Opinion ID: 1027813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: HSC Employment

Text: We look to state law to determine whether a plaintiff had a protectable property interest in his or her continued employment. See Knight v. Vernon, 214 F.3d 544, 553 (4th Cir. 2000). North Carolina law mandates that, when there is no contract establishing a definite term of employment, the employment will be considered at-will. Tarrant v. Freeway Foods of Greensboro, 163 N.C. App. 504, 508, 593 S.E.2d 808, 811 (2004); see also Pittman v. Wilson County, 839 F.2d 225, 227 (4th Cir. 1988) (“Under North Carolina law, subject to a few 12 well-defined exceptions, ‘absent some form of contractual agreement between an employer and employee establishing a definite period of employment, the employment is presumed to be an ‘at-will’ employment, terminable at the will of either party, irrespective of the quality of performance by the other party....’”) (quoting Harris v. Duke Power Company, 319 N.C. 627, 629, 356 S.E.2d 357 (1987)). The presumption that indefinite employment is at-will is a strong one. The North Carolina Supreme Court has consistently “held that assurances of continued employment, permanent employment or employment for life are insufficient to rebut the at-will presumption.” Worley v. Bayer Corp., 154 N.C. App. 743, 572 S.E.2d 874 at  (Table) (unpublished) (citing Kurtzman v. Applied Analystical Indus., Inc., 347 N.C. 329 (1997); Still v. Lance, 279 N.C. 254, 182 S.E.2d 403 (1971); Tuttle v. Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 139 S.E.2d 249 (1964); Malever v. Jewelry Co., 223 N.C. 148, 25 S.E.2d 436 (1943)). An at-will employment relationship does not create a protectable property interest in continued employment for § 1983 purposes. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577-78. Although Herman attempts to rebut the presumption of atwill employment by stating that he had “an oral contract of employment for a definite period” in his amended complaint, J.A. 46, that does not sufficiently read his pleading in context. That “definite period” is only “a reasonable expectation of 13 continued employment” and not a contractual right by the terms of his own pleading. Therefore Herman does not rebut the presumption that his employment was at-will and the district court did not err in dismissing his § 1983 claim as to his HSC employment.