About the Firm

Attorney Brian H. Alligood provides top quality, aggressive legal representation to individuals and businesses throughout North Carolina. Mr. Alligood regularly represents parties in disputes arising from all aspects of the employer-employee relationship. Employment issues frequently litigated include claims of discriminatory hiring and employment practices, sexual harassment, retaliation and wrongful discharge, wage and hour violations, breach of contract and no-compete covenants, and employee benefits litigation. In addition to confronting claims of traditional employment discrimination, Mr. Alligood represents parties with respect to statutory rights and obligations imposed by the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act.

Mr. Alligood regularly appears in all North Carolina state and federal courts and administrative agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the North Carolina Department of Labor, and the Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Thursday, December 13, 2012

It’s the Most Wonderful Time of the Year – for Social Host Alcohol Liability

So what could the holiday season possibly have to do with North Carolina employment law?  Unfortunately, quite a lot.  Potential employer liability issues abound with year-end parties, where employees are encouraged to participate in festivities free of the usual work place rules, constraints, and inhibitions.  Add to the relaxed environment a free flow of alcohol, and the risk of liability arising from various employee indiscretions increases exponentially.  Much has been written, for example, about the potential for sexual harassment claims to arise from such circumstances.

Another issue that employers and individuals frequently overlook is the potential for social host liability for alcohol related motor vehicle accidents.  Like many jurisdictions, North Carolina law allows persons injured by drunk drivers to sue host providers of alcohol in certain situations.  Under North Carolina’s dram shop statute, for example, a person or entity who furnishes alcohol to a minor can be sued by victims of motor vehicle accidents later caused by the underage or intoxicated driver.  North Carolina statute also prohibits the sale or giving of alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person.  North Carolina case law also recognizes negligence based theories under which persons can be assessed with tort liability for injuries causes by a drunk driver.

With these principles in mind, consider the typical holiday party.  Often held at a management member’s home, a standard staple is a bar, where courtesy alcoholic beverages are served.  Employees are frequently invited to bring guests, which opens the possibility for underage dates, siblings, student interns, and other guests.  What would normally be considered inappropriate activity is frequently accepted.  Indeed, many people view boisterous activity as directly related to the success of the party.  Conduct that would otherwise be deemed unprofessional and unacceptable is typically expected and, to some extent, welcomed as employees are encouraged to “blow off steam” and build camaraderie.  All too often, guests are served alcohol beyond the point of inebriation and permitted to drive home.

What are some good strategies for minimizing the risk in this area?  Consider the following:

  • Hire a professional bartender, one who is trained to notice signs of intoxication.
  • In addition to beverages, serve food, which slows the absorption of alcohol and, hopefully, reduces the amount of alcohol consumed.
  • Offer soft drinks as well as alcohol.  With surprising frequency, holiday parties overlook soft drinks and/or make them less available to attendees.  Offer a variety of soft drinks so that guests do not feel pressured into drinking alcohol.
  • Have one or more designated drivers available.  Instruct these persons to monitor the crowd for potential problems and to take the initiative in offering rides to suspect individuals.
  • Before the party, make it known that employees are expected to behave responsibly during the party.
These same principles apply to private parties hosted by individuals.   

Finally, if you have questions about social host liability, or if you are confronting legal issues as a result of an alcohol related accident, be sure to consult attorneys experienced in this important aspect of North Carolina law.

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

United States Supreme Court Ponders Definition of “Supervisor” in Harassment Case

On November 26, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the employment law case of Vance v. Ball State University.  One issue in the case is whether the harasser is a “supervisor” such that the employer can be held vicariously liable for her actions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that allows employees to sue for work place harassment.   

Many lower courts have defined “supervisor” narrowly as someone with the power to "hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline" employees.  Other courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have adopted a broader definition, finding that someone who directs other employees’ daily work activities is a supervisor.  The distinction is important in employment discrimination matters.  If a supervisor is harassing an employee, the employer can be held liable.  On the other hand, if a mere co-worker harasses another co-worker, the employer is liable only if it knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment and did nothing to stop it.

The Vance case arises from a “hostile work environment” among the catering staff at Ball State University.  Maetta Vance, an African American female, alleged that she was subjected to racial hostility from her white co-worker, Saundra Davis.  Ms. Davis had some control over Ms. Vance’s daily work schedule, but Ms. Davis had no authority to fire her.  After years of alleged antagonism, Ms. Vance filed a lawsuit against the university.

In Vance, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to throw out Ms. Vance’s lawsuit.  In doing so, the 7th Circuit endorsed the narrow definition and affirmed the trial court’s decision that since Ms. Davis could not fire Ms. Vance, she was not a “supervisor” and the university could not be held vicariously liable for her actions.  

According to several news sources, the Court hinted during oral arguments that Vance ultimately may not be the best case for resolving the question of who is a supervisor because of the disputed facts of the case.  However, if and/or when the Court does ultimately decide the issue, its holding is likely to have a significant impact on North Carolina employment law, as the Court’s decision could greatly expand or restrict the ability of employees to bring harassment complaints against co-workers that do not meet the narrow definition of “supervisor.”  

If you are confronting issues of work place harassment, it is important to speak with experienced North Carolina employment lawyers, as employment discrimination law raises many complex legal questions shaped by an evolving body of case law.  Please feel free to contact me directly at (336) 333-6375 to discuss this Supreme Court activity or North Carolina employment law matters.  For more information about my Greensboro law firm of Sharpless & Stavola, please visit our website at