Opinion ID: 1014470
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Direct Claims Under the State Constitution

Text: Freeman asserted in the third count of his complaint that Duke Power’s actions in limiting his ability to moonlight violated the North Carolina constitutional provision recognizing the inalienable right of all persons to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor. N.C. Const. art. I, § 1. North Carolina’s courts do not recognize a cause of action based on article I, section 1 of the state constitution to remedy private employment disputes. See Teleflex Info. Sys., Inc. v. Arnold, FREEMAN v. DUKE POWER CO. 11 513 S.E.2d 85, 88 (N.C. Ct. App. 1999) (affirming summary judgment for employer in suit brought by at-will employee claiming that his firing violated article I, section 1 of the state constitution). Rather, the provision limits the state’s ability to regulate an individual’s livelihood. Id. ([T]he declaration of rights in [the North Carolina] State Constitution was inserted ‘chiefly to protect the individual from the State.’ (quoting North Carolina v. Ballance, 51 S.E.2d 731, 734 (1949))). Thus, the district court properly dismissed Freeman’s state constitutional claim. Likewise, Freeman’s direct cause of action under article I, section 19 of the state constitution, providing that no person shall be deprived of his property but by the law of the land, also fails. Article I, section 19 is the North Carolina state constitution’s equivalent of the federal Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. Both provisions protect individuals only against governmental action. Thus, Freeman has no cognizable action based on the state constitution against his wholly private employer. See N.C. Nat’l Bank v. Burnette, 256 S.E.2d 388, 394 (N.C. 1979) (This constitutional [due process] shield does not protect citizens from the actions or activities of other private individuals.); Weston v. Carolina Medicorp, Inc., 402 S.E.2d 653, 656-57 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991) (‘[S]tate action’ is required to trigger the protections of the ‘synonymous’ due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.). The district court properly dismissed Freeman’s third count.