Latrice Woodard v. The County of Wilson, No. 08-2366 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2366 LATRICE ALSTON WOODARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE COUNTY OF WILSON; WILSON COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:07-cv-00006-D) Argued: March 24, 2010 Decided: August 31, 2010 Before MICHAEL and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and Eugene E. SILER, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ARGUED: Angela Newell Gray, GRAY NEWELL, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Craven Adams, WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: James R. Morgan, Jr., WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Latrice Wilson County Alston Woodard, Department of a social Social worker Services with the (WCDSS), was dismissed from her employment under WCDSS s anti-nepotism policy after she married the son of a WCDSS day porter. WCDSS and the County of Wilson, North Woodard sued Carolina, alleging violation of her constitutional right to marry and various state tort claims. summary After discovery, defendants successfully moved for judgment in the district court. Finding this case indistinguishable from Waters v. Gaston County, 57 F.3d 422 (4th Cir. 1995), where we upheld a similar anti-nepotism policy under rational basis review, we affirm the district court s grant of summary judgment for defendants. I. WCDSS is Wilson, North policy, entitled a governmental Carolina. Statement WCDSS of division maintains Relatives of an the County of anti-nepotism Employment. The policy prohibits [t]wo members of an immediate family from being employed within the same department/agency. J.A. 196. It defines immediate family to include a mother-in-law and daughter-in-law. The WCDSS policy is authorized by the North Carolina Administrative Code, 25 NCAC 01I.1701-1702, which is in 2 turn authorized by North Carolina statute, N.C.G.S. ยง 126-1, et seq. The anti-nepotism policy has been enforced at WCDSS over a number of years. 1985, and James Glenn Osborne, Jr., the consistently It was created in current director of WCDSS, kept the policy in place when he became director in 1994. Director Osborne maintained the policy because he believed it was in the best interest of the citizens of Wilson County. thought it prevented violations of confidentiality, He prevented the public appearance of unfair hiring and promotion practices, avoided domestic potential disputes conflicts of in the interest. workplace, Of the and other limited two known incidents of WCDSS employees violating the policy, one of the two employees voluntarily resigned to ensure compliance. is no instance where two employees violated the There policy and thereafter both were allowed to remain at WCDSS. Plaintiff Woodard began working for WCDSS in August 2001 as a Child Protective Services Social Worker. Prior to being hired, Woodard was made aware of the anti-nepotism policy and acknowledged the Statement of Relatives Employment with her signature. Judy Vaughn, Woodard s current mother-in-law, has worked as a day porter at WCDSS since August 15, 1994. Neither woman supervised the other, although Vaughn was in charge of 3 cleaning Woodard s office, and the two would occasionally cross paths at work. Woodard met Vaughn s son at a restaurant in Wilson County, and the two started to date in March 2003. engaged on May 1, 2005. supervisors, human Woodard was informed policy would opportunity be to After resource that made. a employees, no and of and exception Director resign series to to meetings Director the Osborne offered They became with Osborne, anti-nepotism gave make Woodard a an favorable recommendation for employment with nearby counties. Woodard married Vaughn s son on July 15, 2006. This made Woodard a daughter-in-law to Vaughn and Vaughn a mother-inlaw to Woodard, nepotism thus policy. causing After both confirming to violate that WCDSS s Woodard had anti- married Vaughn s son and would not resign, Director Osborne dismissed Woodard from WCDSS Director Osborne Woodard, explaining on July 25, memorialized that 2006. the Woodard On decision was August in a dismissed, 3, 2006, letter rather to than Vaughn, because Woodard initiated the action that caused both her and Vaughn to violate WCDSS s anti-nepotism policy. On December 5, 2006, Woodard filed a complaint against WCDSS and the County of Wilson in the General Court of Justice, Superior Carolina. Court Division, The for the complaint County asserts 4 of state Wilson, and North federal constitutional violations termination, negligent intentional infliction and state infliction of tort of claims emotional emotional for wrongful distress, distress. and Defendants removed the action to the Eastern District of North Carolina on January 5, 2007. The district court granted defendants summary judgment motion on November 13, 2008, and Woodard now appeals. II. We review the district court s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing all facts and inferences in the light most favorable to Woodard. Food Lion, Inc. v. S.L. Nusbaum Ins. Agency, Inc., 202 F.3d 223, 227 (4th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Woodard argues that WCDSS s anti-nepotism policy violates her fundamental right to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment