of Mecklenburg County, and 

OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 25 April 2014 by Judge W. Robert 

Bell in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 

February 2015.

Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, LLP, by Harold L. Kennedy, III, and 

Harvey L. Kennedy, for plaintiff-appellant.

Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge and Rice, LLP, by Sean F. Perrin, for defendantappellees.

STEELMAN, Judge.

Plaintiff, a deputy sheriff, was not a county employee as defined in N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 153A-99, and could be discharged based upon political conduct without 

violating her free speech rights under the North Carolina Constitution. 

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Terri Young (plaintiff) was a deputy sheriff employed by former Mecklenburg 

County Sheriff Daniel Bailey (defendant, with Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 

collectively, defendants). In June 2009 defendant sent a letter to approximately 1,350 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 2 -

of his employees, announcing his candidacy for reelection and stating that he would 

appreciate campaign contributions. Plaintiff did not contribute to defendant’s 

reelection campaign or volunteer for his campaign. Defendant was reelected in 

November 2010. On 6 December 2010 plaintiff was terminated from her position. 

On 23 May 2013 plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting claims against 

defendants for wrongful termination of employment in violation of the public policy

under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99 and wrongful termination in violation of her rights 

under the Constitution of North Carolina, Article 1, § § 14 and 36. Plaintiff alleged

that she was an “outstanding employee” between 1990 and 2007; that she was 

harassed by her superior during defendant’s political campaign, and that she had 

been terminated “for refusing to make contributions to [defendant’s] re-election 

campaign and for refusing to volunteer to work on his campaign.” Defendants filed 

answers denying the material allegations of plaintiff’s complaint and asserting the

defense of sovereign immunity. On 3 March 2014 defendants filed a joint motion for 

summary judgment, asserting that there were no genuine issues of material fact 

regarding plaintiff’s claim for wrongful discharge in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 

153A-99; that defendant was entitled to sovereign immunity on the wrongful 

discharge claim up to the amount of the surety bond; and that plaintiff’s 

constitutional claim was barred by the existence of an adequate state law remedy. 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 3 -

(Rp 24) On 25 April 2014 the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants 

and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. 

Plaintiff appeals. 

II. Standard of Review

Under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 56(a), summary judgment is properly 

entered “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on 

file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any 

material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” “ ‘In a 

motion for summary judgment, the evidence presented to the trial court must be 

admissible at trial, N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 56(e) [(2013)], and must be viewed in a light 

most favorable to the non-moving party.’ ” Patmore v. Town of Chapel Hill N.C., __ 

N.C. App. __, __, 757 S.E.2d 302, 304 (quoting Howerton v. Arai Helmet, Ltd., 358 

N.C. 440, 467, 597 S.E.2d 674, 692 (2004) (internal citation omitted)), disc. review 

denied, __ N.C. __, 758 S.E.2d 874 (2014). 

III. Termination in Violation of Public Policy

In plaintiff’s first argument she contends that she was wrongfully terminated 

in violation of the public policy under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99. Plaintiff asserts that 

she was a “county employee” as defined in § 153A-99, and that her termination from 

employment was in violation of this statute. We disagree. 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 4 -

In this case, plaintiff argues that she was terminated in violation of the public 

policy set forth in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99, which states that: 

(a) The purpose of this section is to ensure that county 

employees are not subjected to political or partisan coercion 

while performing their job duties, [and] to ensure that 

employees are not restricted from political activities while 

off duty[.] . . . 

(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this section: (1) “County 

employee” or “employee” means any person employed by a 

county or any department or program thereof that is 

supported, in whole or in part, by county funds[.] . . . 

“The express purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99 is ‘to ensure that county 

employees are not subjected to political or partisan coercion while performing their 

job duties[.]’ . . . [I]f a county employee was fired due to his political affiliations and 

activities, ‘this would contravene . . . the prohibition against political coercion in 

county employment stated in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99,’ hence violating North 

Carolina public policy.” Venable v. Vernon, 162 N.C. App. 702, 705-06, 592 S.E.2d 256, 

258 (2004) (quoting Vereen v. Holden, 121 N.C. App. 779, 784, 468 S.E.2d 471, 474 

(1996) (internal citations omitted)). 

