In last year’s Loper Bright decision, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the use of so-called Chevron deference to the opinions of federal administrative agencies. Even if the underlying statutory language is ambiguous, federal courts must exercise their judgment in interpreting those laws instead of relying on the agency’s view of its powers. For employers, Loper Bright has meant that Department of Labor or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) opinion letters and interpretive guidance have limited use when determining compliance issues.

Last Friday, the North Carolina Supreme Court issued a decision that echoes the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright reasoning. The decision involved a professor at a university who challenged his termination on free speech grounds. The plaintiff argued that the university violated its own rules in terminating his employment. The lower court noted the university’s view on whether it complied with those rules.  

The North Carolina Supreme Court majority rejected the plaintiff’s claims, but held that under the state constitution, courts must independently review statutory claims and not defer to the opinions of state administrative agencies. Those agencies can provide technical assistance to courts, but the judicial branch has the sole authority to determine legal questions.

The concurring justices agreed with the outcome of the decision but questioned whether the lower court decision was really based on judicial deference to the university’s interpretations of its faculty guidelines. North Carolina courts never applied judicial deference comparable to that given to federal agencies under Chevron. This decision makes clear that state agency internal or external opinions have a very limited effect on later litigation, even if the court agrees that the underlying statute’s terms are ambiguous.

For more information, please contact me or your regular Parker Poe contact. Click here to subscribe to our latest alerts and insights.