[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-281703-105":53,"doc-detail-281703-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","david-b-stone-v-north-carolina-department-of-cultural-resources-decision","David B. Stone v. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - Decision","","Decision issued by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Craven County, North Carolina, in case 11 OSP 11926. Administrative Law Judge Joe L. Webster considered allegations in David B. Stone’s petition against the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, including discharge-related just cause, discrimination in eliminating his position under a reduction-in-force plan, and priority consideration for reemployment under specified state statutes and regulations. The decision followed pre-hearing motions addressing some petition portions, confidentiality limits, and receipt of documentary exhibits and witness testimony.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":41,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/david-b-stone-v-north-carolina-department-of-cultural-resources-decision/281703/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/david-b-stone-v-north-carolina-department-of-cultural-resources-decision/281703.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"wps_ap_test_251126_0180","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-20","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":8},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What are the main issues addressed in this contested case decision?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"The decision addresses whether an employee may bring a contested case action for discharge without just cause, whether the department discriminated in eliminating the employee’s position under a reduction-in-force plan, and whether the department failed to provide priority consideration for reemployment under specified statutes.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What happened during the pre-hearing motions to dismiss?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The respondent filed an amended motion to dismiss portions of the petition. The administrative judge dismissed the portion related to failure to follow the reduction-in-force policy and deferred judgment on just cause pending a merits hearing, while allowing discovery on remaining issues.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"Why were some exhibits treated as confidential?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"A consent protective order restricted disclosure of confidential personnel information. Based on the order and governing statute, specific petitioner and respondent exhibits were deemed confidential and protected from disclosure.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},281703,1790119638,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":40,"category_name":41,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":8,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":140,"read_time":47},8796095027276,"https://avatar.qwps.com/avatar/d3BzX2FwX3Rlc3RfMjUxMTI2XzAxODA=","STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA  \nCOUNTY OF CRAVEN  \nIN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS  \n11 OSP 11926  \nDAVID B. STONE,  \nPetitioner,  \nv.  \nNORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES,  \nRespondent.  \n))  \n))  \n))  \n))  \nDECISION  \nTHIS MATTER came on for hearing before the Honorable Joe L. Webster, Administrative Law Judge, on May 31, 2012, in New Bern, North Carolina. After considering the allegations in the Petition, the testimony of the witnesses, and the documentary evidence and exhibits admitted, the undersigned makes the following DECISION:  \nAPPEARANCES  \nFor Petitioner:  \nKirk J. Angel  \nThe Angel Law Firm, PLLC  \nP.O. Box 692  \nHarrisburg, North Carolina 28075  \nFor Respondent:  \nKaren A. Blum, Special Deputy Attorney General  \nNorth Carolina Department of Justice  \nP.O. Box 629  \nRaleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629  \nISSUES  \n1. Whether an employee may file a contested case action for discharge without just cause when the employee had no current disciplinary actions taken against him and the employee’s position was abolished under a reduction in force plan.  \n2. Whether the Department discriminated against Petitioner in eliminating his position under a reduction in force plan.  \n3. Whether the Department failed to give Petitioner priority consideration for reemployment pursuant to as required by G.S. 126 7.1 and G.S. 126 36.2.  \nPRE-HEARING MOTIONS TO DISMISS  \nOn 21 November 2011, the Respondent North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources [hereinafter “Department”] filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss those portions of Petitioner’s Petition for Contested Case Hearing contending that the Department acted without just cause in eliminating Petitioner’s position, the Department failed to follow its Reduction-InForce policy, that the Department discriminated or retaliated against Petitioner, and any other issues falling outside the scope of G.S. § 126-34.1. On 4 January 2012, after considering the filings and arguments of counsel, the undersigned dismissed pursuant to N.C. GEN. STAT. § 126- 34.1(e), Jailall v. N. C. Dep’t of Pub. Instruction, 196 N.C. App. 90, 95, 675 S.E.2d 79, 82 (2009)(quoting Feinstein), and Univ. of N. C. at Chapel Hill v. Feinstein, 161 N.C. App. 700, 704, 590 S.E.2d 401, 403 (2003), that portion of the petition contending that the Department failed to follow the reduction in force policy. The undersigned continued the hearing on the motion to dismiss as to the remaining issues to allow the parties to pursue discovery. On 3 April 2012, after considering the filings and arguments of counsel, the undersigned deferred judgment on the issue of just cause pending a hearing on the merits.  \nAPPLICABLE STATUTES AND RULES  \n1. § 126-7.1. Posting requirement; State employees receive priority consideration; reduction in force rights; Work First hiring.  \n2. § 126-34. Grievance appeal for career State employees.  \n3. § 126-34.1. Grounds for contested case under the State Personnel Act defined.  \n4. § 126-35. Just cause; disciplinary actions for State employees.  \n5. § 126-36. Appeal of unlawful State employment practice.  \n6. § 126-36.1. Appeal to Personnel Commission by applicant for employment.  \n7. § 126-36.2. Appeal to Personnel Commission by career State employee denied notice of vacancy or priority consideration.  \n8. 25 N.C.A.C. 1C .1004. Reduction in Force.  \n9. 25 N.C.A.C. 1H .0701. Priority Consideration: General Provisions.  \n10. 25 N.C.A.C. 1H .0901. Policy and Scope.  \n11. 25 N.C.A.C. 1H .0902. Requirements for Reduction-in-Force Priority Consideration.  \n12. 25 N.C.A.C. 1H .0904. Agency and Employee Responsibilities.  \nCONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER  \nOn 5 January 2012, the undersigned signed a consent protective order restricting the disclosure of confidential personnel information. After reviewing the exhibits, the undersigned has determined that the following exhibits below are deemed confidential and protected from disclosure pursuant to G.S. § 126-22: Petitioner’s Exhibits 15, 27, 31, and 3","cbCaidNorAEdbiIc","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaidNorAEdbiIc","pdf",65819,13,"English","# Issues\n## Pre-hearing motions to dismiss\n## Applicable statutes and rules\n## Consent protective order\n## Exhibits\n## Witnesses","[{\"question\":\"What are the main issues addressed in this contested case decision?\",\"answer\":\"The decision addresses whether an employee may bring a contested case action for discharge without just cause, whether the department discriminated in eliminating the employee’s position under a reduction-in-force plan, and whether the department failed to provide priority consideration for reemployment under specified statutes.\"},{\"question\":\"What happened during the pre-hearing motions to dismiss?\",\"answer\":\"The respondent filed an amended motion to dismiss portions of the petition. The administrative judge dismissed the portion related to failure to follow the reduction-in-force policy and deferred judgment on just cause pending a merits hearing, while allowing discovery on remaining issues.\"},{\"question\":\"Why were some exhibits treated as confidential?\",\"answer\":\"A consent protective order restricted disclosure of confidential personnel information. Based on the order and governing statute, specific petitioner and respondent exhibits were deemed confidential and protected from disclosure.\"}]","David B. Stone v. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources - Decision | PDF",1789567576]