N.C.P.I.—Civil 640.29B

NOTE WELL: Prior to instructing a jury in a case under

the North Carolina Whistleblower Act, carefully read

N.C.P.I.-Civil 640.29A ("Employment Relationship-

Adverse Employment Action in Violation of the North

Carolina Whistleblower Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-84 et

seq. - INTRODUCTION").

The (state number) issue reads:

“Was there a causal connection between the plaintiff’s [engaging in

activity protected by law] [refusal to carry out an improper directive] and

adverse employment action taken by the defendant against the plaintiff?”

On this issue the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. This means

that the plaintiff must prove, by the greater weight of the evidence,1

three things,2 also referred to as elements:

The first element is that the plaintiff engaged in activity protected

by law. I instruct you that

[[reporting verbally3 or in writing] [planning to report verbally or in

writing]

[a violation of State or Federal law, rule or regulation]

[fraud]

[misappropriation of State resources]

[a substantial and specific danger to the public health or

safety]

[gross mismanagement, gross waste of monies or gross abuse

of authority]]4

[refusing to carry out a directive which in fact

[constitutes a violation of State or Federal law, rule or

regulation]

[poses a substantial and specific danger to public safety]]

is activity protected by law under the North Carolina Whistleblower Act.5

The second element is that the defendant took adverse

employment action against the plaintiff in his employment.

I instruct you that adverse employment action against an employee

in his employment includes retaliation, discharge, threat or other action6

discriminating against the employee regarding his compensation, terms,

conditions, location or privileges of employment.7

The third element is that there was a causal connection between

the protected activity engaged in by the plaintiff and the adverse

employment action taken by the defendant against the plaintiff.

When evidence is introduced tending to show that the defendant

admitted taking adverse employment action against the plaintiff because

of his [engaging in activity protected by law] [refusal to carry out an

improper directive], this evidence is not conclusive. Rather, it is to be

considered by you together with all the other evidence in the case in

determining whether there was a causal connection between the

plaintiff’s [engaging in activity protected by law] [refusal to carry out an

improper directive] and adverse employment action taken against the

plaintiff by the defendant.

Finally, if you find by the greater weight of the evidence that the

plaintiff engaged in an activity protected by law, that the defendant took

adverse employment action against the plaintiff in his employment, and

that there was a causal connection between the plaintiff’s protected

activity and the adverse employment action taken by the defendant

against the plaintiff, then it would be your duty to answer this issue

“Yes” in favor of the plaintiff.

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 defendant.