Court Opinion

ID: 9616739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:49:25.702838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:00.819904
License: Public Domain

Judge BECTON
concurring in the result.
Wesley Leiphart’s arguments are not insubstantial. Especially appealing are his arguments (a) that Dean Harwood improperly talked to people in the “Hearing Chain” established by the School of the Arts’ internal appellate procedures and obtained their approval of her proposed action to dismiss him before she did so; and (b) that the notice of his dismissal under G.S. Sec. 126-35 was inadequate since it was given simultaneously with his discharge. I find the error committed, if any, to be harmless, however. None of the people Dean Harwood talked to ruled on Leiphart’s case, and G.S. Sec. 126-35 would have allowed Harwood to suspend Leiphart “without warning for causes relating to personal conduct detrimental to State service . . . .”