Case Name: JANE P. HELM v. APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY and KENNETH E. PEACOCK, in his official capacity as Chancellor of Appalachian State University
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 2009-06-18
Citations: 363 N.C. 366
Docket Number: No. 30A09
Parties: JANE P. HELM v. APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY and KENNETH E. PEACOCK, in his official capacity as Chancellor of Appalachian State University
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 363
Pages: 366–366

Head Matter:
JANE P. HELM v. APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY and KENNETH E. PEACOCK, in his official capacity as Chancellor of Appalachian State University
No. 30A09
(Filed 18 June 2009)
Public Officers and Employees; Colleges and Universities— whistleblower action — protected activity — sufficiency of complaint
The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of the complaint of a former state university employee for retaliatory discharge under the Whistleblower Act is reversed for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion that plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to support her claim that she was engaged in a protected activity where she alleged that she was asked to resign because she refused the university chancellor’s request to issue a check from the university endowment fund for an option to purchase realty that she knew the university had insufficient funds to exercise and because she reported her objection to the transaction to a university attorney.
Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 194 N.C. App.-, 670 S.E.2d 571 (2008), affirming an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint entered on 28 August 2007 by Judge Mark E. Powell in Superior Court, Watauga County. Heard in the Supreme Court 5 May 2009.
Patterson Harkavy LLP, by Burton Craige and Jessica E. Leaven, for plaintiff-appellant.
Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Kimberly D. Potter, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellees.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
REVERSED..