Section Carolina to 19 the of United the Supreme States North Court provisions conterminously. Constitution Carolina interprets and Constitution. these two Article The I, North constitutional See Tri-County Paving, Inc. v. Ashe County, 281 F.3d 430, 435 n.6 (4th Cir. 2002). The alleged constitutional violations undergird Woodard s state tort claims 5 for wrongful termination, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It is well-settled law that the Constitution embraces a fundamental right to marry and that this right is recognized as a basic tenet of substantive due process. County, 57 F.3d 422, 425 (4th Cir. 1995). Waters v. Gaston However, not every restriction on the right to marry violate[s] the Constitution; rather, reasonable regulations that do not significantly interfere with decisions to enter into the marital relationship may legitimately be imposed. Id. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 386 (1978)). (quoting Zablocki v. Therefore, strict scrutiny applies only to regulations that significantly interfere with the right to marry. Id. (quoting Zablocki, 434 U.S. at 388). If policy the anti-nepotism does not significantly interfere with the right to marry, then we will facially review [it] to determine whether there was a rational basis for its passage. Id. at 426. In Waters we held that the anti-nepotism policy for Gaston County, North Carolina, did not significantly interfere with the right to marry. Gaston County s policy did not Id. allow spouses to be employed in the same department. In the event two employees within the same department married, each was given 90 days to obtain a transfer to another department. If a transfer was not available, the policy described neutral methods 6 for determining which employee would be terminated. n.1. We found that this anti-nepotism policy Id. at 424 may [have] touch[ed] upon the marriage relationship but did not directly and substantially interfere with that right by preventing those who wish[ed] to marry from doing so. omitted). At most, we explained, Id. at 426 (quotations it [wa]s an unwelcome hurdle, forcing one spouse to attempt to transfer to another department within the County or to leave the County s employ altogether. Id. Waters stands for the general proposition that anti-nepotism policies do not significantly interfere with the right to marry and should be reviewed under the rational basis standard. that In an attempt to distinguish Waters, Woodard argues strict scrutiny should apply to WCDSS s anti-nepotism policy because WCDSS restricts not only married partners from working together but also immediate family members. Although the WCDSS policy covers more family members than the policy in Waters, the reasoning in Waters does not depend on the number of Like the policy in Waters, the people affected by the policy. WCDSS policy does not directly and substantially interfere with [the] right [to marry] by preventing those who wish to marry from doing so. Id. (quotations omitted). able to marry Vaughn s son. Indeed, Woodard was At most, the WCDSS policy is an unwelcome hurdle, forcing Woodard to attempt to find a position 7 outside WCDSS or to leave the County s employ altogether. Id. This hurdle does not restrict marriage; instead, it is a workrelated restriction marriage. with incidental effects on [Woodard s] Id. The remaining differences between the policy here and that in Waters are not material to Woodard s claim. Woodard points out that the WCDSS anti-nepotism policy, unlike that in Waters, does not explicitly provide an opportunity to apply for a transfer, nor does it contain a neutral process to determine which employee will be terminated. These differences are, at most, relevant to whether the procedure for firing Woodard was constitutionally sufficient and do not touch on the substantive right to marry. inadequate Because Woodard has not pursued a claim of process, we need not consider these differences further. Finding WCDSS with Waters anti-nepotism the indistinguishable, policy fundamental right does of not we hold significantly marriage. Id. that the interfere Thus, we facially review [it] to determine whether there was a rational basis for its passage. Id. Director Osborne explained that he retained the policy because it serves a number of proactive, preventive measures. Director Osborne are J.A. 191. rational and Among those articulated by laudable workplace goals that we approved of in Waters, such as reducing favoritism or 8 even the conflicts appearance from of affecting (quotations omitted). favoritism the and workplace. preventing 57 F.3d family at 426 The WCDSS anti-nepotism policy therefore survives rational basis review. * Woodard s state law tort claims likewise fail for the same reason. III. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. * Woodard argues that the WCDSS anti-nepotism policy is not narrowly drawn because it is more restrictive than the County of Wilson anti-nepotism policy. As discussed, the WCDSS policy is not reviewed with strict scrutiny. The WCDSS policy is authorized by North Carolina law, and WCDSS may choose an antinepotism policy that is more restrictive than the County of Wilson policy so long as it has a rational basis. 9
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
