Supreme Court clarifies how public employers must handle terminations—HR teams take note
A North Carolina university’s firing of a tenured professor over alleged misconduct led to a key court ruling on due process in public sector terminations.
On October 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of North Carolina issued its decision in the dispute between Dr. Alvin Mitchell and the University of North Carolina Board of Governors. The case focused on whether Winston-Salem State University followed its own procedures when it terminated Dr. Mitchell, and how courts should review a public employer’s interpretation of its own regulations.
Dr. Mitchell, a tenured professor, was dismissed in 2017 after the university alleged he failed to respond to repeated inquiries from a student and faculty members about incomplete grading, did not teach one of his assigned classes, and wrote a letter to a fellow faculty member that used offensive racial slurs. Mitchell challenged his dismissal, claiming the university did not follow its established rules and regulations for terminating a tenured professor.
The dispute moved through the university’s internal appeal process, the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, and then to the courts. At each stage, Dr. Mitchell’s challenge was rejected. He also filed a federal civil rights lawsuit, which was dismissed.
The Supreme Court’s decision centered on the standard courts should use when reviewing state agency interpretations of their own regulations. The court clarified that, under North Carolina law, courts must apply de novo review – meaning they interpret the regulations themselves, without deferring to the agency’s or employer’s interpretation. The court expressly disavowed any rule requiring courts to defer to a state agency’s reading of its own rules and regulations.
After reviewing the facts, the court found that Winston-Salem State University had complied with its procedures in Dr. Mitchell’s case. The decision affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, with modifications to clarify the standard of review.
For HR professionals, especially those in higher education or the public sector, the outcome emphasizes the importance of following established procedures in employee discipline and termination. The court’s ruling highlights that judges will independently review whether an employer has complied with its own policies, rather than simply accepting the employer’s interpretation.
The decision serves as a reminder that in North Carolina, strict adherence to internal policies is essential in employment actions, and that courts will scrutinize these procedures closely if challenged.