Plaintiff argues that she was an employee of the “sheriff’s department,” which 

is supported by county funds, and thus is entitled to the protections of N.C. Gen. Stat. 

§ 153A-99. In support of this contention, plaintiff relies primarily on a 1998 advisory 

opinion of the North Carolina Attorney General, which opined that the statute was 

“applicable to elected officials of counties,” and on a case cited in the advisory opinion, 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 5 -

Carter v. Good, 951 F. Supp. 1235 (W.D.N.C. 1996), reversed and remanded, 145 F.3d

1323 (4th Cir. N.C. 1998) (unpublished). Plaintiff also asserts that a close analysis of 

the word “thereof” in the statute tends to show that she was a county employee. 

However, we recently addressed these same arguments in McLaughlin v. Bailey, __ 

N.C. App. __, __ S.E.2d __ (2015), a case that is identical to the instant case. In 

McLaughlin, the plaintiffs were a deputy and another employee of the Mecklenburg 

County Sheriff who were discharged by the sheriff, the same defendant as in the 

instant case. We held that:

The employees of a county sheriff, including deputies and 

others hired by the sheriff, are directly employed by the 

sheriff and not by the county or by a county department. 

Sheriff’s employees are not “county employees” as defined 

in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99 and are not entitled to the 

protections of that statute.

McLaughlin, __ N.C. App. at __, __ S.E.2d at __. In addition, the scope of N.C. Gen. 

Stat. § 153A-99 was recently addressed by this Court in Sims-Campbell v. Welch, __ 

N.C. App. __, __, __ S.E.2d __, __ (3 March 2015). In Sims-Campbell, the plaintiff, an 

assistant register of deeds, argued that her firing violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99:

Sims-Campbell also argues that [her firing] . . . violated 

Section 153A-99 of the General Statutes[.] . . . This 

argument fails because an assistant register of deeds is not 

a county employee. . . . We again find guidance in our cases 

dealing with the office of sheriff. In a series of cases, this 

court has held that sheriff's deputies . . . are not county 

employees, but rather employees of the sheriff. . . . In light 

of the statute’s plain language and our analogous case law 

concerning deputy sheriffs, we conclude that an assistant 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 6 -

register of deeds . . . is not a "county employee" within the 

meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99(b)(1).

Sims-Campbell, __ N.C. App. at __, __ S.E.2d at __ (emphasis added). McLaughlin is 

indistinguishable from the present case and controls the outcome. “Where a panel of 

the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, albeit in a different case, a 

subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that precedent, unless it has been 

overturned by a higher court.” In re Appeal of Civil Penalty, 324 N.C. 373, 384, 379 

S.E.2d 30, 37 (1989). As a deputy sheriff, plaintiff was not a county employee within 

the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-99, and cannot assert a claim for wrongful 

termination in violation of that statute. This argument is without merit. 

IV. Violation of State Constitutional Rights

Plaintiff next argues that her termination violated her right to freedom of 

speech guaranteed by Art. 1, § 14 of the North Carolina Constitution. We disagree, 

and again conclude that plaintiff’s arguments on this issue are foreclosed by our 

decision in McLaughlin. 

“[T]he First Amendment generally bars the firing of public employees ‘solely 

for the reason that they were not affiliated with a particular political party or 

candidate,’ as such firings can impose restraints ‘on freedoms of belief and 

association[.]’ ” Bland v. Roberts, 730 F.3d 368, 374 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Knight v. 

Vernon, 214 F.3d 544, 548 (4th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted), and 

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 355, 96 S. Ct. 2673, 49 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1976) (plurality 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 7 -

opinion)). However, “the Supreme Court in Elrod created a narrow exception ‘to give 

effect to the democratic process’ by allowing patronage dismissals of those public 

employees occupying policymaking positions.” Id. (quoting Jenkins v. Medford, 119 

F.3d 1156, 1161 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc). 

