Employment Cases
Show: 1 day 1 week 1 month All
Custom (decided):
Clear all
Coverage since January 2, 2026
✉️ New decisions, briefed in your inbox every morning — subscribe to Daily Case Law, free →

Employment

North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

Sepanski v. Ashleigh Fisher Consulting — ‘Monthly Retainer Fee’ Means Payment for Work Completed, Not Availability During Notice Period

The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed a $26,633 summary judgment for a consultant who claimed she was owed two months of “monthly retainer fees” during a sixty-day notice period in which she performed no work. Reading the contract as a whole, the court held that “retainer fee” does not mean availability payment; the early-termination clause—which conditioned payment on “work completed through the end of the notice period”—controlled. Because the consultant performed no work after termination, Fisher Consulting owed nothing. Summary judgment for the defendant was ordered on remand.

North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

Se. Reg’l Physician Servs. v. Scott — Non-Compete Barring Any ‘Practice of Medicine’ Is Overbroad and Cannot Be Blue-Penciled

The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of non-compete agreements barring two nurse practitioners from “engaging in the practice of Medicine” for one year within Robeson County and a 35-mile radius. Writing for the majority, Judge Griffin held the covenants overbroad in their terms despite reasonable time and geographic limits, void against public policy, and not salvageable through blue-penciling under North Carolina’s strict severance doctrine. The 2–1 decision—Chief Judge Dillon dissenting—clarifies that healthcare non-competes must track the specific work performed, not broadly prohibit all medical practice.

North Carolina Court of Appeals
Uncategorized

Lemaster v. NC Department of State Treasurer — OAH Lacks Jurisdiction to Rule on Constitutional Challenge to TSERS Service-Repurchase Statute

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that the OAH lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a TSERS member’s claim that the 2021 repeal of N.C.G.S. § 135-4(k)—which capped service-credit repurchases at five years—unconstitutionally impaired his vested contractual pension rights, because constitutionality questions are reserved for the judicial branch and fall outside the OAH’s statutory grant of authority.

Scroll to Top