Corum v. University of North Carolina
330 N.C. 761, 413 S.E.2d 276 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The North Carolina Constitution provides a direct cause of action against state officials in their official capacities for violations of constitutional rights, for which sovereign immunity is not a defense. However, the state constitution does not create a direct cause of action for monetary damages against state officials in their individual capacities.
Facts:
- Dr. Corum was the Dean of Learning Resources at Appalachian State University (ASU), responsible for the Appalachian Collection, a compilation of regional cultural artifacts and materials.
- In December 1983, Dr. Durham, Corum's immediate supervisor, decided to split the Appalachian Collection by moving its artifacts to a different location from its books and manuscripts.
- Dr. Durham did not inform Dr. Corum of the decision to split the collection; on June 21, 1984, he told Corum only that the entire collection would be moved, leading Corum to believe it would remain intact.
- At a meeting on June 25, 1984, one of Durham's representatives announced the plan to split the collection, which Corum viewed as a significant change in direction.
- On June 26, 1984, Dr. Corum voiced his concerns and presented an alternative proposal in a meeting to keep the collection physically intact.
- After being informed of Corum's actions by telephone, Dr. Durham immediately returned to campus.
- On the morning of June 27, 1984, Dr. Durham met with Dr. Corum and, with the approval of Chancellor Thomas, removed Corum from his position as Dean.
Procedural Posture:
- Dr. Corum filed an action in state trial court seeking injunctive relief and damages against the University of North Carolina, Appalachian State University, and several university officials.
- Defendants filed an answer asserting sovereign immunity and qualified immunity and moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment.
- Defendants filed an interlocutory appeal of the denial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding that summary judgment should have been granted on most of the § 1983 and official-capacity state claims.
- However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of summary judgment on the state constitutional claims for monetary damages against two defendants in their individual capacities.
- The case then came before the North Carolina Supreme Court for review of the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the North Carolina Constitution create a direct cause of action for monetary damages against a state official in their individual capacity for violating a public employee's free speech rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Martin, Justice.
No. The North Carolina Constitution does not recognize a cause of action for money damages against state officials in their individual capacities for alleged violations of constitutional rights. The court reasoned that the state constitution's Declaration of Rights was established to protect individuals from encroachment by the State, not from other individuals. The Constitution limits the actions of the government as a body politic, and state officials are only subject to its constraints when acting in their official capacities. Therefore, a plaintiff may assert a constitutional freedom of speech right only against state officials sued in their official capacity, as this represents a suit against the State itself. The court also held that a direct cause of action against the State (through its officials in their official capacity) does exist for such violations, and the common-law doctrine of sovereign immunity cannot bar these constitutional claims, as constitutional rights are supreme law.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a crucial precedent by affirming a direct cause of action under the North Carolina Constitution for violations of free speech, clarifying that sovereign immunity is not a defense. Simultaneously, it creates a bright-line rule insulating state officials from personal monetary liability under the state constitution, distinguishing the remedies available under state law from those under federal law like 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This holding forces plaintiffs seeking personal money damages from state officials to rely on federal statutes, while channeling claims for remedies against the state itself through official-capacity suits. The ruling thus balances the protection of citizens' constitutional rights against the protection of public officials from personal financial ruin for actions taken in their governmental roles.
Unlock the full brief for Corum v. University of North Carolina