In Jenkins we analyzed the First Amendment claims of 

several North Carolina sheriff’s deputies who alleged that 

the sheriff fired them for failing to support his election bid 

and for supporting other candidates. . . . [W]e considered 

the political role of a sheriff, the specific duties performed 

by sheriff’s deputies, and the relationship between a sheriff 

and his deputies as it affects the execution of the sheriff’s 

policies. . . . [We] concluded “that in North Carolina, the 

office of deputy sheriff is that of a policymaker, and that 

deputy sheriffs are the alter ego of the sheriff generally[,]” 

. . . [and] determined “that such North Carolina deputy 

sheriffs may be lawfully terminated for political reasons 

under the Elrod-Branti exception to prohibited political 

terminations.” 

Bland, 730 F.3d at 376 (quoting Jenkins, 119 F.3d at 1164). “In [Jenkins] the majority 

explained that it was the deputies’ role as sworn law enforcement officers that was 

dispositive[.]” Bland at 377. In McLaughlin, we noted that the “reasoning of Jenkins

and Bland was adopted by this Court in Carter v. Marion, 183 N.C. App. 449, 645 

S.E.2d 129 (2007), review denied, 362 N.C. 175, 658 S.E.2d 271 (2008), and explained:

The plaintiffs in Carter were former deputy clerks of court 

who claimed that they had been terminated from their 

employment for political reasons, in violation of their 

rights to free speech under the North Carolina 

Constitution. On appeal, [the Carter opinion] . . . discussed 

the holding of Jenkins that “deputies actually sworn to 

engage in law enforcement activities on behalf of the 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 8 -

sheriff” could be lawfully terminated for political reasons, 

and noted that Jenkins based its holding on the facts that:

“[D]eputy sheriffs (1) implement the sheriff’s policies; (2) 

are likely part of the sheriff’s core group of advisors; (3) 

exercise significant discretion; (4) foster public confidence 

in law enforcement; (5) are expected to provide the sheriff 

with truthful and accurate information; and (6) are general 

agents of the sheriff, and the sheriff is civilly liable for the 

acts of his deputy.”

McLaughlin, __ N.C. App. at __, __ S.E.2d at __. (quoting Carter at 454, 654 S.E.2d 

at 131 (citing Jenkins at 1162-63)). Carter thus held that “political affiliation is an 

appropriate requirement for deputy clerks of superior court.” Id. This issue was also 

discussed in Sims-Campbell: 

[T]his Court and various federal appeals courts repeatedly 

have held that deputy sheriffs and deputy clerks of court 

may be fired for political reasons such as supporting their 

elected boss’s opponents during an election.

Sims-Campbell, __ N.C. App. at __, __ S.E.2d at __ (citing Carter, Jenkins, Upton v. 

Thompson, 930 F.2d 1209 (7th Cir. 1991), and Terry v. Cook, 866 F.2d 373 (11th Cir. 

1989)). In McLaughlin we held that Carter was “controlling on the issue of whether 

[plaintiff] could lawfully be fired based on political considerations” and that the 

plaintiff’s “termination did not violate his free speech rights under the North Carolina 

Constitution.” McLaughlin at __, __ S.E.2d at __. 

We conclude, based upon the prior opinions in McLaughlin, Sims-Campbell, 

and Carter, that, even assuming arguendo that plaintiff was terminated based on her 
YOUNG V. BAILEY ET. AL.

Opinion of the Court

- 9 -

political views, this did not violate her right to free speech under the North Carolina 

Constitution. “Where a panel of the Court of Appeals has decided the same issue, 

albeit in a different case, a subsequent panel of the same court is bound by that 

precedent, unless it has been overturned by a higher court.” In re Civil Penalty, 324 

N.C. 373, 384, 379 S.E.2d 30, 36 (1989). Because plaintiff’s substantive arguments 

lack merit, we have no need to reach the parties’ arguments regarding defendants’ 

defense of sovereign immunity. 

V. Conclusion

The trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment.

AFFIRMED.

Chief Judge McGEE and Judge BRYANT concur.