Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of North Carolina Firefighter’s Wrongful Termination Suit

A federal magistrate judge has recommended dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a longtime Graham, North Carolina firefighter who claimed he was wrongfully terminated due to age discrimination, retaliation, and other alleged violations.

Robert Patterson filed suit against the City, Fire Chief Tommy Cole, Captain Jason Moore, and City Manager Megan Garner. Patterson alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions, North Carolina public policy, and breach of contract.

Patterson’s claims stemmed from workplace disputes involving Captain Moore and complaints against Chief Cole. He alleged that after participating in internal complaints about Captain Moore and Chief Cole, he was denied a promotion, suspended, subjected to investigations, and ultimately terminated in May 2023.

Magistrate Judge L. Patrick Auld first addressed Patterson’s Section 1983 claim. While Patterson initially raised the claim, he later abandoned it and failed to respond to the defendants’ dismissal arguments. The court concluded that the claim had been conceded and recommended dismissal.

On the age discrimination claim under the ADEA, the court found that Patterson had not plausibly alleged that his termination was based on age. Although he was over 40 and had raised concerns about age-related workplace issues, the court noted that his discharge occurred in the aftermath of his admitted affair with a married woman, which led to multiple investigations, allegations of harassment, and community disputes. The court concluded that these circumstances, not age bias, explained his termination.

The court next considered the hostile work environment claim. Patterson and other firefighters had filed complaints about Captain Moore in 2021, but his EEOC charge was not filed until May 2023. Because the ADEA requires timely filing within 180 days of the alleged conduct, Patterson’s claim was deemed untimely. Even if timely, the court found that Patterson’s allegations did not establish conduct that was severe or pervasive enough to amount to a hostile work environment under the law.

The retaliation claim was also dismissed. Patterson alleged that he was denied promotion and later fired because of complaints he and others filed against Capt. Moore and Chief Cole. However, the court emphasized that the time gap between those complaints and his termination was too long to suggest a causal connection. Moreover, the court pointed out that the disciplinary actions against Patterson followed revelations of his extramarital affair and related events, making retaliation an implausible explanation.

The wrongful discharge claim under North Carolina law met a similar fate. North Carolina law recognizes claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, including age discrimination. But because Patterson’s ADEA claims were dismissed, his state law wrongful termination claim, which relied on the same allegations, was dismissed as well.

On the breach of contract claim, Patterson alleged he signed a contract with the City in 1994. The court noted that North Carolina is an at-will employment state, and the complaint did not allege a definite term of employment that would alter the at-will presumption. Without such terms, the claim could not proceed, and the court dismissed both the breach of contract and the related claim for breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Finally, the court examined Patterson’s claims for tortious interference with contract against Chief Cole, Captain Moore, and City Manager Garner. The court explained that these defendants were “non-outsiders” to the employment relationship because they had supervisory roles and legitimate business interests in addressing complaints and investigations. Under North Carolina law, non-outsiders enjoy qualified immunity unless they act solely with legal malice, which was not alleged. As a result, the tortious interference claims were also dismissed.

Magistrate Judge Auld recommended dismissal of all claims with prejudice, noting that Patterson had already amended his complaint once and failed to cure deficiencies. The recommendation will proceed to the district court judge for review and adoption. Here is a copy of the decision: