SHAUNNA L. CARLTON, Petitioner,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, Respondent.
in the Court of Appeals 18 September 2019.
by Petitioner from final decision entered 28 August 2018 by
Judge Donald W. Overby in the Office of Administrative
Hearings. No. 18 OSP 03853
Office of Shiloh Daum, by Shiloh Daum, for
Attorney General Joshua H. Stein, by Special Deputy Attorney
General Vanessa N. Totten, for Respondent-Appellee.
Shaunna L. Carlton is an employee of Respondent University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill ("UNC"). She was
terminated, but then reinstated with back pay.
Notwithstanding her reinstatement, she commenced a contested
case in the Office of Administrative Hearings
("OAH"). The OAH dismissed her case, and she
appeals this dismissal to our Court.
Carlton was employed by UNC as a Human Resources Consultant
for approximately fifteen (15) years with no history of
discipline. In January 2017, Ms. Carlton sought and was
approved for medical leave due to a temporary disability.
2017, shortly after Ms. Carlton's return, she was
dismissed from her position as a Human Resources Consultant.
Ms. Carlton timely filed a grievance.
May 2018, UNC reinstated Ms. Carlton. Specifically, at the
conclusion of an internal grievance process, UNC issued a
Final University Decision, finding "that there was not
just cause to support the disciplinary decision of
dismissal," but "that there was not sufficient
evidence to support [Ms. Carlton's] claim that [her]
dismissal was based on [her] disability." In so finding,
UNC "reverse[d] the dismissal and reinstate[d Ms.
Carlton] to employment[.]"
her reinstatement, Ms. Carlton filed a Petition for Contested
Case Hearing with the OAH, citing to a lack of progress
"in the reinstatement process[.]" UNC motioned to
dismiss her Petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
lack of personal jurisdiction, and for failure to state a
issued a Final Decision Order of Dismissal ("Final
Decision"), dismissing Ms. Carlton's contested case
with prejudice for lack of both subject matter jurisdiction
and personal jurisdiction. Ms. Carlton timely appealed the
appeal, Ms. Carlton argues that the OAH erred in concluding
that it lacked ...