NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Civil 640.22
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP - EMPLOYER'S DEFENSE TO WRONGFUL (TORTIOUS) TERMINATION.
This issue reads:
"Would the defendant have terminated the plaintiff even if the
plaintiff had not [participated in conduct protected by law] [refused to
participate in unlawful conduct] [refused to participate in conduct which
violated public policy]?"1
You will answer this issue only if you have answered the (state
number) issue "Yes" in favor of the plaintiff.
On this issue the burden of proof is on the defendant. This means
that the defendant must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,
that the defendant would have terminated the plaintiff even if the
plaintiff had not [participated in conduct protected by law] [refused to
participate in unlawful conduct] [refused to participate in conduct which
violated public policy].
Even if the employee's [participation in conduct protected by law]
[refusal to participate in unlawful conduct] [refusal to participate in
conduct which violated public policy] was a substantial factor in the
employer's decision to terminate, that termination is not wrongful if the
employer's decision to terminate would have been the same regardless of
the employee's [conduct] [refusal].
Finally, as to this issue on which the defendant has the burden of
proof, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the
defendant would have terminated the plaintiff even if the plaintiff had
not [participated in conduct protected by law] [refused to participate in
unlawful conduct]
[refused to participate in conduct which violated public policy], then it
would be your duty to answer this issue "Yes" in favor of the defendant.
If, on the other hand, you fail to so find, then it would be your duty
to answer this issue "No" in favor of the plaintiff.
History
N.C.P.I.—Civil 640.22 (April 1998). Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
0ec20e4bbd5cbefa2171770c7dc7488afeb8ecdc922b6159a40c14a023c3b378
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.