Staff – April 16, 2025

Supreme Court Tied Vote Affirms Big Win for Ayers

The case Ayers v. Currituck County Department of Social Services (Docket Number: 110A24) reached the North Carolina Supreme Court, resulting in a significant decision on March 21, 2025. Below is a detailed summary of the case, based on available information, including the provided search results, which offer insights into the case’s background, legal proceedings, and outcome. The summary critically examines the narrative, focusing on factual details and avoiding speculation, while addressing the case’s implications and limitations in the data.

Case Background

Incident (November 3, 2017): Judith M. Ayers, a Social Worker Supervisor III in the Child Protective Services Unit at the Currituck County Department of Social Services (DSS), was involved in a workplace incident. During a conversation with DSS Director Samantha Hurd, Ayers was asked about a racial demarcation “NR” on a client intake form completed by a social worker. Ayers responded with a racial epithet, either “nigra rican” (per Ayers) or “nigger rican” (per Hurd). Both women, who are white, had a history of workplace disagreements. Ayers initially laughed but soon became apologetic and embarrassed. The client referenced on the form was later identified as Caucasian, indicating the epithet was not directed at an individual but was a response to the form’s notation. The conversation occurred in an office with an open door, raising the possibility that others, including employees or clients, could have overheard.

Disciplinary Action: Following the incident, Hurd consulted DSS’s legal counsel over the weekend and applied a twelve-factor test from a University of North Carolina guide for public employers. On November 6, 2017, Hurd placed Ayers on paid “investigatory status” and later terminated her employment, citing unacceptable personal conduct (UPC). Ayers, who had a 10-year tenure at DSS with no prior disciplinary issues, appealed the dismissal.

Legal Proceedings

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Rulings: Ayers contested her termination through the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). An ALJ issued three rulings overturning Hurd’s decision, finding that DSS failed to prove just cause for dismissal:

First ALJ Order (pre-2019): Found the investigation incomplete, leading to a remand.
Second ALJ Order (pre-2021): Again found deficiencies in DSS’s process, prompting another remand.
Third ALJ Order (pre-April 2024): Concluded that Ayers’s UPC was an “aberrant and unintended event,” not warranting termination, and recommended reinstatement with lesser penalties.

North Carolina Court of Appeals: The case made three trips to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

Ayers I (2019): The court remanded the case to the ALJ, citing an incomplete DSS investigation, particularly regarding potential harm (e.g., whether others overheard the epithet).
Ayers II (2021): The court again remanded, instructing DSS to conduct a complete disciplinary review, emphasizing the need to assess harm to DSS’s reputation or operations.
Ayers III (April 2024): In a 2-1 decision, the Appeals Court affirmed the ALJ’s final decision, ruling that DSS failed to prove just cause for dismissal. Judge Hunter Murphy, writing for the majority, noted that Ayers’s use of the epithet was unprofessional but mitigated by her immediate remorse, unblemished work history, and DSS’s lack of evidence showing actual harm (e.g., no employees or clients confirmed hearing the comment). DSS’s historical practice of not dismissing employees for a single UPC instance also weighed against termination. The court ordered Ayers’s reinstatement with back pay, attorneys’ fees, a two-week unpaid suspension, and mandatory cultural diversity and racial sensitivity training. A dissenting judge argued that the epithet’s severity justified termination.

North Carolina Supreme Court (March 21, 2025): The case reached the North Carolina Supreme Court, which issued a 3-3 split decision on March 21, 2025, with Justice Richard Dietz recusing himself. The split meant the court could not reach a majority, so the Appeals Court’s April 2024 ruling in Ayers’s favor stood. As a result, DSS was required to:

• Restore Ayers to her job.
• Award back pay for the seven-year legal battle.
• Cover attorneys’ fees.
• Implement the Appeals Court’s prescribed penalties (suspension and training).

Key Legal Issues

The case hinged on whether DSS had “just cause” to terminate Ayers under North Carolina law, which governs disciplinary actions for career state employees (N.C.G.S. § 126-35(a)). Just cause is a flexible concept requiring a balance of equity and fairness, assessed through:

Unacceptable Personal Conduct (UPC): Ayers did not contest that her use of a racial epithet constituted UPC under North Carolina Administrative Code, as it was unprofessional and potentially harmful.
Resulting Harm: DSS argued that Ayers’s conduct risked significant harm, as the epithet could have been overheard, damaging DSS’s reputation or client trust. However, the ALJ and Appeals Court found no evidence of actual harm (e.g., no witnesses reported hearing the comment, and the client was Caucasian).
Work History and Mitigation: Ayers’s 10-year unblemished record, immediate remorse, and DSS’s history of lesser penalties for first-time UPC incidents supported a finding that termination was disproportionate.
Supervisory Authority: The Appeals Court majority ruled that Hurd lacked authority to fire Ayers solely for the comment, given the lack of harm and mitigating factors.

Implications and Critical Analysis

Legal Precedent: The Ayers case reinforces that just cause for termination requires evidence of actual or significant potential harm, not merely the possibility of harm. It underscores the importance of consistent disciplinary practices and thorough investigations, particularly in public employment. The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing workplace conduct with employee rights, especially in cases involving sensitive issues like racial language.

Social and Workplace Context: The case raises questions about workplace discipline for racial epithets, particularly when not directed at individuals. The ALJ and Appeals Court acknowledged the epithet’s severity but emphasized its context—an isolated incident, not a pattern of misconduct. Critics might argue the ruling downplays the impact of such language in a public agency like DSS, which serves diverse communities. Conversely, supporters of Ayers might see the decision as protecting employees from overly harsh penalties for single mistakes, especially with demonstrated remorse. The lack of public reaction in the provided sources limits insight into community sentiment.

DSS Operations: The case exposed procedural flaws in DSS’s disciplinary process, as multiple remands criticized incomplete investigations. Hurd’s reliance on a twelve-factor test was deemed insufficient without evidence of harm or consideration of Ayers’s work history. This may prompt Currituck County DSS, still led by Samantha Hurd as of 2024, to revise its disciplinary protocols.

Supreme Court Split: The 3-3 split reflects judicial division, possibly over the epithet’s severity versus Ayers’s mitigating factors. Justice Dietz’s recusal, unexplained in the sources, may have been due to a conflict of interest, but it ensured the Appeals Court’s ruling prevailed. This outcome underscores the impact of evenly divided courts on controversial cases.

Conclusion

Ayers v. Currituck County Department of Social Services culminated in a 3-3 North Carolina Supreme Court split on March 21, 2025, upholding a 2024 Appeals Court ruling that DSS lacked just cause to fire Judith Ayers for using a racial epithet in 2017. The decision, driven by no evidence of harm, Ayers’s clean record, and DSS’s inconsistent disciplinary practices, mandated her reinstatement with back pay, attorneys’ fees, a two-week suspension, and training. The case underscores the complexity of workplace discipline, balancing severe conduct with fairness, and exposes procedural gaps in DSS’s processes. While legally resolved, its social and operational impacts remain underexplored due to limited data on public response or DSS’s subsequent actions.