N. Carolina Common Law same as Colorado's

Although we now hold that the existence of an alternative remedy does not automatically preclude a claim for wrongful discharge based on the public policy exception, we also hold that under certain circumstances a legislative remedy may be deemed exclusive. If federal legislation preempts state law under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, then state claims, such as one for wrongful discharge, will be precluded. See English v. General Electric Co., 496 U.S. 72, 110 S.Ct. 2270, 110 L.Ed.2d 65 (1990). Additionally, if our state legislature has expressed its intent to supplant the common law with exclusive statutory remedies, then common law actions, such as wrongful discharge, will be precluded. See Biddix v. Henredon Furniture Industries, 76 N.C.App. 30, 331 S.E.2d 717 (1985) (vitality of common law actions for nuisance and continuing trespass dependent upon federal preemption and whether state Clean Water Act precludes common law civil actions). We hold therefore that absent (a) federal preemption or (b) the intent of our state legislature to supplant the common law with exclusive statutory remedies, the availability of alternative remedies does not prevent a plaintiff from seeking tort remedies for wrongful discharge based on the public policy exception. The availability of alternative common law and statutory remedies, we believe, supplements rather than hinders the ultimate goal of protecting employees who have been fired in violation of public policy. Amos v. Oakdale Knitting Co. , 416 SE 2d 166, 171 - NC: Supreme Court 1992

Fight the hard way and feel good about It

My husband Amitabh, an IPS officer of 1992 batch has been fighting a long list of battles as regards his service matters for the last few years. The primary reason for most of his problems has been his independent attitude where he takes decisions as per merit and does not behave in the manner he is asked by many of his seniors and political persons. Thus, he has remained an odd man in the department but he remains whatever he is.

He also knows that it is much easier to get work done from the Government because ultimately even the Courts give order to the Government itself. If the government does not want to implement an order it overlooks it and the affected person now runs once again to the Courts for Contempt of Court. This process goes on for years. Yet, Amitabh has decided that he will adopt only the legal way, howsoever difficult and lengthy it is. This is a tough way but Amitabh is somehow persisting with his decision.

Only recently he had filed a Writ Petition No 8/2011 (S/B) in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench. In his Writ Petition he had said that in many of his cases the final decision is being taken by Vijay Singh, the Secretary to the Chief Minister in her name instead of the Chief Minister Mayawati taking it. He claimed that due to these illegal orders of Vijay Singh he is being adversely affected.

Amitabh gave three specific examples in this regards. Two of these with related with the Adverse remarks he had got during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 during his tenure as SP Deoria and the third was about his study leave for study at IIM Lucknow. These two adverse entries have a story of their own and are the offshoot of the same struggle. In his Writ Petition he had said that Vijay Singh had gone beyond his legally defined powers to change the decision of the previous Chief Minister in the cases of his adverse ACR as SP Deoria where the Chief Minister had ordered to delete the adverse entries. Similarly, in the case of Study leave he had changed the recommendation of Manjeet Singh, then Principal Secretary, Home who had recommended for grant of Study Leave, while Vijay Singh ordered denial of study leave.

In the Writ Petition, the High Court had ordered on 06 January 2011 that Amitabh should make a representation before the Chief Minister in decent language which shall be presented before the Chief Minister herself, as being the competent authority to pass appropriate orders. The High Court had also ordered that the Chief Minister shall decide over the matter within a period of 4 weeks.

Amitabh sent a representation on 04 February 2011 where he presented all the relevant facts. Now Chief Minister Mayawati has considered the matter on the basis of the representation and other associated facts and on finding merit in Amitabh's argument, through the Government order dated 26 April 2011 she has ordered to delete all the adverse portions of his ACR for the year 1999-2000. The two other matters are possibly still pending with the Chief Minister. Thus, this order once again validates Amitabh's point of view. It also gives him further strength to fight the long battle, which includes among other things, his struggle for getting the salary for his extraordinary leave period for the study he dud at IIM Lucknow.

My purpose to present this case for the group is not to glorify Amitabh but to show a real-life example of how persistence always pays and to give confidence to all of you who are fighting such righteous cause in your own ways. My request to all of you to take this an another example of how one can persist with one's way and how much pleasure it gives to opt an independent way.