
    WENDY WHITT v. HARRIS TEETER, INC. and RANDY SHULTZ
    No. 416A04
    (Filed 1 July 2005)
    Employer and Employee— constructive wrongful discharge— sexual harassment — public policy — directed verdict for employer
    The decision by the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred by granting a directed verdict for defendant employer on a claim for constructive wrongful discharge in violation of public policy based upon sexual harassment is reversed for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion that (1) a claim of constructive discharge based upon either a hostile work environment or in retaliation is not authorized under the public policy exception to the employee-at-will doctrine, and (2) even if a constructive discharge claim is so authorized, plaintiff presented insufficient evidence on the element of the claim that defendant employer’s handling of plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment amounted to a deliberate attempted to make her workplace so intolerable that she would resign.
    Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 165 N.C. App. 32, 598 S.E.2d 151 (2004), reversing a judgment entered upon a directed verdict on 2 April 2002 by Judge Sanford L. Steelman, Jr. in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 May 2005.
    
      Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy and Kennedy, L.L.P., by Harvey L. Kennedy, Harold L. Kennedy, III, and Annie Brown Kennedy, for plaintiff-appellee.
    
    
      Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, by Lucretia D. Guia, and J. Mark Sampson, for defendant-appellant Harris Teeter, Inc.
    
    
      Patterson Harkavy LLP, by Burton Craige, for North Carolina Association of Women Attorneys, North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, Southern States Police Benevolent Association, Inc., North Carolina Police Benevolent Association, Inc., and North Carolina Association of Educators; Suzanne Reynolds for North Carolina Association of Women Attorneys, and Charles E. Daye for North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, amici curiae.
    
   PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

REVERSED.  